The mediation of the Bawku chieftaincy dispute has, in recent days, generated cautious public optimism that the process might signal the beginning of lasting peace in the area. The involvement of a respected traditional authority and the submission of a mediation report to the President were widely received as positive steps toward resolving a long-standing conflict.
That optimism has since been accompanied by public debate following the expression of procedural and legal objections to the report by one faction to the dispute, the Mamprugu Traditional Council. Those objections, framed largely in legal terms, have brought into focus the framework governing mediation in Ghana and the limits within which mediation operates as a dispute-resolution mechanism.
Against this background, this piece examines those objections through the lens of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798), focusing not on personalities or politics, but on what Ghanaian law says mediation is, what it is not, and the legal status of a mediator’s report.
What Mediation is in Law
Under Act 798, mediation is fundamentally a process built on facilitation and agreement. It is sometimes described as assisted negotiation, where a neutral third party helps disputing parties to explore options for settlement. The mediator does not decide the dispute, impose outcomes, or pronounce on rights and liabilities. The outcome, if any, remains in the hands of the parties themselves.
This legal character is critical. As mediator is neither a judge nor an arbitrator, the role of the mediator is to assist dialogue, clarify issues, and where appropriate, help the parties identify mutually acceptable terms of settlement.
Voluntariness and Consent
One of the defining features of mediation under Act 798 is voluntariness. Submission of a dispute to mediation must be with the consent of the parties. Even where a court refers a matter to mediation, the parties cannot be compelled to settle or to accept any proposed outcome.
Voluntariness operates at multiple levels. Parties must consent to the mediation process itself, to the choice or acceptance of the mediator, and ultimately to any settlement that may emerge. A party is also entitled to withdraw from mediation at any stage before a settlement agreement is signed.
In this sense, mediation remains party-driven, regardless of the stature of the mediator or the political importance of the dispute.
Powers and Limits of a Mediator
Act 798 confers broad procedural flexibility on mediators. It allows the mediator to conduct joint or separate meetings, make suggestions, and guide discussions in a manner they consider appropriate. At the same time, the Act draws a clear line between facilitation and adjudication.
A mediator may make suggestions to facilitate settlement, but those suggestions have no legal force unless adopted by the parties. Even where a mediator formulates possible terms of settlement, those terms must be submitted to the parties for consideration, comment, and acceptance. The mediator may reformulate proposals in light of the parties’ observations, but cannot substitute personal opinions or unilateral determinations for negotiated agreement.
Where it becomes clear that further mediation will not assist resolution, the mediator may properly declare that the mediation has ended. That declaration marks the conclusion of the process, not the imposition of a solution.
How a Mediation Legally Ends
Under Act 798, mediation ends in only a few clearly defined ways. Most importantly, it ends when the parties execute a written settlement agreement. It may also end when the mediator, after consultation, declares that further mediation is not worthwhile, or when a party declares its withdrawal.
What is significant is that deadlock is a recognised and lawful outcome of mediation. The law anticipates that not every mediation will succeed. Where no consensus is reached, the parties’ rights and liabilities remain exactly as they were before the mediation began.
Settlement Agreement and Binding Effect
A mediated settlement becomes legally binding only when the parties sign a written settlement agreement. Once signed and authenticated by the mediator, such an agreement has the same effect as an arbitral award and may be enforced accordingly.
Absent a signed settlement agreement, there is no binding outcome in mediation. A report, recommendation, or proposal by a mediator does not, by itself, create legal obligations or alter legal rights.
Legal Status and Effect of a Mediator’s Report
A mediator’s report or a settlement agreement reached through mediation can be very powerful. Once the parties agree that the settlement is binding, it is treated as final and enforceable, similar to a court decision. This means that the terms agreed upon are expected to be respected by everyone involved.
However, not every agreement is beyond question. There are limited situations where a mediator’s report can be challenged in court. For example, a party could ask the High Court to set aside the agreement if:
- One party lacked the capacity to participate properly,
- A party did not receive proper notice of the mediation,
- The agreement includes matters outside what was discussed in mediation,
- There was fraud, corruption, or the mediator had an undisclosed conflict of interest.
These safeguards ensure that mediation remains fair while still encouraging parties to reach a genuine settlement.
Mediation and the Path to Recovery in Bawku
This mediation effort offers more than legal closure. It has helped identify solutions that hold the promise of lasting peace. The government’s acceptance of the mediated recommendations, together with its commitment to funding key projects in areas such as infrastructure and agriculture, reflects a clear intention to translate dialogue into tangible recovery. These measures carry the prospect of restoring economic activity, rebuilding social cohesion, and addressing the many losses suffered as a result of the conflict.
While legal concerns raised by the Mamprugu Traditional Council remain, there is hope that these issues will be resolved through engagement and goodwill. If that happens, the mediation settlement can become a practical roadmap for recovery, restoring stability and confidence within the community.
Meanwhile, there is a shared prayer that a final and lasting peace is achieved, and achieved quickly. The continued uncertainty threatens not only the local economy, but the political and social fabric of the area as a whole. Resolving this conflict would allow life in Bawku to return to normalcy, offering the people the peace, security, and opportunity they so deeply deserve.
