The Paramount Chief of Mamprugu has rejected the mediation report regarding the Bawku chieftaincy dispute, asserting that mediators facilitate discussion but should not impose decisions.
He emphasised that the historical rights of Mamprugu cannot be disregarded.
“I, the Nayiri, Overlord of Mamprugu, wish to formally and unequivocally distance the office of the Nayiri and the people of Mamprugu from the so-called mediation report presented by Otumfuo Osei Tutu II in respect of the Bawku Chieftaincy Dispute.
I have taken note, with profound disappointment and grave concern, the presentation described as a “report and recommendations” by Otumfuo to His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Ghana, John Dramani Mahama, on 16th December 2025.”
The stat Kent comes after the government issued it’s official position regarding the report and it’s recommendations.
Government accepted the outcome of the report which recognised chieftaincy of Naba Azoka II.
In a statement released Wednesday, December 17, 2025, and signed by Government Spokesperson Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the government fully endorsed the report’s findings, describing it as a “fact-based and forward-looking roadmap” designed to restore stability to Northern Ghana without assigning blame to any side.
The government also referenced the legal clarification regarding the Bawku chieftaincy.
According to the government, this was in line with previous Supreme Court rulings; Naba Asigri Abugrago Azoka II is the sole lawful Bawku Naba.
But the Chief of Mamprugu opposes the report saying “I must state clearly and without reservation that the so-called report and recommendations does not reflect my engagements with Otumfuo, nor those of my duly constituted mediation team. I therefore formally reject the report and recommendations in its entirety for the following reasons:
- The purported report and recommendations in question do not constitute a valid mediation, and any attempt to present it as binding or to seek government enforcement is legally untenable, procedurally flawed, and constitutionally impermissible.
- Otumfuo expressly described his role as that of a mediator and not an arbitrator. Notwithstanding this, the document purports to pass judgment and to prescribe measures for enforcement—acts wholly inconsistent with the nature, limits, and essence of mediation.
- Despite repeated and formal requests by my mediation team, no Terms of Reference were ever provided to govern the mediation process, contrary to the expectations that both the former President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, and the current President, John Dramani Mahama would have clearly indicated what these terms of reference were.
- I am compelled to ask: what manner of mediation permits a mediator to unilaterally reach determinations and call for their enforcement without first affording the parties an opportunity to be heard on the reasoning, views, or proposals underpinning such determinations?
- At no point were the parties invited to engage with, comment on, or respond to the conclusions said to have been reached. If any deliberations occurred, they were conducted entirely without the knowledge, participation, or consent of Mamprugu.
- A mediation report, properly so called, must faithfully reflect the positions advanced by the parties, identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and record any consensual outcomes achieved through facilitated dialogue.
- It cannot lawfully or legitimately substitute the mediator’s personal opinions, recommendations, or decisions for the negotiated positions of the parties.
- To do so is to abandon mediation and to assume an adjudicative role for which no jurisdiction exists.
- The recommendations contained in that report therefore amount to a unilateral determination imposed without due process, in clear violation of the audi alteram partem principle and the foundational rules of natural justice.
- For these reasons, the recommendations are procedurally flawed, legally unsustainable, and wholly unacceptable to me and to the entire Mamprugu people, both within and beyond the borders of Ghana.
- I am further constrained to ask whether the established principles of mediation have now been altered to permit a mediator to ground recommendations on selective reliance on committee reports and court decisions, rather than on the promised traditional, consultative, and facilitative approach.
- The report is replete with factual inaccuracies, personal assertions attributed to the mediator, and a manifest imbalance in favour of one party’s narrative, while almost entirely omitting Mamprugu’s case.
- For the avoidance of doubt, it is entirely false to suggest that I ever agreed to the continued recognition of Aninchema as Bawku Naba.
- It is equally disturbing that both parties to the mediation were absent at the presentation of this so-called report, which is now being portrayed as having enjoyed their acceptance.
- One must reasonably ask why duly mandated representatives of the parties were denied the opportunity to comment—an opportunity that could have lent legitimacy to any claimed endorsement—while other organisations were selectively invited instead.
- To say that I feel betrayed, disappointed, and deeply hurt would be a grave understatement.
- I am further alarmed by statements attributed to His Excellency the President, suggesting that government intends to issue a definitive position within twenty-four hours based on this report.
- Such an approach, respectfully, will not advance the peace we all seek. I urge the President to engage fully with all parties and with the mediator before taking any action founded upon this deeply flawed document.
- The contents of the report appear calculated to cast Mamprugu in an unjust and unfavourable light, notwithstanding our consistent good faith and commitment to peace.
- I will not remain passive in the face of what appears to be a carefully orchestrated process, conceived long before the commencement of mediation, and designed to prejudice Mamprugu.
- Not even an inch of Mamprugu’s ancestral heritage will be ceded to anyone, especially through an unjust and clearly orchestrated process.
- I stress that this so-called mediation ended in a clear DEADLOCK, with no consensus reached between the parties.
- The Mamprugu side made concessions in good faith at the request of Otumfuo, concessions which were later acknowledged and praised by President John Dramani Mahama. These were nevertheless rejected outright by the Kusasi side, without any attempt to move toward the middle ground that mediation demands.
- It was therefore my reasonable expectation that any mediation report would remain within the limits prescribed by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 795), by reporting the deadlock rather than purporting to reach final determinations or legal conclusions—especially where law was never argued, and where the mediator is neither judge nor arbitrator.
- As I have always maintained, I stand firmly for peace and shall continue to pursue that path. However, peace cannot and will not be built upon injustice.
- I entreat all within Mamprugu to continue to remain calm and law-abiding.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
