Read Comments Comments (4)

• Mary 10 months ago

  Toilet self is better than Scammer John Mahama aka Gonja mafia. ***

  Toilet self is better than Scammer John Mahama aka Gonja mafia. ***

  reply
• Slim 10 months ago

  Messers Defence and Interior ministers, can you work under the radar when it comes Bawku?

  Messers Defence and Interior ministers, can you work under the radar when it comes Bawku?

  reply
• Concerned Citizen of Kusaug 10 months ago

  USE OF MEDIATION IS INAPPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE THE CHIEFTAINCY MATTER IN BAWKU
  
  What does Hon. Defence Minister Boamah mean by “through traditional means”? Is he thinking about mediation? That will be an exercise in fu ...
  read full comment

  USE OF MEDIATION IS INAPPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE THE CHIEFTAINCY MATTER IN BAWKU
  
  What does Hon. Defence Minister Boamah mean by “through traditional means”? Is he thinking about mediation? That will be an exercise in futility.
  
  It is very important to point out some major limitations in the use of mediation to resolve the crisis in Bawku, and for which reasons the use of mediation in this matter would be unacceptable.
  
  In principle, there are two main ways of resolving disputes: the informal and the formal methods. Dispute settlement mechanisms generally recommend the use of the informal methods and a resort to more formal methods where the informal methods fail.
  
  The informal methods such as consultations or mediation provide avenues for the parties to work out between themselves mutually acceptable solutions to the dispute. Consultations involve direct discussions or negotiations between the parties.
  
  Where direct discussions are not feasible or realistic under the circumstances, mediation may be used. In mediation a neutral and independent third party would facilitate conflict resolution by supervising the exchange of information and the bargaining process between the parties. Participation in the mediation process is voluntary and the mediator has no power to make any binding decisions. Both parties must agree to any terms to resolve the dispute but such agreement merely consists of voluntary commitments that the parties could walk away from during the mediation process itself or anytime afterward.
  
  In contrast, the formal dispute resolution processes, such as litigation and arbitration, result in decisions that are binding on all the parties. In litigation, a court presided by a judge examines the facts presented and delivers the binding judgement. Similarly, in arbitration, the arbitrator makes a binding award after examining the facts.
  
  From this brief survey of the dispute settlement mechanisms, it is quite apparent why the use of mediation in addressing chieftaincy claims in Bawku would be highly inappropriate.
  
  First, there is only one chief for Bawku. He is Zugraan Bawku Naba Asigri Abugrago Azoka II. Zugraan was recognized as such in a 2003 Supreme Court decision. He was duly gazetted and has exercised that authority since. The Supreme Court case, which was not appealed from, is therefore final and binding and cannot be reopened through any means, including mediation.
  
  Second, a mediator has no decision-making authority. Therefore, no mediator, (not even the revered Asantehene) has the legal authority to investigate the Bawku chieftaincy matter and to make a definitive ruling as to who is the Chief of Bawku.
  
  Third, it is noted that the Asantehene previously mediated in the Dagbon chieftaincy matter. That case involved a dispute between the Andani and Abudu families each of which held legitimate claims to the Yendi Skin. Such claims by duly recognised rival factions were clearly amenable to the mediation process managed by the Asantehene. The Bawku case is however, different. The matter of who is chief in Bawku has been conclusively determined as noted above. There is no rival chief with legitimate claims that would require mediation to assist in finding solutions thereto.
  
  Fourth, any agreement by our traditional authorities, our MPs or other leaders to the use of mediation will be to fall into a trap set by the Mamprusis to create an environment of “false equivalence” where under the guise of mediation, the upstart and nonentity Seidu Abagre will be elevated and treated as “chief of a rival faction” by stakeholders interested in the outcome of the mediation, including the Government.
  
  For lasting peace in Bawku, ZUGRAAN MUST BE RECOGNISED AND ACCEPTED BY ALL PARTIES AS THE UNDISPUTED CHIEF OF BAWKU pursuant to the Supreme Court decision. No other legal processes or mediation are required to affirm this.
  
  The Asantehene’s involvement was purely a strategy deployed by the previous Government to muddy the waters and to create a semblance of legitimacy for Seidu Abagre. President Mahama should be impressed upon to discard that plan immediately - it was disastrous and produced no results under the Akufo-Addo administration. Despite some protests against the mediation effort when it was first announced by the previous government, the traditional leaders and elders did not seem to recognize the trap then. The good people of Bawku should not be tricked again and fall into the same trap twice.
  
  What we need in Bawku is putting in place the structures to enforce Zugraan’s authority and to punish the criminal elements who are intent on using baseless chieftaincy claims to fuel discontent and cause mayhem in Bawku.

  reply
• Akudbilla Joseph 9 months ago

  We in KUSAUG is against this but zugraan should be coached to refuse this.

  We in KUSAUG is against this but zugraan should be coached to refuse this.

  reply