I am not a lawyer, and I do not lay claim to superior knowledge of constitutional interpretation. However, in a matter as sensitive and consequential as the Bawku conflict, opinions—especially those that shape public perception—must be weighed carefully. If legal opinions are being offered in the public space, then alternative civic opinions must also be allowed to find expression.
Former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has argued that the mediation process aimed at resolving the Bawku conflict is not grounded in law or the 1992 Constitution. While his legal background gives weight to his views, it must be emphasised that his position remains an opinion, not a ruling by a competent court. As such, it invites public interrogation.
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: did the two principal parties to the Bawku conflict voluntarily consent to the mediation process, and did they participate in it until its conclusion?
If both sides agreed to mediation and engaged the process in good faith, then on what legal or moral basis can the process be dismissed as unlawful or unconstitutional?
Mediation, both in law and practice, is a consensual mechanism for dispute resolution. Its legitimacy does not arise solely from courtroom proceedings but from the willingness of disputing parties to submit themselves to dialogue facilitated by a mutually respected intermediary. If consent was freely given, and participation was sustained, it becomes difficult to argue that the process was imposed or fundamentally flawed.
It is also worth reflecting on Ghana’s own history. Several chieftaincy and traditional disputes—some equally entrenched and violent—have been resolved through mediation involving eminent traditional leaders and peace brokers. If the same approach were applied in Bawku, does that mean all previous mediated settlements were unconstitutional? Or is Bawku being judged by a different standard altogether?
Furthermore, if critics of the current mediation process believe they possess a more legally sound and practically effective solution, the public deserves to know what that solution is—and whether it has ever been pursued. The Bawku conflict is decades old. It has persisted through multiple governments, security operations, commissions of inquiry, and political administrations. Solutions require more than post-event commentary; they require sustained engagement and commitment.
This is precisely why public commentary on Bawku must be measured and responsible. Words carry consequences. In a conflict where tensions remain fragile, commentary that questions the legitimacy of a peace process—without offering a clear alternative—risks undermining progress and reopening wounds.
Peace is not an abstract concept debated from afar. It is a daily reality for the people of Bawku—those who have buried loved ones, closed businesses, withdrawn children from school, and lived under the constant shadow of violence. These are the people who will bear the cost if the peace process collapses under the weight of competing opinions.
This is not to suggest that the rule of law should be sidelined. On the contrary, peace and law must walk together. But the law must also recognise consent, precedent, and context. Where parties agree to mediation and participate willingly, the pursuit of peace should not be casually discredited.
At this critical moment, national discourse should prioritise how to sustain peace in Bawku, not how to delegitimise efforts aimed at achieving it. If one cannot actively help to calm the situation, the least that can be done is to avoid commentary that could inflame it.
Bawku deserves peace—durable, inclusive, and respected. That peace should be protected, not weakened, by the words of those far removed from its daily realities.
The Trial News
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!