11/01/2026
A brief Response to Martin A. B. K. Amidu’s Article on the 10/01/20263
REF: Response to Martin A. B. K. Amidu’s Article
“Making Alhaji Seidu Abagre a Martyr with an Obnoxious Preventive Detention Undermines the Resolution of the Bawku Conflict”
By Abu Tia Jambedu (PhD)
11 January 2026
________________________________________
Indeed, old bones ache when facts are mentioned.
This article responds to the key arguments advanced by Martin A. B. K. Amidu in his undated article, which has been widely circulated on social media.
I acknowledge from the outset that I am not a lawyer by training. However, issues that are factual, historical, and grounded in lived customary realities should not be mischievously twisted to serve parochial interests. I therefore respond to Mr. Amidu’s article as I deem necessary. The era of distorting facts to suit personal narratives is over.
It is both curious and absurd that Martin Amidu, a former Attorney-General of Ghana, consistently criticises governments for allegedly placing electoral politics above the enforcement of law on chieftaincy recognition under Article 270 of the 1992 Constitution and the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759).
He further claims that “the chieftaincy component of the Bawku conflict was resolved conclusively long before the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution on 7 January 1993, with Bawku-Naba Asigiri Abugrago Azoka II being the recognised and gazetted Overlord of the Bawku Traditional Area, until the Nana Akufo-Addo government covertly interfered with the status quo by facilitating the enskinment of a rival chief by the Nayiri in Nalerigu on Wednesday, 15 February 2023, with traditional ceremonies and increased security provided by the government.”
These assertions raise serious moral, ethical, and consistency questions. My earlier article “WHERE IS THE MORALITY? On 31/12/2025 dealt with the first aspect broadly. Mr. Amidu, who once served as PNDC Secretary for the Upper East Region and played an active role in the promulgation of PNDC Law 75 and benefited greatly now accuses governments of politicising chieftaincy enforcement. One is compelled to ask:
Is this sudden moral outrage a reflection of regret over the consequences of PNDC Law 75, which he helped to draft?
Is it frustration over perceived lost relevance and current bloodshed?
Or what exactly is his interest in Bawku, given that he is neither Mamprusi nor Kusasi, nor a royal custodian of Bawku customary institutions?
Core Counter-Arguments
1. Martin Amidu as a Conflict Entrepreneur, not a Neutral Arbiter
• Martin Amidu is neither Mamprusi nor Kusasi, nor a custodian of Bawku customary traditions.
• His repeated public interventions suggest political and reputational self-interest and attention seeking rather than a genuine commitment to peace and conflict resolution.
• His prominence appears tied to the persistence of the conflict; consequently, he benefits more from legal controversy as a led counsel for one of the contesting parties than for peace. For him business as usual.
2. The Bawku Chieftaincy Dispute Has Not Been Conclusively Resolved by Any Court
• No court of competent jurisdiction in Ghana has conclusively determined the Bawku chieftaincy dispute in a manner that extinguishes competing customary claims.
• Administrative actions, committee reports, PNDC laws, or political declarations do not constitute final judicial settlement under customary law.
• Statements such as those attributed to then-presidential candidate John Dramani Mahama during his 3 February 2024 campaign visit to Bawku and his subsequent pronouncement that the supreme court has brought finality—asserting that there was “only one known king”—do not amount to lawful adjudication.
• Campaign pronouncements in party programmes, or “procured”mediation/arbitration reports cannot replace definitive customary resolution.
From the standpoint of Indigenous conflict resolution, the absence of consensus and final customary adjudication means the dispute remains unresolved in customary law. Therefore, Mr. Amidu’s repeated claim that the matter is “settled beyond dispute” is inaccurate. I dare Martin Amidu as a lawyer worthy of his sort to cite me or anyone for contempt of court.
3. The Naa Abagre Claim Predates Colonialism, Independence, and the 1992 Constitution
• Claims associated with Naa Alhaji Seidu Abagre are rooted in pre-colonial Mamprugu political history, long before:
o British indirect rule,
o Ghana’s independence,
o PNDC Law 75, and
o The 1992 Constitution.
• Labelling Abagre’s claim as “impersonation” reflects historical amnesia and ego-driven legalism rather than genuine legal clarity.
4. The 1992 Constitution Cannot Create, Transfer, or Extinguish Customary Titles
• Chieftaincy is created by customary law, ancestry, lineage, and tradition—not by constitutional or political manoeuvring.
• The 1992 Constitution:
o Recognises chieftaincy,
o Regulates its administration,
o Does not create, redistribute, or extinguish customary legitimacy.
• Consequently, no constitution can take a customary title from one lineage and bestow it upon another.
5. Legal Reductionism Cannot Resolve a Customary–Historical Conflict
• Mr. Amidu reduces a multidimensional and transdisciplinary conflict—historical, anthropological, spiritual, political, and social—into a narrow law-and-order problem.
• This approach:
o Ignores indigenous governance systems,
o Delegitimises ancestral memory,
o Escalates resistance and martyr narratives.
No amount of state coercion can suppress identity-based claims rooted in history. Comparable global cases, including the Israel–Palestine conflict, demonstrate that force alone cannot resolve identity conflicts. A dispute grounded in history, ancestry, and legitimacy cannot be resolved through legal fiat without reproducing injustice and instability.
6. The 1992 Constitution’s Own Definition of a Chief Undermines Amidu’s Position
The Constitution defines a chief as:
“A person who, hailing from the appropriate family and lineage, has been validly nominated, elected or selected and enstooled, enskinned or installed as a chief or queenmother in accordance with the relevant customary law and usage.”
This definition has three cumulative requirements:
1. Appropriate family and lineage;
2. Valid nomination, election, or selection;
3. Installation in accordance with relevant customary law and usage.
Critical Implication for Bawku
• Mamprusis and Kusasis do not hail from the same family or lineage.
• If chieftaincy legitimacy is lineage-based, then two unrelated lineages cannot logically contest the same chieftaincy skin under the same customary regime.
• The dispute therefore cannot be reduced to “impersonation” versus “state recognition” without resolving the foundational lineage question, which Mr. Amidu entirely sidesteps.
7. Why Are Two Distinct Lineages Contesting One Skin?
This raises a fundamental question Mr. Amidu avoids:
• If chieftaincy is lineage-specific,
• And Mamprusis and Kusasis are distinct peoples with different genealogies, customary systems, and ancestral origins,
• How did one chieftaincy skin become the object of inter-ethnic contestation in the first place?
8. Relevant Judicial Authority: Republic v. Abdul-Rahaman Suleman Afoli (2011)
Republic v. Abdul-Rahaman Suleman Afoli
High Court, Bolgatanga
Case No. D16/14/2011
Judgment delivered on 25 March 2011 by Justice P. K. Richardson
Abdul-Rahaman Suleman Afoli was charged for writing and distributing a document alleging that there was no chief in Bawku, titled “Attention: Public Notification of the New Chieftaincy Act of 2008 (Act 759) and the Chieftaincy Bulletin, Vol. 1, November 2009,” addressed to municipal security authorities in Bawku.
A careful reading of the full judgment clarifies critical issues and the limits of criminalisation. It does not lie with Martin Amidu to unilaterally declare who is or is not a chief.
Conclusion
Sustainable violent conflict resolution cannot be achieved through the use of brute force, but rather negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and diplomacy by thoroughly tracing each claimant geneology or lineage to the skin. This is the reason why Martin Amidu cannot be the chief of Bawku.
Therefore, Martin Amidu’s argument reflects legal reductionism and selective constitutionalism, not a viable pathway to peace. The Bawku conflict is not merely a law-and-order problem; it is a deeply rooted customary, historical, and identity-based ethic dispute. Such conflicts cannot be resolved through intimidation, arrests, censorship, or political posturing.
History consistently demonstrates that coercion does not extinguish legitimacy-based claims. Arrests and intimidation often harden resistance, deepen grievance narratives, and elevate contested actors into symbols of injustice. When a people perceive their history, lineage, and customary rights to be under assault, state force does not produce compliance; it produces defiance and moral mobilisation.
The experience of Nelson Mandela is instructive. He was arrested, imprisoned, and subjected to prolonged detention, yet incarceration did not extinguish the cause he represented. On the contrary, imprisonment amplified the moral legitimacy of his struggle, and he ultimately emerged to lead his people. Across Africa, many independence leaders were detained and criminalised by colonial regimes, only to later assume leadership upon independence. These examples underscore a simple but enduring lesson: detention does not defeat ideas rooted in identity, history, and justice.
Similarly, no amount of state force will compel the Mamprusi people or the Nayiri to abandon a customary claim over Bawku that is grounded in centuries of history and lineage-based legitimacy. Arrests and intimidation may temporarily suppress expression, but they cannot resolve the underlying question of legitimacy. Sustainable peace in Bawku can only be achieved through historical honesty, customary engagement, and inclusive dialogue, not through coercive enforcement detached from the lived realities of the people.
In sum, peace cannot be legislated into existence through force. It must be constructed through legitimacy, recognition of history, and negotiated coexistence.
