Tiduguma Nayiri, Naa Bohagu Abdulai Mahami Sheriga of Mampurugu has accused the Ashantehene of taken a unilateral decision regarding the recommendations of the what he described as the “so-called mediation report” presented to President Mahama yesterday on the Bawku Chieftaincy dispute.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
17TH DECEMBER, 2025
Also Read
BAWKU CHIEFTAINCY DISPUTE: NAYIRI FORMALLY REJECTS PURPORTED MEDIATION REPORT AND ANY ATTEMPT AT GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT OF THE SO-CALLED RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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?
