The Constitution and the King’s Peace: A Response to Martin Amidu

Former Attorney-General Martin Amidu’s constitutional questions on the Asantehene’s mediation in Bawku demand a rigorous response. While his vigilance is commendable, his conclusions are not supported by Ghana’s 1992 Constitution or its dispute-resolution framework. This mediation is a legitimate, complementary peace-building effort within our constitutional ecosystem.

The critique’s fundamental error is conflating mediation with adjudication. The Asantehene exercises no judicial power under Article 125, nor determines chieftaincy rights under Article 274. Mediation is a consensual, non-binding process whose legitimacy flows from the parties’ voluntary participation, not constitutional conferment. This view finds support from scholar Moses Deyegbe Kuvoame, PhD, who notes in his response that “The Asantehene was not acting as a traditional judge… He facilitated dialogue as a neutral, respected national figure.”

Concerns about undisclosed terms of reference find no legal grounding. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 795) explicitly recognises mediation but imposes no requirement for public procedural formalities. The legal imperative is the parties’ informed consent, not public disclosure.

Similarly, presenting a report to the President does not convert mediation into binding arbitration. Under Article 58, the President bears supreme responsibility for national peace and security. Receiving a report to inform executive action is prudent statecraft within this constitutional mandate. As Kuvoame argues, “The Constitution entrusts the President with responsibility for peace, security, and national cohesion… Nothing in the Constitution forbids the President from seeking the assistance of a respected national figure to facilitate dialogue.”

A rigid reliance on the “status quo ante January 7, 1993” risks ignoring lethal realities. The Constitution protects chieftaincy but does not preclude non-coercive efforts to prevent bloodshed. Bawku’s evolution into a severe internal security challenge demands a constitutional interpretation responsive to existential threats while faithful to foundational values.

The Constitution itself envisions a complementary role for tradition. Article 270(1) guarantees chieftaincy, and Article 39(1) obliges the State to preserve our cultural heritage. These provisions recognise that traditional dispute-resolution mechanisms are intrinsic to our social fabric, operating alongside formal state institutions. Ghana’s history provides precedent; the Dagbon resolution was achieved through acclaimed traditional mediation supported by state action.

In conclusion, the Asantehene’s mediation does not usurp constitutional authority. It operates within a Constitution that recognises chieftaincy, encourages alternative dispute resolution, and prioritises social cohesion. This defense aligns with a pragmatic philosophy of governance. As Kuvoame compellingly states, “Ghana’s Constitution exists to protect life, dignity, and unity. It was not written to elevate procedure above human survival. Leadership in times of conflict requires judgment, balance, and moral courage.”

Constitutionalism is not a doctrine of inaction. In Bawku, peace-building and constitutional fidelity are indispensable partners. The Constitution, in its wisdom, makes room for the King’s peace.

by Seth Kwame Awuku

Seth Kwame Awuku is a Ghanaian legal analyst and writer on constitutional governance.

 

 

For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z

 

Editor’s note: Views expressed in this article do not represent that of The Chronicle

The post The Constitution and the King’s Peace: A Response to Martin Amidu appeared first on The Ghanaian Chronicle.

Read Full Story