When Does Dispute Resolution Hold? Lessons from Three Ghanaian Case-Studies

Abstract

ABSTRACT Conflicts relating to chieftaincy succession are recurrent among some monarchies in Ghana, and scholars have extensively debated their causes, resolution, and peacebuilding approaches. There have, however, been limited studies into the role that local actors’ acceptance or rejection of the selected method of dispute resolution plays in the resolution of chieftaincy disputes. This study fills this gap by using a multiple case study design involving 45 participants recruited through a maximum variation purposive sampling technique to understand the peacebuilding processes in the Yendi, Bole, and Bawku conflicts in northern Ghana. Primary data was collected through interviews and focus group discussions and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The study revealed that indigenous, liberal, and hybrid approaches to conflict resolution were employed in the conflict resolution processes in northern Ghana. It further revealed that the stakeholders in Yendi and Bole generally accepted these approaches because of their congruence with existing peacebuilding practises, norms, traditions, and customs. However, in Bawku, some of the approaches were not aligned with the norms of some of the conflict actors, resulting in their rejection. Based on these findings, the study argues that the appropriateness and effectiveness of conflict resolution approaches in resolving chieftaincy conflicts depend more on the level of acceptance they receive from the stakeholders than on the type of approach used. The study underscores the prioritisation of local cultural practises and norms in the design and implementation of conflict resolution approaches.