Exploring Attempts at Judicial Resolution of the Nkonya-Alavanyo Communal Conflict in Ghana

While the literature on the Nkonya-Alavanyo conflict references litigation and its apparent ineffectiveness in resolving the conflict, there is a paucity of detail about this litigation. This paper contributes to a more holistic comprehension of the discourses structuring resolution attempts in this conflict, with lessons for the resolution of communal conflicts generally. Drawing on archival data, media reports, and field interviews, we examine the trajectory of the Nkonya-Alavanyo conflict in the Ghanaian judicial system as an example of an intractable communal conflict that has defied legal attempts at resolution. We argue that judicial attempts at resolving the conflict have been ineffective because the resultant juridical discourse is polysemic and - to the extent that the non-negotiable value of justice is a factor in the conflict - is subject to divergent articulations. Second, we submit that the juridical discourse competes with State, civil society, and partisan articulations that do not privilege judicial decisions, with State discourse increasingly being one of militarisation.