Peace Before Legalism: A Response to Martin Amidu on the Bawku Mediation
Martin Alamisi Burns Kaizer Amidu is a respected figure in Ghana’s public life. His long service to the Republic, his role in constitutional matters, and his insistence on accountability have earned him a place as a moral voice in national debate. When he raises concerns, they deserve to be taken seriously.
However, his critique of the Asantehene-led mediation in the Bawku conflict reflects an approach that places legalism above the urgent demands of peace, national security, and human life. In a conflict as deep and protracted as Bawku, such an approach risks prolonging suffering rather than resolving it.
The critique, originally issued as a personal statement by Martin Amidu, was reported on 19 December 2025 by both ModernGhana and Ghanaweb, with GhanaWeb making the full text available as a downloadable PDF..
This response does not question Mr Amidu’s right to speak. It challenges his conclusion that the mediation process and its public presentation to President John Dramani Mahama were unconstitutional, illegitimate, or deceptive.
Mediation and constitutional responsibility
Mr Amidu argues that the Asantehene’s mediation lacks a clear basis in the 1992 Constitution. This interpretation treats the Constitution as if it permits only actions explicitly written into statute. That is not how constitutional governance works in practice.
The Constitution entrusts the President with responsibility for peace, security, and national cohesion. Where courts, security operations, and administrative directives have failed to stop violence, leadership requires judgment and flexibility. Mediation is not law-making, nor is it adjudication. It is a political and moral tool used to prevent further loss of life. Nothing in the Constitution forbids the President from seeking the assistance of a respected national figure to facilitate dialogue.
Moral authority is not customary jurisdiction.
Another key argument raised is that the Asantehene cannot mediate because the Bawku-Naba and the Nayiri are not subjects of the Asante Stool. This confuses mediation with customary authority.
The Asantehene was not acting as a traditional judge. He was not imposing customs or determining rights. He facilitated dialogue as a neutral, respected national figure. In fact, his distance from the conflict strengthens his credibility.
Ghana has a long tradition of drawing on respected traditional leaders to support national peace beyond their immediate jurisdictions. This is not unconstitutional. It is a strength of Ghana’s plural political culture.
Law alone has not brought peace to Bawku.
The principle that laws govern Ghana is correct. Yet law alone has not resolved the Bawku conflict. Repeated attempts to enforce a contested status quo through security measures have not stopped the violence. In many cases, they have deepened resentment and fear.
Peacebuilding does not reject the law. It creates the conditions under which the law can function again. In matters of national security, protecting life must come first. A rigid legalism that ignores this reality risks weakening the state’s moral authority.
The Jubilee House ceremony was not a circus.
The description of the presentation of the mediation report at Jubilee House as a “circus” is unfair. Public ceremonies in peace processes are not empty performances. They are acts of transparency and accountability.
The formal handover of the report to President Mahama showed that the mediation was not secret or personal. It signalled state ownership of the peace process and recognised the people of Bawku’s suffering as a national concern.
The Asantehene deserves credit for the way he conducted the mediation. He acted with restraint, dignity, and openness. He did not seek to replace constitutional authority. He worked respectfully within it. All traditional leaders, facilitators, and community representatives involved also deserve recognition for choosing to engage in dialogue in a polarised and challenging environment.
Reconstruction and trust
Concerns about corruption and misuse of funds must always be taken seriously. Oversight is essential. However, dismissing reconstruction efforts outright risks undermining peace itself.
Communities emerging from prolonged violence need visible signs of recovery. Development does not replace reconciliation, but it supports it. The solution is accountability, not abandonment.
Peace is a national moral duty.
Ghana’s Constitution exists to protect life, dignity, and unity. It was not written to elevate procedure above human survival. Leadership in times of conflict requires judgment, balance, and moral courage.
The Asantehene-led mediation, initiated under former President Akufo-Addo and continued by President Mahama, represents a serious and transparent attempt to break a cycle of violence that legal enforcement alone has not resolved. It should be judged by its intent to save lives and restore trust.
Peace is not achieved through legal argument alone. It is built through dialogue, responsibility, and national maturity.
Dr Moses Deyegbe Kuvoame is an Associate Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway. He earned his PhD from the University of Oslo, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law.
Disclaimer: "The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect ModernGhana official position. ModernGhana will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements in the contributions or columns here."