Conflicts in Northern Ghana: Search for Solutions, Stakeholders and Way Forward

Abstract

Ghana, compared to many other African nations, has been described as a peaceful and stable country. Nonetheless, there are several ethno-political and religious conflicts some of which have been ongoing in the country for several years. The conflicts could be broadly categorized as inter-and intra-ethnic conflicts. This paper gives an account of some of the major conflicts in Northern Ghana that have drawn national attention, most of which were/are violent. It examines the causes of these conflicts, some of which include the struggle for traditional power and supremacy, claims of ownership of land and politically and religious-motivated. While inter-ethnic conflicts are generally about sovereignty and claim to land, intra-ethnic conflicts are mostly about succession. The outcomes of these conflicts have made coexistence either very difficult in certain areas or even impossible. The analysis is based on a qualitative historical analysis of four case studies on the northern Ghana conflicts. Data were drawn from secondary and primary sources. Although earlier studies have taken this historical narrative form, it is also necessary to reexamine the cases on a comparative basis and to especially analyze the strategies that have been employed to manage, resolve or transform them. Understanding the dynamics of these interventions is necessary for the search for lasting peace. The paper also assesses the roles and involvement of major stakeholders in conflict management, resolution and prevention in northern Ghana and finally suggests a way forward.

The Effects of Chieftaincy and Land Conflicts on the Socio-political Development of Northern Ghana

“…In northern Ghana, the bi-cephalous groups, using their well-organised political and military institutions were able to International Journal of Social Science Research ISSN 2327-5510 2017 gain dominion over other acephalous groups who lacked this organisation (Hippolyt, 2003;Mahama, 2010). The initial determination of in-group reality on the basis of land was by the identification of this resource in terms of location and its appropriation by ascription to identified ethnics.…”

“…The bicephalous groups came late, settled among the acephalous groups and imposed political leadership on them, who accepted the conditions by withdrawal to resort to conflict (Martinson, 1994). This was because the bi-cephalous system was strange to the original occupants of the land, who did not foresee the future implications of their being ruled by the new comers (Mahama, 2010).…”

“…His son, Prince Ali was also made the Paramount Chief of Bawku. Since then, the paramountcy and other sub-chiefly positions in Kusasi land have been occupied by Mamprusi rulers (Mahama, 2010). There was therefore a situation where the majority and the minority groups lived together as one group but with distinct identities, indicating a possible latent conflict for the future.…”

“…The northern part of Ghana was chosen for this study because out of a total of 14 ethnic conflicts recorded by Mahama (2010) that took place in Ghana from the 1940s to 2010, seven cases, representing 50 percent, took place in this part of the country, most of which have remained protracted (Kendie & Bukari, 2012). As shown in Table 1, examples include the land and chieftaincy disputes between the Mamprusi and the Kusasi in the Upper East Region of Ghana, which traces its origin to as far back as the colonial administration in the Gold Coast.…”

“…These may happen where conflicts develop such that emotions lead to bitter exchanges between the disputants (Botchwey, 2006). Thus, until the periods between 1940 and 1994, the Dagomba and the Konkomba, the Mamprusi and the Kusasi; the Gonja and the Mo; and the Sissala and Dagaaba, lived in peace with each other sharing common environments, resources and common aspirations from the benefits of development, which they collectively worked for (Mahama, 2010). With the emergence of the chieftaincy conflicts or the demarcation of political administrative boundaries for the purpose of local governance, the relationship between the parties grew bitter to the extent that they did not want to set eyes on, or associate with each other.…”