Indigenous Mediation and Continental Integration: Lessons From Ghana for AfCFTA Dispute Resolution Framework

Keywords

Indigenous Mediation, African Dispute Resolution, AfCFTA, Cross-Border Disputes, Traditional Authority, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Communal Society, Trade, Ghana, Bawku Mediation

The mediation undertaken by His Majesty Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, the King of the Ashanti Kingdom (Asantehene) of Ghana, in the Bawku chieftaincy dispute constitutes a defining development in Africa’s dispute resolution landscape. While the matter is domestic in origin, the process, structure, and outcomes provide concrete institutional lessons for the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), particularly in shaping a dispute resolution mechanism that is credible, legitimate, and responsive to Africa’s socio-legal realities.

The mediation process commenced in April 2025 with separate consultations at the Manhyia Palace in Kumasi, Ghana. These engagements were deliberately structured to lower tensions, rebuild trust, and restore dialogue between the parties. The process climaxed in a final two-day mediation session held on November 30 and December 1, during which the Asantehene consistently emphasized reconciliation, restraint, and the imperative of ending the cycle of conflict. The sequencing and duration of the process underscore the value of patience, continuity, and moral authority in complex dispute environments.

Finally, on December 16, 2025, the Asantehene formally presented a comprehensive mediation report (“the Bawku Conflict Mediation Report”) to His Excellency the President, John Dramani Mahama at a united gathering of government officials, security officials, religious leaders, chiefs and other key stakeholders at the Jubilee House in Accra.

The report consolidated the findings of the mediation, articulated clear recommendations, and issued a collective call for peace, unity, and institutional compliance. This formal presentation positioned the mediation outcomes firmly within Ghana’s constitutional and governance framework, bridging indigenous process with state accountability.

Beyond these findings, the Asantehene issued a clear call to both factions and to government institutions to commit to implementation, uphold the rule of law, and work collaboratively toward lasting peace. Importantly, this call respected both traditional frameworks and Ghana’s constitutional order, reinforcing the complementary relationship between indigenous authority and modern state governance.

The Asantehene’s intervention in the Bawku conflict illustrates how indigenous mediation can be operationalized within a modern constitutional framework. Otumfuo Osei Tutu II was formally mandated to mediate between the Kusasi and Mamprusi factions in a conflict that has spanned decades and has been marked by recurring violence and significant loss of life and property. The mandate itself reflects institutional recognition of traditional authority as a viable dispute resolution partner within the contemporary governance ecosystem.

A defining strength of mediation, particularly within the African context, lies in its deliberate rejection of a winner-takes-all mentality. Rather than producing absolute victors and defeated parties, mediation prioritizes mutual understanding, shared interests, and the pursuit of common goals. Within African communal society doctrines, disputes are understood as disruptions to collective harmony rather than contests to be won. Mediation therefore serves a restorative function, enabling peaceful coexistence, preserving social and commercial relationships, and reinforcing communal bonds. This relational dimension is especially critical for cross-border trade and continental integration under AfCFTA, where trust, continuity, and long-term cooperation are essential to sustainable economic interaction.

For AfCFTA, the implications are significant. Cross-border trade disputes across the continent often involve parties embedded in local communities, customary systems, and informal commercial networks. Formal litigation or arbitration alone may be ill-suited to these contexts, particularly where relationship preservation and voluntary compliance are vital. The Bawku mediation illustrates that mediation grounded in indigenous legitimacy can deliver outcomes that are both authoritative and durable.

From a policy perspective, AfCFTA’s dispute resolution mechanism should move beyond a narrow focus on adjudication. Mediation should be institutionalized as a core component, supported by clear procedures, culturally competent mediators, and structured linkages to national legal systems for recognition and enforcement. Where appropriate, engagement with traditional authorities should be viewed as a strategic asset rather than an informal accommodation.

In addition to its role in customary and cross-border disputes, mediation should be strategically commercialized across Africa to address business and trade-related conflicts. All commercial disputes, whether involving enterprises, investors, or trade networks, can benefit from mediation, which allows parties to resolve differences efficiently while maintaining ongoing business relationships. Unlike adversarial litigation, which often produces winners and losers, mediation fosters collaboration, shared problem-solving, and the continuity of economic engagement.

By developing professional, market-oriented mediation services and integrating them into national and regional commercial frameworks, Africa can create a credible ecosystem for dispute resolution that supports investment, reduces transaction costs, and strengthens confidence in cross-border trade. Such commercialization of mediation aligns directly with the objectives of AfCFTA, where the preservation of business relations and the smooth functioning of continental markets are essential for sustainable economic integration.

Mediation is not an imported construct within the African dispute resolution system. It is an indigenous mechanism rooted in history, communal authority, and consensus-building. This tradition has endured because it delivers outcomes that command social legitimacy and foster long-term stability. What is required is its deliberate integration into contemporary dispute resolution frameworks governing trade and cross-border interaction.

By drawing lessons from Ghana’s experience and embedding indigenous mediation within the AfCFTA dispute resolution mechanism, Africa can advance a system that is efficient, legitimate, and aligned with the continent’s long-term economic and governance objectives.