The national circus enacted around the Bawku Chieftaincy Affairs has gone through several performances under British colonial rule when the North was a British Protectorate of the Northern Territories to the integration with Ghana from 6 March 1957 to 24 February 1966 through the political struggle for the achievement of independence, the National Liberation Council regime from 1966 to 1969, and the Provisional National Defence Council regime from 1982 to 7 January 1993, and thereafter under the 1992 Fourth Republican Constitution.

On 8 December 2025, all the mainstream news outlets reported that the next stop of the Bawku intractable identity conflict circus was booked for performance at the Jubilee House, Accra, Ghana, on Thursday, 11 December 2025.

On 9 December 2025, the mainstream media announced that the Jubilee House had rebooked the performance of the circus for Tuesday, 16 December 2025, at the same venue and theatre.

The major performers will be President John Dramani Mahama and the Asantehene Nana Osei Tutu II.

The theme, according to the report of Citi Newsroom, dated 8 December 2025, will be: “The formal presentation of the Bawku Mediation Report to President John Dramani Mahama, ....”

The supporting cast, according to the 3News report of the same date, will include: “Notable institutions and personalities, including the National House of Chiefs, Peace Council, Christian Council, Chief Imam, Catholic Secretariat, UNDP, British High Commission, selected regional ministers and the National Security Coordinator, .....”

The impression I formed from reading the various news reports on 8 December 2025 was that the play to be performed at the Jubilee House on 11 December 2025, which has now been postponed to Tuesday, 16 December 2025, will be the final resolution of the Bawku identity-based and intractable conflict in relation to the ethnic, chieftaincy, and land disputes.

The 3News report convinced me of this finality when it reported that: “According to 3News sources, “the presentation marks a significant milestone in the
national efforts led by His Majesty Otumfuo Osei Tutu II towards restoring lasting peace, stability, and reconciliation in Bawku and its adjoining communities.”

And even before this concluding circus could be performed, one institution rushed to claim credit for the final act. See Bawku conflict: Peace Council has been offering technical support behind the scenes – Peace Council Chair | 3News.

The worrying thing about the euphoria being whipped up towards what is conceived by the government as the concluding circus and resolution of an intractable identity conflict is that it defies all the rules in the professional understanding of the processes, mechanisms, and dynamics of resolving identity-based and intractable conflicts.

Bawku became my home since Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah decided to secure and
integrated the borders of the former Northern Territories into independent Ghana and transferred officers of the Preventive Customs Marine Police to Northern Ghana in 1959.

My father was transferred from Takoradi in the Western Region as part of a mass transfer of personnel from the Preventive Police first to Lawra in the Northwest and after three months to Bawku in the Northeast of the then Northern Region in the same year.

Bawku has since become home to my family and me.

As fate will have it, I was the PNDC Deputy Secretary for the Upper East Region from February 1983, when the PNDC made the Chieftaincy (Restoration of Status of Chiefs) Law (PNDCL 75) on 21 December 1983.

I also acted as the PNDC Secretary for the Upper East Region from February 1984 to October 1984, during which period the present Bawku-Naba was enskinned in April 1984.

I drafted the terms of reference for the administrative committees set up by the Upper East Regional Administration to enquire into the Bawku Chieftaincy issues, and the Land ownership issues, amongst others, which were discussed by the Committee of Secretaries and implemented by the PNDC.

As PNDC Deputy Secretary for Local Government and Rural Development, in 1986, and later as Deputy Attorney-General from 1988 to 7 January 200,1, I oversaw the Bawku Affairs.

During the Kufuor regime in 20,03, the law firm of Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and Co
commenced an action in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Mamprusis of Bawku as
Plaintiff against the Bawku-Naba as the Defendant on the constitutionality of PNDCL 75, I was the lawyer for the Bawku-Naba and pleaded the lack of jurisdiction in the Court by virtue of the Transitional Provisions Scheduled to the 1992 Constitution.

The Plaintiff sought to escape a decision by filing a notice of discontinuance. I argued that the parties had crossed the Rubicon and urged the Court, if it was mindful of allowing a discontinuance of the actio, to do so without liberty on the part of the Plaintiff to come back to the Supreme Court on the same facts and issues.

The Court allowed the discontinuance of the action by the Plaintiff against the Defendant without liberty to come back to the Supreme Court on the same matter.

As the Minister for the Interior (2010 -2011) and later the Attorney-General (2011-201,2), I had responsibility for this very identity-based and intractable conflict. I also initiated and saw through the enactment of the National Peace Council Act, 2011 (Act 818). Apart from the National Peace Council Act, I had initiated the institutionalization of mediation and arbitration in the laws of Ghana through the eventual enactment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 795).

My experience, roles played, and training in conflict resolution make me wonder what is in store for the people of Bawku and its environs in particular, and Ghanaians in general at Tuesday’s “... .formal presentation of the Bawku Mediation Report to President John Dramani Mahama, ....” to warrant the media optics and publicity of this concluding circus.

The government should be informing Ghanaians first and foremost whether we should be expecting an arbitration report containing the findings of a sole arbitrator, which is binding on the Kusasi and Mamprusi people of Bawku and its environs, or a mediator’s report setting out the agreement reached by the Kusasi and Mamprusi people themselves during the mediator’s facilitation efforts.

Many Ghanaians do not know the difference between arbitration and mediation as terms of art with definite legal connotations.

In an arbitration, the arbitrator or arbitrators make binding findings and recommendations after hearing from the parties who appointed them to arbitrate their dispute.

In mediation, the parties appoint the third-party mediator to facilitate a face-to-face or a go-between dialogue between them or shuttle diplomacy, or a mix of these processes them to enable them to come to a mutually agreed resolution of their dispute without the mediator imposing a resolution on them.

Former President Akufo-Addo first appointed the Asantehene to attempt a resolution of the dispute between the Bawku-Naba and the Nayiri on the Bawku Chieftaincy.

Unfortunately, the situation worsened in October 2024 due to actions of the Akufo-Addo regime, which led to the needless loss of innocent lives of citizens from both sides.

While the Asantehene was attempting to resolve the dispute under the Akufo-Addo regime, former President John Mahama adjudicated the dispute on 3 February 2024 when he stated in the Bawku-Naba’s palace during his campaign to be president again that: “.... there is no chieftaincy conflict because there is only one known king, Asigri Abugrago Azoka II.”

The reader may wish to read the paraphrased version of what was said by candidate John Mahama at: Mahama visits Bawku; promises to ensure peace and build a modern hospital.

The NDC campaign programme at the Bawku Naba’s palace on 3 February 2024 and the exact words used by then candidate Mahama which states clearly that “there cannot be two kings in one kingdom” can be listened to on YouTube, particularly the last five minutes of the almost one hour, ten minutes and forty-three seconds encounter on the video recording: “Live Now/ John Mahama Courtesy call the paramount chief of Kusaug (Bawku Central) #Building Ghana...”

Former President Akufo-Addo,o in his last state of the nation address, regretted his inability to resolve the Bawku Chieftaincy conflict before leaving office.

As nature’s justice would have it, John Dramani Mahama won the 7 December 2024 elections and assumed the reins of power on 7 January 2025.

But instead of bringing peace and development to Bawku and its environs as he had promised the people of Bawku on 3 February 2024 with emphasis on the fact that there is no chieftaincy conflict in Bawku, President John Dramani Mahama turned round to request the same Asantehene to continue to mediate the very conflict which on 3 February 2024 he had told the people of Bawku did not exist.

I have tried to find the terms of reference given by the Akufo-Addo government to the Asantehene for the mediation or arbitration of the Bawku Affairs without success.

The Kusasis and Mamprusis I grew up with do not know the terms of reference, except the general conception that it was to resolve the Bawku conflict.

I have since President Mahama reappointed or asked the Asantehene to mediate or arbitrate the same conflict, and tried to get a copy of the terms of reference without success.

Without the terms of reference, it becomes impossible to state what the powers of the third-party neutral facilitator, mediator, or arbitrator were to determine the binding force of “The formal presentation of the Bawku Mediation Report to President John Dramani Mahama, ....” which is to be the subject of the concluding performance and presentation on Tuesday.

One thing, however, remains clear to me.

The main parties in the conflict, the Bawku Naba and the Mamprusis in Bawku, acting by themselves or their overlord, the Nayiri and Paramount Chief of Mamprug, did not invite the Asantehene to arbitrate or mediate their conflict.

In both cases, President Akufo-Ado and President Mahama invited the Asantehene
Even tho, ug,h as a matter of courtesy to the Government, the two parties consented to the process entrusted to the Asantehene.

In my humble reckoning, between 7 January 2025 and 15 December 2025 the scope of the Bawku conflict has expanded for the first time since its inception in the 1950’s to engulf the Binduri, Garu, and Tempani, Districts of the Bawku Traditional Area in terms of violence leading to more loss of lives within this period than in the past preceding eight years of the same conflict.

As someone who hails from Bawku town, who is neither a Kusasi nor a Mamprusi, I have a vested interest in a transparent and accountable process of conflict resolution that lets the parties, from the onset to know the nature of the process and the outcome to expect in the arbitration or mediation process.

This is only possible when the powers of the mediator or arbitrator are known in advance by the conflict parties from the inception of the process.

As a professional in conflict resolution myself, this is important to enable the parties to decide from the onset whether or not to participate in whatever process the government is inviting them to participate in with the third-party neutral facilitator.

The news reports about the reaction of the constituents of the Bawku-Naba and the Nayiri at Manhyia Palace on the concluding day of the facilitation process on 1 December 2025 leads me to conclude that neither the representatives of the Bawku-Naba nor the Nayiri who were present in Kumasi knew the outcome of the mediation process in which they participated and were supposed to jointly agree and decide on the outcome.

This is what leads me to enquire whether Ghanaians are going to be treated at Tuesday’s performance to the findings and recommendations of the Asantehene as an arbitrator with powers to make binding decisions for the parties or to report on the mediation process without the joint outcomes agreed by the parties in conflict themselves.

The reported level of security in Kumasi and in particular at the Manhyia Palace on the concluding day of Asantehene’s facilitation process between the parties also alerts me to the fact that the misleading nature of the euphoria being generated in the media about a final resolution of the Bawku Affairs may be an unnecessary detraction from the real tensions still existing between the conflict parties on the ground in Bawku and its environs.

See: Bawku Mediation: Security officers struggle to maintain order, Military deployed.

President Mahama appears to have now understood the necessity of decoupling electoral politics from the resolution of identity-based and intractable conflicts to achieve lasting resolutions. The mainstream media reported the President to have said at a meeting with the Peace Council on 11 December 2025 that: “All of us are concerned about the proliferation of conflicts across our country. There’s a rising intolerance, and it’s as a result of disagreements, first and foremost, to do with chieftaincy. It is putting a lot of pressure on our security services. A lot of our security services are tied down in conflict areas. Sampa, we have a whole contingent there. If you go to Bawku and Nkwanta, we have a whole contingent there. Recently, Savannah, we had a whole contingent there; we have not withdrawn them yet. And yet, there are so many of these all over the country. It has to do with ethnic and land disputes. It’s become a major headache for the government.”

The duty of governments under the 1992 Constitution is to uphold the status quo ante 7 January 1993 and to manage legitimate chieftaincy conflicts within the regime of the 1992 Constitution.

When politicians try to interfere in chieftaincy or land conflicts or encourage their constituents to seek self-help when they are in power, one begets what unfortunately happened in Dagbon under the Kufuor administration.

The Dagbon chieftaincy dispute resolved under the Akufo-Addo Government was simply to ensure that nobody benefited from the murder of a legitimately enskinned chief.

Former President Akufo-Addo and his government were better placed to have achieved that resolution because the problem arose from the politics of the Kufuor government, which had always had leverage on one of the parties that agreed to the restoration of the status quo ante the murder of the Ya Naa that was established under the PNDC regime.

Nana Akufo-Addo was the Attorney-General at the time of the gruesome murder of the Ya Naa under the Kufuor administration, and as President, he had more leverage on one of the sides for an equitable resolution.

The Bawku conflict is a different identity-based and intractable conflict, which has also seen political interferences under the 1992 Constitution, which eventually led the country to the violence of October 2024, and where we are today, trying to resolve the same conflict outside the framework provided for such conflicts under the 1992 Constitution.

I am not sure whether apart from the major performances by President John Dramani and the Asantehene Nana Osei Tutu II at the “The formal presentation of the Bawku Mediation Report to President John Dramani Mahama, ....” in presenting and receiving the mediation report the content of the report will be made available to the public or the parties on Tuesday or when the parties would be privy to the report that concerns them as the conflict parties in the mediation.

The Bawku-Naba and the Nayiri, who are directly affected by the mediation
processise not invitees attending the widely advertised concluding circus to resolve the conflict on Tuesday.

I asked myself, in the absence of the parties to the conflict, what is the intention of summoning “.... the National House of Chiefs, Peace Council, Christian Council, Chief Imam, Catholic Secretariat, UNDP, British High Commission, selected regional ministers and the National Security Coordinator, .....” to Tuesday’s performances?

As a citizen of Ghana who has played leading roles in past circus performances intended to resolve the Bawku conflict over the years and a person who hails from Bawku, I know what any misstep at Tuesday’s performance can bring to the people of Bawku town, with whom I grew up and still interact with.

As long asthe government is going outside the framework of the 1992 Constitution and the status quo ante to attempt a resolution of the Bawku Chieftaincy conflict, both parties need to know what they went in for through a transparent and accountable process.

If they went for a fresh adjudication of the dispute, or an arbitration, or a mediation of the dispute, the parties and every Ghanaian are entitled to know in advance and not to be taken by surprise at Tuesday’s concluding performances.

This is basic due process of law, whether it is an adjudication, an arbitration, or a mediation under the laws of Ghana.

I am compelled in the absence of any publicly available information about the nature of the processes the government requested or appointed the Asantehene to undertake in resolving the identity based and intractable Bawku conflict to think aloud in the hope that Ghanaians would consider my thoughts when watching or listening to the performances in the concluding circus to take place at the Jubilee House on Tuesday 16 December 2025.