The Mamprusis in Bawku in a swift response to the Kusasis’ news conference indicated that the1958 Opoku Afari Commission’s Report in the Bawku chieftaincy conflict was political motivated and was also quashed by the 1958 High Court ruling as the same court ruled in their favour .
Addressing the press in behalf of Alhaji Ibrahim Adam Zangbeogo (Regent), Mr Mr. Ibrahim Kalifa Bugri said “The politically motivated 1958 Opoku Afari Commission’s report was quashed by the High Court ruling in 1958 in favour of we the Mamprusis (The original Chiefs of Bawku). Similarly, the 1958 Appeal Court’s decision was a travesty of justice since the Mamprusis did not get to defend themselves in court because the then 13th Bawku Naba Naa Yirimea Mahama who was the defendant was exiled before the Appeals Court called the case. Furthermore, the Appeals Court ruling which constituted a travesty of justice was quashed by NLCD 112 which normalized the situation in favour ofMamprusis together with other over 500 chiefs across the country who were unjustly destooled/deskinned.
In the 2003 Supreme Court case, it is interesting that these Self-proclaimed Kusasis, apparently, have come to terms with the fact that there was NO ruling on who the rightful owner of the Bawku Skin is. This explains why their statement said “In 2003, the Supreme Court of Ghana, declined the Mamprusis leave to apply to it under articles 270 and 277 of the 1992 constitution” instead of their usual false rhetoric that the court declared them rightful owners of the Bawku skin. Certainly, this obviously does not state that the Self-proclaimed Kusasis are the owners of the skin and any attempt to make such assertion will constitute interpreting the ruling by the Justices which is the sole prerogative of the Supreme Court” he noted .
He added that it was only the National House of Chiefs that was constitutionally mandated to deal with chieftaincy matters and they were glad that they had such rulings in their favour.
They allege as it stands now, no court of competent jurisdiction has set aside the landmark judgments on the conflict.
However, they made some recommendations to government and the security to ensure lasting peace in Bawku and its environs .
“We call on Government to enforce the 1983 National House of Chiefs ruling which categorically stated Mamprusis as the rightful owners of the Bawku skin. As the only body clothed with the power to deal with chieftaincy matters, we believe strongly that this ruling by the National House of Chiefs is more than sufficient to solve the Bawku skin dispute. This explains why the Kusasis in their press statement are vehemently opposed to the idea of setting up a commission of inquiry to look into the matter because they know they will be exposed.
Government should also enforce the 1980 High Court ruling which restrained Abugrago Aninchema and by extension the Kusasis from presenting themselves as ‘chiefs.
The security should with immediate effect set up road checkpoints along the Bawku Bolga and Bawku Pulimakom Road to tackle the banditry perpetrated by Kusasi youth. We are saying this because the continued action of these bandits will escalate the situation and we do not want to be blamed if we react in equal measure.
The security agencies should with immediate effect ensure that no one is blocked or stopped from accessing the Bawku Central Market. The Kusasis have no right to terrorize innocent people simply because they want to access the Bawku Central market” He added.
Source: mywordfmonline.com/Gaspard Ayuureneeya