The spokesperson of Mamprusi’s in Bawku and Member of Nayiri Legal Team, Dauda Jawara Salifu has disagreed with calls to remove rival chief, Abagre Seidu to restore calm in Bawku.

Jawara Salifu argued that Mr Seidu is a native of the land therefore it is not right for him to be treated as such.

In an interview on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, November 2, he said “Don’t forget that he is a father, grandfather, head of family, head of clan and his spiritual and wise guidance is needed by his people so you cannot exile somebody and ask that don’t come back to your hometown because when you do, there would be some bloodshed,” he said.

• Read also: Bawku conflict: Removal of rival chief will bring calm – Asamoah Boateng

This follows the Minister of Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs, Stephen Asamoah Boateng, who has attributed the ongoing conflict in Bawku, which has resulted in 19 deaths, to the presence of the rival chief, Seidu Abagre.

He believes that locating and removing Mr Seidu from the area will ease the tension.

Mr Asamoah Boateng indicated that anyone whose presence fuels instability, regardless of their identity, should be made to leave the area.

Read also: Bawku conflict: No one should play politics with this sensitive matter – Chieftaincy Minister warns

Mr Salifu noted that he expected that the factions in the conflict would exercise restraint and allow due legal process to go on.

He added that he did not anticipate the return of Mr Seidu to Bawku to create the mayhem.

Mr Salifu further questioned the illegality comment over Mr Seidu’s enskinment.

According to him, Mr Seidu was enskinned by a Nayiri who is the kingmaker of Bawku, adding that Mr Seidu was just a beneficiary.

He added “When you go to the Constitution, Article 277, it clearly states how somebody becomes a chief. Nobodu has said that Seidu does not hail from Bawku, a royal lineage and that his enskinment was not done according to the custom of tradition of Mamprusi.

“So when people say that there was an illegality, is it to say that it did not comply with Article 277 or any other provision under the Chieftaincy Act?”