Mediation Or Arbitration? Otumfuo’s Report To President Mahama On The Bawku Chieftaincy Dispute

Introduction: Mediation, Authority, and the Burden of Peace

The Bawku chieftaincy conflict remains one of Ghana’s most protracted and emotionally charged disputes. Precisely because of its sensitivity, any third‑party intervention must be firmly anchored in the orthodox principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): voluntariness, neutrality, inclusiveness, confidentiality, party autonomy, and respect for natural justice.

In my view, the outcome attributed to the Otumfuo‑led process raises profound legal, procedural, and ethical questions that demand sober national reflection rather than uncritical celebration. This article—deliberately written to trigger policy debate, academic discourse, and governance reflection—interrogates a fundamental question: was the Bawku process truly mediation, or did it mutate into arbitration or investigation under the guise of mediation?

Conceptual Clarification: What Mediation Is—and What It Is Not

Mediation is, by definition, a facilitative process. A neutral third party assists disputing parties to negotiate their own mutually acceptable settlement. The mediator neither determines facts nor imposes outcomes. Any settlement becomes binding only when the parties themselves reduce their consensus into a written agreement, sign it, and—where necessary—submit it for court endorsement.

In this case, none of these requirements was satisfied. This raises a troubling preliminary question: why the haste in urging executive action, including the reported directive for Naa Sheriga Abagre to be escorted to Nalerigu, in the absence of a signed settlement?

International ADR standards recognise two distinct mediation outputs:

1. A Mediation Agreement (Terms of Settlement): a negotiated, written, time‑bound, obligation‑focused instrument, signed by all parties and capable of enforcement.

2. A Mediation Report or Advisory Memorandum: a non‑binding summary or set of recommendations, reflective in nature and never a substitute for party consent.

This distinction is not semantic; it is foundational. Once blurred, mediation collapses into adjudication without jurisdiction. Unless political considerations have displaced procedural caution, the executive ought to proceed with restraint rather than speed.

Participation and Natural Justice: The First Fracture

The gravamen of the Mamprugu grievance is not total non‑participation, but procedurally deficient participation. The Mamprusi side did engage the Otumfuo‑led process; however, the manner and depth of that engagement raise serious concerns.

Notably, the Mamprusi and Kusasi sides reportedly met together only once throughout the entire process. Beyond this solitary encounter, there was no sustained joint engagement, structured negotiation, or iterative dialogue. In orthodox mediation practice, such minimal interaction is deeply problematic. Mediation derives its value from repeated engagement, confidence‑building exchanges, and progressive narrowing of differences. A process largely devoid of these features strains the very definition of mediation.

More critically, once the report was concluded, the Mamprusi side was not re‑engaged on its contents. They were neither presented with a draft nor invited to comment, dissent, or withhold consent. Their first encounter with the conclusions occurred during the public reading of the report at Jubilee House on 16 December 2025.

This sequence constitutes a material violation of the audi alteram partem principle. Participation that ends before conclusions are drawn, and consent that is assumed rather than obtained, does not satisfy natural justice. Mediation that presents outcomes as fait accompli ceases to be mediation. Peace‑building cannot proceed by procedural tokenism; it must proceed through continuous listening and informed consent.

From Mediation to Arbitration by Stealth?

A critical concern is the apparent resort to legal determinations and selective reliance on committee findings and court decisions. If mediation was the chosen path, why the pivot to legal reasoning reminiscent of arbitration or adjudication?

Equally compelling questions arise:
1.What became of the concession reportedly requested from the Nayiri to advance mediation? This was collaborated on Thursday, 17 July 2025 when President John Mahama said “Let me commend Your Royal Majesty for the dignified and statesmanlike manner in which you have responded to these tensions. Your calm and reasonable voice has been a source of guidance to many. I commend you for the concessions you are willing to make in order to see lasting peace in Bawku,”.

President Mahama also stated that he met the Asantehene who had spoken positively about the Nayiri’s role in the behind-the-scenes dialogue and acknowledged his contribution to the progress achieved so far. What went wrong? Why would anyone treat the Nayiri in the manner Otumfuo did on 16th December, 2025?

2.Another critical question is, did the Kusasi side make any reciprocal concession, and if so, where is it recorded?

3.If concessions were sought to facilitate dialogue, why were they not translated into negotiated trade-offs?

4.Why was the history and customary tradition of the area seemingly subordinated to political considerations?

5. Did political timelines or campaign promises exert undue influence on the process?

These questions do not impugn motives; they interrogate process.

Agreement or Report? Interrogating the Otumfuo‑Led Outcome

What was presented to President John Mahama does not meet the threshold of a mediation agreement. It bears, unmistakably, the hallmarks of a mediation report—containing recommendations, interpretations, and conclusions.

This raises a decisive preliminary question: what were the Terms of Reference (ToR)?

Closely linked to this is a deeper logical inconsistency. If the Supreme Court had indeed brought finality to the question of who is Bawku Naba, why did the Otumfuo accept the mandate at all? Mediation presupposes an unresolved dispute capable of negotiation and compromise. Judicial finality forecloses dialogue. By accepting the mandate, the Otumfuo tacitly acknowledged that the matter remained unresolved—contrary to later assertions of finality.

Was the Otumfuo tasked:

1. To facilitate a negotiated settlement between identifiable parties? Or

2. To make recommendations and conclusions for executive action?

If the former, then the process regrettably failed its mandate. If the latter, then it was mischaracterised as mediation, thereby misleading both the parties and the public.

A comparative glance underscores the difficulty:

Mediation agreements identify parties as signatories; the Otumfuo outcome merely references parties.

Mediation agreements specify obligations, timelines, and compliance mechanisms; the report offers open‑ended guidance.

Mediation agreements are signed by the parties; this document was not.

Mediation seeks win‑win outcomes; the report is widely perceived as producing a win‑lose result.

On these indices, the document cannot qualify as Terms of Settlement.

Customary Legitimacy: Where the True Claim Lies

While statutory law may create, vary, or withdraw official recognition, customary legitimacy derives from lineage, ritual authority, and community acceptance. In chieftaincy matters, law does not invent tradition; it merely acknowledges or regulates it. Simply put, chieftaincy is custom.

The historical and customary record reportedly placed before the process anchors the Mamprusi claim on two enduring pillars: antiquity, with Mamprusi chiefs in Bawku dating back to 1721, and the uninterrupted enskinment authority of the Nayiri, established in the same year. This ritual mandate has never been lawfully extinguished.

If custom, memory, and lineage are the true sources of legitimacy, then even in the absence of immediate statutory restoration, the Mamprusi claim retains superior customary validity.

This raises foundational questions: Can even the Supreme Court create a chief, or does it merely interpret law? Are chiefs born of military decrees? Was it ever proper to issue arrest warrants for the Nayiri and Bawku Naa Sheriga—custodians of the very tradition the law purports to protect?

Two implications follow. First, the Kusasi claim—modern in origin and substantially bolstered by PNDCL 75, a political instrument of a military regime—appears fragile when measured against centuries‑old custom. Second, the High Court’s 1983 characterisation of Abugrago’s father as a “commoner” exposes a deeper normative problem: a chief cannot be made by decree alone without ritual genealogy and validation by the lawful enskining authority—the Nayiri.

Gazetting, Consistency, and Royal Authority

The credibility of the process is further complicated by an apparent departure from the Otumfuo’s own earlier pronouncements. On previous occasions, the Otumfuo correctly affirmed that gazetting does not make one a chief. Custom precedes recognition; the law acknowledges chieftaincy—it does not create it.

What, then, has changed? Royal authority demands principled consistency. To suggest that this principle applies only within the Asante Kingdom risks diminishing the dignity and autonomy of other traditional authorities. Customary law in Ghana is plural in form but not parochial in logic. No single kingdom monopolises its meaning.

Procedural Opacity: The Missing Terms of Reference

The Mamprusi mediation team reportedly demanded, on several occasions, disclosure of the Terms of Reference governing the process. These requests were allegedly never honoured.

In my view, this omission is fatal. The Mamprusi side participated because the process was presented as mediation. Had it been disclosed as arbitration or investigation, they would likely not have submitted themselves to it.

This opacity, coupled with minimal party engagement, makes it difficult to justify any claim of binding or final outcomes.

Consent, Concessions, and the Question of Finality

The procedural deficits undermine the report’s claimed finality. Consent in mediation must be express, informed, and documented; it cannot be presumed.

Public statements by President Mahama on 17 July 2025 commended the Nayiri for concessions made in good faith and acknowledged his constructive behind‑the‑scenes role. What, then, accounts for the later disregard shown on 16 December 2025? Did the Kusasi side make any reciprocal concession, and if so, where is it recorded? Why were concessions not translated into negotiated trade‑offs?

Mediation or Investigation? Authority and Customary Parity

Was the Otumfuo asked to mediate or to investigate? The distinction is decisive. Mediation facilitates agreement; investigation establishes facts. When conflated, party autonomy is sacrificed.

The suggestion that the Nayiri ‘failed to appear’ before the Otumfuo also raises concerns of customary parity. The Nayiri’s chieftaincy predates the Asante throne by over four centuries. In customary diplomacy, respect is reciprocal, not hierarchical.

Structural Weaknesses: From Facilitation to Authority

International best practice insists that mediation outcomes must emanate from party ownership, not mediator authority. Yet the report lacks measurable obligations, defers implementation to the executive, and contains no monitoring or dispute‑resolution framework. Moral authority is substituted for legal certainty, undermining sustainability.

Legitimacy, Dignity, and the Public Reading of the Report

A mediation outcome not consented to, endorsed, and signed by the parties is, in law and equity, a nullity. The Nayiri’s rejection of the report must therefore be understood not as obstinacy, but as kingly dignity—an assertion of institutional self‑respect in the face of procedural imbalance.

Conclusion: Returning Mediation to Its Moral Core

Peace cannot be decreed through exclusion nor manufactured through imbalance. Sustainable peace in Bawku requires transparency, inclusiveness, procedural fidelity, and genuine party ownership. In my view, the Otumfuo’s report departed from these essentials.

If mediation is to retain its moral authority, it must return to its core principles: listening rather than deciding; facilitating rather than imposing; and building consensus rather than announcing conclusions.

I call on Ghanaian policymakers, scholars, civil society, and the international and diplomatic community to subject the Otumfuo‑led outcome to rigorous, dispassionate scrutiny. Peace built on procedure endures; peace built on shortcuts fractures.

Bawku deserves the former.

By Hamza I. Salifu