The Bimoba Traditional Council has called on the Nayiri, overlord of the Mamprugu Traditional Area, to publicly clarify his position on the long-running Bunkpurugu chieftaincy dispute following renewed gunfire and violence in the area.
The Council says the continued uncertainty over the Bunkpurugu skin is deepening divisions among the people and risks undermining efforts to restore lasting peace.
Its call comes after renewed gunshots were reported in Bunkpurugu on Monday and Tuesday, September 7 and 8, 2026, with two people reportedly injured in attacks and counter-attacks. Joint police and military patrols have since been deployed, while the North East Regional Security Council has considered additional measures, including a possible full curfew.
In a statement signed by its legal team, the Bimoba Traditional Council said the latest violence could not be separated from the unresolved questions surrounding the legitimacy and succession of the Bunkpurugu skin.
The Council argued that chieftaincy is a customary institution whose legitimacy must be established through recognised royal lineage, genealogy, customary law and established succession practices.
It said personal ambition, political influence or administrative preference could not, by themselves, confer a customary right to a traditional skin.
Council relies on historical records
At the centre of the Council’s argument is a 1931 memorandum concerning a dispute between Yoagbat Toojak and Parimaak Jajing over the ownership and traditional authority of Bunkpurugu.
According to the Council, the document, reached under the authority of Naa Waafu and involving representatives of the relevant Luok Clan families, recognised the Jamong family as entitled to the Bunkpurugu skins.
The Council further claimed that the document had subsequently been authenticated through the office of the Nayiri’s Tarana during proceedings at the Northern Regional House of Chiefs.
It questioned why such a historical record should subsequently be disregarded if it remains valid and relevant to the customary ownership of the skin.
“If the 1931 memorandum is considered unreliable, invalid or incapable of determining customary entitlement, then the people of Bimoba deserve to know precisely why,” the Council said.
National House of Chiefs ruling
The statement comes against the backdrop of a major development in the dispute this year.
The Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs ruled in 2026 that the Jamong family is the only recognised royal family entitled to present candidates for the Bunkpurugu skin.
The 83-page judgment rejected claims that succession rotates among the Jamong, Jafok and Nampauk families and found that documentary evidence supported the Jamong family’s claim.
The Committee also found that Lambong Taapang of the Jafok family had served as a caretaker chief between 1986 and 2005 rather than as a substantive Bunkpurugu Naba.
It subsequently directed the head and elders of the Jamong family to nominate an eligible candidate or candidates for presentation to the Nayiri for selection and enskinment.
The Bimoba Traditional Council says the ruling should now provide an important basis for resolving the dispute rather than allowing competing historical narratives to continue fuelling tension.
Council questions Nayiri’s silence
The Council’s strongest criticism is directed at what it describes as the absence of a sufficiently clear public explanation from the Nayiri on the historical and customary basis for the competing claims.
It is demanding answers on the status of the 1931 agreement, the applicable customary law and the historical basis for recognising competing lineages.
“If the Nayiri’s position is that the Jamong claim is historically or customarily untenable, let the evidence establishing that position be stated clearly,” the Council said.
It also urged all parties to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, threats, unlawful acts and retaliation.
The Bunkpurugu chieftaincy dispute has persisted for decades, with academic research tracing the conflict mainly to competing claims between the Jamong and Jafouk families of the Louk clan. Previous clashes have resulted in deaths, destruction of property and displacement.
The Council maintained that no traditional skin was worth the destruction of human life and called for the historical record, customary law and decisions of competent institutions to be respected.
“Peace without truth is merely a temporary suspension of conflict,” it said.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
