The Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, has disclosed key concessions and proposals made during mediation efforts aimed at resolving the long-standing chieftaincy and land dispute in Bawku, describing the conflict as a major national and international security concern that demands an amicable and lasting solution.
Presenting his Bawku mediation report at Jubilee House, Otumfuo said he had consistently engaged the Nayiri, overlord of Mamprugu, urging him to acknowledge the current legal position that allows the Kusasi people to rule themselves.
According to the Asantehene, the Nayiri responded positively to the call for peace, making difficult concessions in the interest of coexistence and stability.
Otumfuo revealed that the Nayiri had proposed a compromise based on historical realities, including the acknowledgement of ancestral ownership of lands within the Bawku traditional area, while accepting the present-day authority of the Kusasi over the area.
The Nayiri, he said, emphasized that both the Kusasi and Mamprusi are his “children” and expressed deep regret over the bloodshed that has claimed lives and destabilized the region.
“The Nayiri detests the violence and finds it most unfortunate that such bloodshed should occur among his people,” Otumfuo stated, adding that the Mamprugu overlord chose the path of conciliation not out of weakness, but in line with ancestral wisdom, dignity, and a commitment to peace.
According to the Asantehene, the Nayiri agreed to cede part of his traditional jurisdiction in the Bawku area to the Kusasi, with the hope that this would bring an enduring resolution to the conflict.
Otumfuo described the decision as a difficult but courageous step motivated by the desire to restore peace and human dignity.
Otumfuo also noted that he had impressed upon Kusasi traditional leaders, including the Bawku Naba and sub-chiefs, to acknowledge the historical role played by the Nayiri in exercising traditional authority over the area.
He cited historical records indicating that, at various times, the Nayiri enskinned the Bawku Naba, who in turn installed sub-chiefs within the traditional area.
He explained that this arrangement was challenged after independence, leading to prolonged disputes until the enactment of PNDC Law 75 in 1983, which sought to resolve the chieftaincy issue in Bawku.
Otumfuo further pointed out that although PNDC Law 75 was later repealed under the Statute Law Revision Act, 1996 (Act 516), subsequent legal developments have firmly settled the matter.
“With the passage of PNDC Law 75, the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution, and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Elijah Ibrahim Adam Zambego v. Aninchema Abul Krago and the Attorney-General, it has become untenable for anyone to dispute the authority of the Bawku Naba over the Kusasi area,” Otumfuo said.
He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision has effectively closed the door to any further legal challenges on the matter, making peaceful coexistence and mutual recognition the only viable path forward.
Otumfuo concluded by expressing optimism that the willingness shown by all parties during the mediation process would help bring an end to the conflict and pave the way for lasting peace and stability in Bawku and its surrounding communities.
Full text of the Bawku Mediation report
Under the mandate of the governance of Ghana to your excellency and you wasted no time in reaffirming the mandate of the local mediation. By the grace of God we are able to assemble here this morning for us to present to your excellency the report of the mission entrusted to us. We present the report for your kind consideration whatever action you and your government consider appropriate.
So before dealing with the report you will permit me your excellency to thank you and your predecessor for the confidence you posed in me and entrusting this delicate matter to me. There’s nothing more grievous than the peace and security of the land. What like I said it was a mediation, it was an arbitration and I’m not here as I said to say this one was wrong or this one I’ll present the facts as they are and that’s what it should be binding on all of us whoever is there.
I’ve spoken to my before I came yesterday I was on the phone for more than with my brother the Naayiri explaining the circumstances to him in terms of the decision I took and I have spoken to the Okanagan taking time all these periods to be speaking to everybody about it. The governments of the new patriotic party and the national democratic congress led by President Nana Adudanko and President Ramani Muhammad asked me to use my traditional mediation mechanisms to find an amicable solution to the situation in Boko which both governments shall enforce. Before I continue please I said to the president bear with me to read through all the report because I don’t want the situation where they will be it will be said that they’ve doctored what I brought so we have to read what I wrote so that everybody my brother the Naayiri and my son will all know that that is exactly what I said so it isn’t the president who is doctoring anything.
At the commencement of the hostilities the government of President Kufadu had issued a state issue statement stating government’s view on the legal position. Both President Kufadu and now President John Ramani Muhammad came to a conclusion that historically governments have intervened to resolve the matter without lasting peace. Again they indicated that the courts of Ghana had also been invited to resolve the issues implicating the Boko matter and the pronouncements have not been respected by other sides if it went against them.
As a result both governments who now represent the two main political tradition now take a position that I should define a solution to the Boko situation using mediation and my recommendations or conclusions shall be enforced by both governments at all times as a traditional solution to the problem. So it is important to give a brief assessment of the documents submitted by the Nairi and the Boko Naba as well as oral rendition of their respective cases as part of efforts to mediate the chief justice field in Boko to ensure lasting peace. Thus an examination of the respective cases of the parties relative to the facts, custom, tradition and the law will be evaluated and or examined.
The case of the Mamprusis is that Mampruku Kingdom started in Pusiga near Boko and founded by Nabiwa at a time when there was no ethnic group in the Boko area called Kusasi. After the demise of Nabiwa, Na Tosugu became the Nairi and decided to relocate the capital of the Tingu Naba Eketika to take care of his father’s shrine at Pusiga. It was further ascertained that in the 17th century the 10th Nairi called Na Atabia decided to secure his territory by establishing garrisons and military posts at key positions that were uninhabited which led to the establishment of the of Boko and five other towns.
The first chief of Boko was one Na Ali Atabia who was the son of Na Atabia in the year 1721. Furthermore the Mamprusis ruled Boko for over 150 years through eight successive Mamprusi chiefs before the arrival of the British in the northern territories and specifically Boko in 1907. In 1957, so they claimed the CPP government through its sympathizers in Boko elected one Abukrabo Azoka as Boko Naba.
And the case of the Kusasis is that they practiced the Tindana system where the eldest male person in the clan becomes a traditional ruler the leader of the clan vested with administrative judicial and spiritual authorities. However when the British arrived in Boko in 1901 in their bid to advance the indirect rule system they were not satisfied with the Tindani system so they decided to adopt qualified Tindanis to become chiefs and in areas where they could not find qualified Tindanis they appointed other people as chiefs. The Kusasis further contended that it was around this period that the Mamprusis presented themselves to the British as chiefs of their ethnic community in Boko and got registered accordingly.
However the Tindani position was never abolished as a traditional arrangement that the chiefs of the chiefs and Tindanis coexisted but the new Mamprusi rulers became power drunk and started misusing the authority over the Kusasi landowners hence a decision by the Kusasis to remove the Mamprusi chiefs and replace them with their own. So when the last Mamprusi chief died in 1956 the Kusasis gathered in Boko in 1957 and selected a son of a prominent Tindani in Boko called Abukurabu Azuka the first to fill the vacancy as Boko Naba. Following the death of Naba Abukurabu Azuka in 1983 his first son was selected in 1984 to succeed him as the next Boko Naba by by name Zugran Abukurabu Azuka the second.
He has continued in that position to date. But I’ll try and give you let me give you some background of previous governments and judicial efforts to resolve the Boko matter. Boko affairs report of the committee appointed by his excellency the acting governor general to inquire into and report his findings on the claim of Abukurabu Azuka to have been elected were appointed and installed as chief of the Kusasi area.
On the 6th of June 1957 while the then Nairi was going through the various ceremonies in Nanariku to connect connected with the appointment of a new Boko Naba in the person of Mahama Yirmiya a Manpursi prince the Kusasis had gathered enough appointment numbers in Boko to also elect and install Abukurabu Azuka a Kusasi as the chief of Boko and the head of the then canton chiefs in the Kusasi area. This followed the death of Naa Awuni who was the Manpursi chief of Boko and head of the Kusasi area. The enslavement of the Kusasi chief created a situation where there were no were two rival claimants to the skin of Boko and all residing in Boko.
Several petitions and representations were made to government of the day we decided to set up a committee to inquire into the rival claims. The committee was made up of lawyer S.D. Opukua Ferry as chairman, Nanaia Wajima Bedu then Domaine and Lurie Canton III the then Tumu crew as members. After the deliberations of the committee they reported to the governor general Lord Listerwell then that that Abukurabu Azuka has been customarily elected and installed the chief of Kusasi area.
Abukurabu Azuka thus became the first Kusasi Boko Naba and head of the Kusasi area. The records of the committee reveals that they accepted evidence adduced by him that his father and grandfather owned most of the land that constitutes present-day Boko township. In the analysis of the committee the Kusasis were the original inhabitants of the Kusasi area.
The Mampuruses have invaded had invaded the area and began to install princes from Nairobu to rule over the Kusasis. They suspected that the arrival of Europeans might have added the establishment of Mampurubu hegemony in the area. At the time of the work of the committee the Mampurusi who appeared before the committee insisted that the land in the Kusasi area belonged to the Nairi.
As the Opukua Ferry and others versus Jeremiah Mampurusi civil appeal number 18 in the year 1958 the Mampurusi deposed chief sought an order of certiorari in the divisional court to the proceedings and report of the African committee and the governor general’s decision that Abugrago Azoka has been customarily elected and installed the chief of Boko. This decision of the governor general was contained in the desert publication notification. Essentially the Mampuruses argued that the terms of reference of the committee was to determine if Abugrago Azoka has been validly selected as chief of the Kusasi area but the governor general’s gazette notification had decided that Abugrago Azoka has been customarily elected and installed the chief of Boko.
The divisional court judge concluded that the governor general’s decision that Abugrago Azoka has been customarily elected and installed chief of Boko was not identical with or equivalent to a decision that he had been elected and installed chief of Kusasi area. Hence the Leonard judge quashed the proceedings of the committee and the decision of the governor general. The Kusasi’s agreed by the decision appealed same and the court of appeal presided by chief justice is agreed with the judge sitting in the divisional court.
The court of appeal concluded that once the Leonard judge accepted as a fact that the person who holds the position of chief of Boko is also the person who is customarily recognized as the chief of Kusasi area then his opinion that the chief of Boko is not identical with the chief of Kusasi area is untenable since terms chief of Boko and chief of Kusasi area are interchangeable titles and not what the Leonard judge suggested as mutually exclusive. The court of appeal therefore allowed the appeal and restored the governor general was listable decision that Abugrago Azoka has been validly elected and installed chief of Boko. The governor general was a representative of Queen Elizabeth who was then the queen of England and dominion over Ghana at that time and this was in the 21st of October 1958.
The court of appeal then was equivalent to oppressing the supreme court. It was a binding and authoritative decision and became part of the law of Ghana. Following the decision of the court of appeal the governor general made an order prohibiting Yirumiya Mahama from holding himself as Boko Nata.
He was also required to reside outside the radius of 30 miles from the town or village of Boko. This was contained in the Yirumiya Mampuzi prohibition order 1959 ln 225 the year 59. The chief’s recognition act 1959 number 11 of 1959 by section 3 as amended by the chief’s recognition amendment at 1959 provided that he shall be lawful where the governor general deems it to be in the public interest by order to direct that any person named in the order shall not exercise or purport to exercise the functions of a chief and by the same or any other order to direct that such person shall not reside within a defined radius of any place named therein.
On the 5th of December 1966 NRC the lieutenant general J. Andrew who had become chairman of the national liberation council which had replaced the government of Dr. Parmen Krumah following a military coup on the 28th of February 1966 promulgated the chieftaincy amendment decree 1966 and as a decree 112 according to his terms provided that the recognition of the member of the national liberation council responsible for chieftaincy matters shall for the purposes of section 1 of the chieftaincy act 1961 act 81 be deemed to have been withdrawn from the person named in column 1 of the second schedule of this decree as chiefs in respect of the places specified respectively in relation to them in column 2 of that schedule. Any person specified in the said column 1 of the said schedule shall be deemed to be prohibited by executive instrument made under section 4 of the chieftaincy act 1961 act 81 from purporting to exercise the functions of a chief and all other persons shall be deemed to be required by such an instrument not to treat him as a chief and accordingly any person who contravenes such any such prohibition or requirement shall be guilty of an offense under the said section 4. Any person who was chief in any place specified in column 2 of the second schedule to this decree immediately before any such person as is referred to in column 1 of that schedule was recognized as chief for that place shall if he is alive at the commencement of this decree be deemed with effect from the commencement of this decree to be restored to the stool in the person specified in the said column 1 of the said schedule and to have been recognized as a chief by the member of the national liberation council responsible for chieftaincy matters for the purpose of section 1 of the chieftaincy act 1961. The second schedule had in page 7 of the decree a list of names of chiefs from whom recognition is to be redrawn and the places are treated they acted as chiefs in the upper region in the lower region of the Kusasi area and the chiefs he appointed to the 15 other subdivisions listed above were also deposed.
NRC decree 112 further provided in the section that the instruments specified in the third schedule to this decree are hereby revoked. One of the instruments listed on page 8 of the decree is titled Yeremia Mampusi prohibition order 1959. The NRC decree thereby placed the nairi as the one entitled to enskin the chief of Boko.
Given that Yeremia Mahama had died before the passage of NRC decree 112, the nairi selected and enskin one Adam Azambego and Mampusi as the Boko Napa. The high court and the national house of chiefs affirmation of NRC decree 112. The Kusasi led by Abubakar Azoka continued to mount protestations against the NRC decree 112.
Kusasis refused to accept the authority of the Mampusi chief of Boko and continued to proclaim Abubakar Azoka as the illegitimate ruler. In 1980 when the third republican constitution was enforced and the government of Dr. Hilani Ma’am was reigning, Achiriba Azambego, the dead Mampusi chief of Boko sought an injunction from the high court in Bogatanga to restrain Abubakar Azoka from interfering in chieftaincy matters in Boko. This injunction was granted.
The Kusasi led by Abubakar Azoka petitioned the national house of chiefs requesting the house to set aside the NRC decree 112 on the grounds that it offended the court of appeal ruling in favor of Abubakar Azoka. In 1983 the house of chiefs declined the invitation and held that it had no jurisdiction to declare NRC decree 112 as invalid. The Mampusi chief therefore remained in place.
Then the passage of the chief transgeneration PNG’s rule 75. Following the overthrow of the third republican constitution and the establishment of the military government of Flight Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlins under the PNGC, the Kusasis continued to petition against Mampusi rule in the Kusasi area. The government of Jerry John Rawlins decided to review the case and came to a conclusion that in the case of Boko and in the matter of the Kusasis they believed that the national liberation council had committed an error.
It was argued that the NRC’s focus on chiefs was on chiefs removed by President Muhammad Krumah. The situation of Boko was different. The Mampusi chief was removed by the governor general upon the recommendation of the committee he had set up.
His decision was also affirmed by the then supreme court of Ghana. On that basis the PNGC law decided to restore the Kusasi back to the status of chiefs in Boko. In all the places where the NRC decree 112 withdrew recognition for chiefs who were in place in 1966, PNGC law 75 restored recognition to them.
Those that came into force on the basis of NRC decree 112 were also removed and recognition withdrawn from them. I hereby reproduce PNGC law 75 herein. Whereas by virtue of section 3.1 of the Chief Tansey Amendment Decree 1966, NRC decree 112, the then government of the National Liberation Council withdrew recognition of the persons named in part 1 of the schedule to this law as chiefs in the places specified respectively in relation to them.
Whereas by virtue of section 3 clause 2 of the said decree and the said persons were prohibited from purporting to recite the functions of chiefs. And whereas by virtue of section 4 of the said decree the person named in part 2 of the schedule to this law were accorded recognition as chief by the then government of the National Liberation Council and restored as chiefs of the places specified respectively in relation to them in place of the person named in part 1 of the scheduled schedule. And whereas the provisional National Defense Council having considered the circumstances of the withdrawal of recognition by the then government of the National Liberation Council of the person named in part 1 of the schedule to this law as chiefs is satisfied that the said person having been lawfully instilled or enskinned as chief should be restored to the original status as chiefs of the places specified respectively in relation to them.
Now therefore in pursuance of the provisional National Defense Council establishment proclamation 1981 this law is hereby made notwithstanding anything to the contrary the person named in column 1 of part 1 of the schedule to this law whose recognition as chiefs of the places specified respectfully in relation to them in column 1 was withdrawn by virtue of section 3 of the chieftaincy amendment at 1966 NLC decree 112 shall at the commencement of this law be deemed to have been restored to the original status as chiefs of their respective places. Any person specified in part 1 of the schedule to this law who before the commencement of this law is performing the functions of the chief by virtue of section 4 of the chieftaincy amendment decree 1966 NLC decree 112 in any place specified in column 1 column 2 of part 1 of that schedule is hereby prohibited from purporting to exercise such functions and it shall be unlawful for any person to introduce that person as a chief. 3. When any person referred to in section 2 of this law who has in his possession or custody any property belonging to the stool or skin of any of the places specified in column 2 of part 1 of the schedule to this law shall with the commencement of this law surrender said property to the person named in column 1 of part 1 of that schedule and restored under section 1 of this law as chief in the place specified in relation to him in column 2 of that part.
Any person referred to in section 2 of this law who occupied any palace belonging to the stool or skin of any of the places specified in column 2 of part 1 of the schedule to this law shall immediately on the commencement of this law vacate and surrender possession thereof to the person named in column 1 of part 1 of that schedule and restored under section 1 of this law as chief in the place specified in relation to him in column 2 of that part. Any person who unlawfully obstructs the person authorised to take possession of any stool or skin property refusing to vacate the palace, unlawfully obstructs the restoration of any stool or skin property or contravenes any provision of this law shall be guilty of an offense and liable on summary conviction to increase them for a term of no less than three years without the option of a fine and then enlisted the same names so restoring the names as it is now again so becomes Boko Napa again and Aladi Adam Zambio then ceases his property prohibited from becoming from Boko Napa. The passage of PNDC law 75 led to bloody clashes between the Mampruses and other and the allies and the Kusases and the allies.
Other complementary measures were implemented by the PNDC to restore law and order. They included the Boko lands vested law PNDC law 99 which vested all lands in the Boko district in a PNDC free from all encumbrances and the passage of the prohibited organization Boko district law 1984 PNDC law 98 which proscribed tribal organizations in Boko. Abukurako Azoka have died before the passage of PNDC law 75.
The Kusases then ensconded as Asudiri Abukurako Azoka as the Boko Napa and the head chief of the Kusasi traditional area. The constitution of Ghana 1992 came into force with the Kusases in place at the rulers of Boko. Asudiri Abukurako Azoka was Boko Napa and by virtue of that he has been all the divisional Kusasi traditional area.
Article 270 clause 1 of the constitution provides that the institution of chieftaincy together with this traditional council that’s established by Kasimiro and Yusei is hereby guaranteed. So the position of Asudiri Abukurako Azoka seemed to have been frozen in time by the 1992 constitution until one ally Ibrahim Adam Zambio mounted a challenge in the present supreme court. This 2003 action instituted by the man present before the supreme court seeking to invoke his original jurisdiction was discontinued without liberty to reapply under article 270 and 277 of the 1992 constitution and the chieftaincy restoration of status of chiefs law 1983 PNDC law 75 which had then been repealed by this statute law revision act 1996 act 516 in 1996.
On Tuesday the 29th day of April 2003 the supreme court of Ghana provided what legal analysts believe to be finality to the question of the Boko skin. The ruling was very short and yet profound. Report says the application to discontinue is granted but without liberty to apply PNDC law to liberty to apply under PNDC law 75 and article 270 and 277 of the 1992 constitution.
Cost of those days 10 million to the first defendant signed G.K. Akbar justice of the supreme court T.K. Aziz justice of the supreme court S.A. Brobey justice of the supreme court S.G. Beidou justice of the supreme court Dr. S. Chun justice of the supreme court. Apparently on the morning of the hearing of the matter the plaintiffs sought leave to discontinue the case. The leave was granted by the court director that no one should come back to that court again pursuant to articles 270 and 277 of the 1992 constitution in the matter of the restoration of Abugrago Azoka and all other subchiefs under PNDC law 75.
Under the 1992 constitution the supreme court has final authority to make such pronouncements and only that court can review these decisions under certain circumstances. I’ve gone to great lengths to review the history of various legal resolutions of the matter and the involvement of the Paris military regime to show that this matter has traveled a long tortuous legal and political journey. In spite of the efforts of various courts and governments the membership did not give up their claims and the Kusazi did not relent in the effort to assert their independence and identity as a self-ruling tribe.
The Nairi kept insisting that the supreme court has not ruled on the issues implicated in the Bokonskin matter. Asigiri Abugrago Azoka insisted that the supreme court give finality to the matter. This contestation led often to extreme violence and many people have been gruesomely killed and maimed.
Property that can be easily calculated has been destroyed. Whole communities have relocated because all the buildings have been burned by various factions. The intensity of the violence did not deter either side.
Governments from PNDC to NDC1 to MPP1 to NDC2 and MPP2 have invested heavily in security and other measures with very limited success as the violence kept escalating. Within these developments the Mamprusis in Boko organized a funeral for the last deposed chief of Boko, Naa Tampurizambio who had died in 1981. 14 years ago the Kusazis in Boko had objected to the performance of the funeral on the grounds that Naa Tampurizambio had his chieftaincy recognition withdrawn by the passage of the chieftaincy restoration status of chief’s law.
scheming of a new Boko Naba as illegal and a threat to national security. Government further reiterates that Naba Asubi Bugra Azoka is the Boko Naba, duly gazetted, and a member of the National and Naba East Regional House of Chiefs. The security agencies have therefore been directed to arrest and prosecute any other person who holds himself out as Boko Naba.
This statement was signed by Mr. Kodwo Okonkoma as Minister for Information. The government of Nanado Adangwa did not arrest Seydou Abagare. The government continued to reject as illegal what happened in Nauru and repeated the same in another statement, dated 28 October 2024, when Seydou Abagare returned to Boko.
The statement read in part, The return to Boko on 24 October of Mr. Seydou Abagare, who was illegally ensconced as Boko Naba in February 2023, subsequent to the vacation by the Court of Appeal sitting in Kumasi of the warrant for his arrest, has led to significant disturbances affecting public peace and security in the area. The government did not in any formal manner confer legitimacy on Mr. Seydou Abagare. As I indicated from the beginning, I was requested by the new patriotic party government to mediate in the matter.
President John Brahmani Mama, who assumed office on the 7th of January, endorsed that I should proceed with finding an amicable resolution to the current situation. The parties in this dispute have willingly submitted themselves to the mediation process. That Boko Naba, Seydou Abagare, Adu Azoka has accorded me enormous respect and personally led his delegation at all times to my palace whenever invited.
My brother, the Naayiri has for every good reason, for very good reasons, sorry, sent a delegation of his elders and subjis at all times that I have requested him to come. They all expressed confidence in the process and believed that we would be able to work towards an amicable outcome. I started my engagement with my brother, the Naayiri, by appealing to him to magnanimously recognize the position of the law that the Kusasi should rule themselves.
After careful consideration, the Naayiri made some concessions but gave some conditions for my consideration. Essentially, my brother, the Naayiri, wanted a historical acknowledgement of the ancestral ownership of the entire land that now constitutes the Boko traditional area. He acknowledged that the Kusasis have come to largely occupy that area.
Both Kusasis and the Mamprusis who are now occupying those lands are his children. He observed that as a result of colonial interference and the interference of various governments, Kusasis have asserted self-rule and now make claims to the chieftaincy of the area. The Kusasi claim has caused significant bloodshed between them and his Mamprusi children and this has spread across the area and now possess a major national and international security threat.
The Naayiri detested that development and finds it most unfortunate that such bloodshed should occur among his children. He therefore sought an amicable compromise to end the feud and restore lasting peace. He said, in part, be that as it may, in the interest of co-existence, peace and human dignity, my proposed solution and concessions is premised on the request from your Royal Majesty that I cede part of my jurisdiction in the Boko traditional area to the Kusasi tribe with the hope that a lasting and enduring peaceful resolution of the Boko conflict will be achieved for all parties.
The Nairi has been clear in his mind that his decision to make concessions has been a difficult one but added that, nonetheless, guided by ancestral wisdom, commitment to peace and respect for your Majesty’s tireless efforts, I have chosen the path of conciliation not out of weakness but as a testament to Mamprugu’s strength, dignity and unwavering commitment to the well-being of all communities in the Boko traditional area. I have been inspired by the desire and commitment of my brother, the Nairi, to bring a peaceful end to the conflict in Boko and its environment and to define the best arrangements to accommodate all the different tribes and communities in the area. The Nairi have outlined a set of proposals which form the basis of engagement that I have had with both sides with the hope of finding a common ground.
If a common ground emerged, it would enable them to reach an amicable resolution. With this historical understanding, I have impressed upon the Boko Naba, Sigiriya, Bukura, Bozuga to acknowledge that, at one time or another, the Nairi exercised traditional authority over the area that now constitutes the Boko traditional area. I concede that colonization by the British might have played a role in the establishment of the chieftains’ institutions across the area that now makes up the Kusa Traditional Council.
Records has it that, at various times, the Nairi ensconced the Boko Naba and the latter then ensconced the various sub-chiefs in the Boko traditional area. It is this state of affairs that the Kusas has challenged since 1957 until PNDC Law 75 was passed in 1983. The passage of PNDC Law 75 defines the resolution of the situation in Boko.
I have as well impressed upon my brother the Nairi that current realities make it more pragmatic that we accept Kusas’ rule over the area. With the passage of PNDC Law 75, the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Aladia, Ibrahim Adam Zambego versus Anin Chema, Abubakar Abubakar and Attorney General, it will be untenable for anyone to hold that Abubakar Abubakar Azoka is not the Boko Naba and exercise his jurisdiction over the entire Kusasi area. The Supreme Court shuts the doors to anyone seeking to have the matter revisited.
It is important to note that PNDC Law 75 was repealed alongside several laws and enactments by the Statute Law Revision Act 1996, Act 516. The long title of the Statute Law Revision Act 1996, Act 516, which repealed the Chief Council Restoration Statute of Chiefs Law 1983, PNDC Law 75, among other laws and enactments as indicated above, provides as follows, an act to repeal certain statutes that are no longer applicable or have become spent. It therefore appears that the Chief Council Restoration Statutes of Chiefs Law 1983, PNDC Law 75, just like the other laws and enactments that were repealed by us, 3-1-6, were repealed because they have performed the purpose for which they were enacted and thus have become spent.
Its repeal, therefore, did not create a vacuum, just like the other laws and enactments repealed with it. Rather, the status quo at the time of the repeal of PNDC Law 75, Act 516, was to be maintained. Response to the Nairi’s terms of concessions.
In spite of the clarity of the law on the matter, I still continue to engage my brother the Nairi on the terms of concessions presented by him to me. Essentially, he asked for a number of towns in the Kusatsu area to be transferred to him to enskin. The impression created was that those towns would prefer to be under the Nairi, essentially.
The request was to have some of the towns brought under the jurisdiction of the Nairi. I decided to engage the chiefs of those towns. After meeting the various chiefs of the towns and communities affected by the withdrawal of recognition following the implementation of the Governor-General’s White Paper in 1957, on the recommendations of the Referring Committee, the withdrawal of the recognition location by the NLC Decree 112, MP, and PNDC Law 75, I have come to the conclusion that there has been significant reconciliation among the various Kusatsus and Mampuses in all the other towns.
Boko was mentioned in the proposed terms of settlement of the Nairi as one of the towns that the Mampusee wanted to be given to the Nairi. Unfortunately, the law as it stands now makes a severe bura to Asuka, the lawful chief of Boko, and so it is impossible legally to do any such indismediation exercise. On the question of Boko Town, I have taken the position that the established tradition since 1931, thereabouts, is that the person who is Boko Naba has the entire Kusatsi area.
By law and the declaration of the Supreme Court of Ghana, Asuka Ibukurago Asuka is a Boko Naba and there cannot be any briber residing in Boko claiming otherwise. I have impressed upon my brother, the Nairi, to accept that recognition by law in appreciation of the enduring brotherhood that has existed between our two kingdoms in order to ensure lasting peace and eliminate the national and international strictures that my brother himself is so concerned about. I have been candid with my brother, the Nairi, that the purported enslavement of Mr. Seguro Abagare as Boko Naba cannot start.
I believe my brother, the Nairi, has come to terms with the difficulty that will pose to achieving lasting peace, which he desires. I have, from the inception, restrained both governments from effecting the arrest of Mr. Seguro Abagare out of respect for my brother, the Nairi. The final resolution of the Boko matters requires that Mr. Seguro Abagare be recalled to Nalirugu by the Nairi to be reassigned to play another traditional role at the Palace of the Nairi, assisted by the state.
Alternatively, he may choose to stay in Boko as an ordinary citizen of the community, but not to pose as Boko Naba. The final recommendation, Mr. President, I recommend that my brother, the Nairi, accepts the laws as presently constituted by Seguro Abagare as the chief of Boko and head chief of the Kusasi traditional area. We chiefs, no matter how exalted, do not live above the constitution of Ghana and the laws duly enacted and affirmed by the courts.
Accordingly, the laws which recognize the secrecy of Boko Haram must be enforced by the government of the Republic of Ghana until changed in accordance with the 1992 constitution or reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ghana. The government must enforce the laws and do stand with any person challenging the lawful authority of the Abagare Asuka. This is critical to the restoration and maintenance of peace in the Kusasi traditional area.
I wish to thank you, Mr. President, and your predecessor, for imposing such confidence in me and tasking me with the mediation of this conflict with a view to find a lasting solution. I also want to thank the Nairi and the Boko Naba for the efforts related to this mediation process. The various chiefs or heads of various communities whom I met in the area who also participated in this endeavor deserve positive commendation.
I have come to the conclusion that the path to a lasting resolution coincides with the enforcement of the current position of the law by the laws of Ghana and by the constitution enacted in 1992 and by the position of the Supreme Court that the matter should never be litigated before it is gained, as Sigiri Abu Agbo Asuka is the lawful chief of Boko and the paramount chief of Kusasi traditional area. He has been a member of the National Asok Chiefs for about 40 years and has been duly deserted. His right to rule should not be disturbed, save through a judicial and constitutional recognized process and which, as already indicated, appears even in a review of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ghana stated herein.
If the pronouncement of the Supreme Court appears not clear enough, remedy may be sought if available for clarification of the same by the Supreme Court. Either way, Boko and its environs will be assured of sustainable and enduring peace.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
