At the heart of the protracted conflict in Ghana’s Upper East Region lies decades of complex chieftaincy disputes tracing back to colonial times.1 The Bawku conflict, as it is popularly referred to, involves the Mamprusi and Kusasi communities. It is driven by deeply rooted ethnic tensions and historical grievances, with each group laying claim to the rightful occupancy of the Bawku chieftaincy.2
The long-running conflict has not only turned Bawku Township into a flashpoint of armed violence but also a source of unrest and chaos in Ghana’s Upper East region. It has, so far, transcended mere local tensions and ethnic rivalry. This is the result of interwoven historical grievances, politicization of differences, and unresolved legal ambiguities, which are exacerbated by economic marginalization, militarization, and the externalization of conflict dynamics across borders.3 The conflict has also been characterized by arms proliferation, securitization of communal relations, and a constant state of tension in the area, resulting in several deaths, injuries, and destruction of properties.
Over the years, various attempts have been made to resolve the conflict.4 These have ranged from successive curfews, deployments of security forces, high-level government mediation, presidential calls for calm, legal adjudication, and several engagements by a plethora of civil society organizations. The interventions were largely unsuccessful, making a durable peace in Bawku elusive. Violent clashes persist, fuelling an endless cycle of chieftaincy disputes in the region, with spatial diffusion of the conflict to other parts of the country.
Several reasons account for this impasse. State actors are perceived as being biased and ineffective. For instance, the military is often seen as aligning with different factions of the conflicting parties. Local people mostly view government officials and politicians as self-serving actors who are fanning the embers of violence in Bawku. This situation is further worsened by the lack of trust in the judiciary and the rejection of court rulings by the conflicting parties, who perceive many of those seeking to mediate the conflict as outsiders who lack the legitimacy to resolve the conflict effectively.
The top-down peace interventions have proven ineffective, necessitating the exploration of alternative bottom-up, culturally grounded, and indigenous meditation strategies that resonate with local realities. This prompted the establishment of the Bawku Inter-Ethnic Peace Committee (BIEPC) in 2009,5 which consisted of 23 members of various ethnic groups in Bawku. Unlike the state-led interventions, the BIEPC became an alternative peacebuilding strategy that represented a grassroots-led intervention to resolve conflicts. Although there was initial optimism regarding BEIPC, it has faced numerous setbacks since January 2022.6 These have precipitated a resurgence of another cycle of violence, resulting in considerable loss of lives and widespread damage to properties. It is against this backdrop that the involvement of the Asantehene in the mediation efforts introduced a crucial dimension to the peace process.
Asantehene’s Peace Mission: Strategic Opportunities and Fragile Optics
Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, stepped in to support the mediation process and facilitate dialogue between the feuding factions.7 Asantehene, a revered traditional leader of the Ashanti Kingdom in southern Ghana, is one of the most influential figures in the nation’s traditional governance system. His intervention marked the revival and relevance of an indigenous approach towards contemporary conflict resolution.
His intervention as a traditional leader provided some cultural legitimacy that would enhance inclusivity, transparency, and effective dialogue between the conflicting sides. His gravitas and institutional distance from the conflict made him an ideal mediator. Besides, his engagement rekindled the often-forgotten and overlooked customary diplomacy historically used to negotiate peace, manage land use, and promote intercommunity and ethnic coexistence even before the introduction of Western legal systems.
The king’s previous involvement in the mediation of the Dagbon conflict (one of the bloodiest chieftaincy conflicts in northern Ghana) contributed towards the peaceful resolution of that conflict, including the enthronement of a new king, Yaa Naa (an overlord of the Dagbon Kingdom).8 This bolstered the king’s reputation as a neutral and successful mediator. His understanding of customary arbitration and traditional diplomacy, combined with modern conflict resolution techniques, provided legitimacy to his involvement in the Bawku Conflict. By bringing the warring factions to the mediation table, the king’s involvement was a crucial step towards fostering mutual dialogue.
It should be noted that traditionally, the Asantehene’s authority as a ruler of the Asante Kingdom does not extend to northern Ghana. Thus, his intervention as an external referee could potentially be misinterpreted as undermining the authority of northern chiefs and risks being seen as a symbolic overreach of the king’s authority beyond his traditional area of jurisdiction. This risk is capable of counteracting or disrupting ongoing peacebuilding efforts by exacerbating and deepening ethnic tensions.
When the Asantehene becomes the default conflict mediator across regions and among ethnic groups, it may create the impression of the spread of the hegemonic influence of the Asante Kingdom, at the expense of other ethnic groups. It could also undermine state capacity and legitimacy in the management of internal ethnic and communal conflicts in a multiethnic state such as Ghana. Although the mediation may be inherently neutral, the conflict landscape and dynamics in Bawku are characterised by high sensitivity, pervasive distrust, and perception-driven mediator roles. This situation could also render the Asantehene-led mediation process susceptible to accusations of bias, particularly if the outcome appears to favour one side of the conflict.
Looking Forward
For the mediation of the Bawku crisis to succeed with the Asantehene at the center, the process should not be anchored only around the king’s moral weight and traditional influence. Still, it should also be grounded in local ownership and representation. This is to avoid the pitfalls of the already state-led failed interventions. There is a need for the king to adopt a robust and inclusive framework that addresses concerns more effectively, including the engagement of local people, chiefs, civil society, youth groups, and other stakeholders. This will prevent the potential framing of the intervention as a top-down imposition and mistrust that could later fuel resistance. The Asantehene could also form an inclusive advisory council comprising local chiefs in Bawku and other community leaders to ensure that all voices are included, heard, and respected. This will make the process a collective, locally grounded, and collaborative endeavour towards resolving the conflict.
To address the possible concerns arising from his involvement, the Asantehene could implement proactive measures, such as publicly acknowledging local authorities and traditional chiefs in Bawku and ensuring close collaborations with local stakeholders in the conflict. This approach will not only foster trust but also symbolize respect for traditional authority, thereby mitigating concerns about overstepping jurisdictional boundaries. To address the problems of possible bias in the mediation process, an open and transparent strategy is essential.
The involvement of the Asantehene in the Bawku conflict not only signifies a promising alternative and potential turning point in resolving a long-running conflict but also offers a fresh perspective beyond the already exhausted state interventions and ‘quick fixes.’ The Asantehene’s status undoubtedly positions him strategically to mediate the ongoing Bawku conflict. However, it is imperative to ensure that this does not cause the neglect of local agencies or the delegitimization of local traditional authorities. A successful mediation of the Bawku conflict requires a careful balancing of regional legitimacy, traditional authority, customary wisdom, national support, and democratic values. The Asantehene’s involvement may not be the silver bullet, but it may serve as a bridge between entrenched ethnic divides and the potential for achieving sustainable peace.
Endnotes
- Longi, F.Y.T. “The Kusasi-Mamprusi Conflict in Bawku: A Legacy of British Colonial Policy in Northern Ghana.” Ghana Studies 17 (2014): 157-176.
- Dramani, A., S. A. Paalo, and S. Adu-Gyamfi. “Emerging Local Voices and New Possibilities toward Attaining Sustainable Peace in Bawku, north-eastern Ghana.” African Journal on Conflict Resolution 23, no. 1 (2023).
- Aboagye, Festus B. “Beyond Chieftaincy; Unveiling the intersection of Kusasi- Mamprusi Ethnic Rivalries, Security Challenges, and Humanitarian Crises in Bawku.” LinkedIn post, July 2025. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/colonel-festus-b-aboagye-retired-82836332_beyond-chieftaincy-the-kusasi-mamprusi-ethnic-activity-7320753750275485696-MQVY/.
- Doke, V. “Prevention Measures Against Recurrence of Armed Conflict: The Bawku Conflict in Northern Ghana.” African Study Monographs 41, no. 2 (2021): 17.
- Aganah, Gamel. “The Role of Local Agency in Peacebuilding: The Case of the Bawku Inter-Ethnic Peace Committee.” Peace and Conflict Studies 30, no. 1 (2023).
- Ibid
- Citi Newsroom. “Asantehene to resume mediation of Bawku Conflict from April 28.” April 2025. https://citinewsroom.com/2025/04/asantehene-to-resume-mediation-of-bawku-conflict-from-april-28/.
- Conteh, M., P. Taflinski, and P. Huskare. Mediating Conflict in West Africa: An Overview of Regional Experiences. Accra: KAIPTC & CMI, 2014. https://www.kaiptc.org/kaiptc-publication/mediating-conflict-in-west-africa-an-overview-of-regional-experiences/.
