Colonial Legacies, Legal Orders and Land Relations

Context and background The legacies of colonialism continue to reverberate in Ghana’s land governance structures. The legal frameworks introduced during colonial rule remain deeply embedded within state institutions, influencing land tenure systems and property rights. Colonial administrators, supported by local authorities, codified aspects of indigenous land practices, which are often distorted in their meanings to align with European systems. Over time, these codifications have become entrenched within current legal systems, creating a version of customary land law that deviates from the original communal land practices. Goal and Objectives: This study examines the political and socio-cultural context of land governance among the Bulsa people of Northern Ghana. The following questions are asked: How does colonialism impact the structure of land governance among the Bulsa people? How does the defense of colonial boundary demarcations by native authorities become part of land tenure claims? And what are the implications of these transformations in landownership and the lives of the commons? Methodology: The study was purely qualitative in nature, and we relied on archives, colonial records, statutes, case law, and deed records to explain the evolution of colonial map-making and how the integration of native authorities into the colonial administration impacted the social, cultural, and political structure of land governance in Ghana. We specifically used the Bulsa people of Northern Ghana to explain this evolution. Results: The study reveals colonial map-making was not merely an administrative process; it was a tool of power, used to restructure societies by redefining territorial limits and governance structures. Beyond everyday tools for governance, colonial boundary demarcations were central to colonial control, shaping how land was possessed, utilized, and transferred. Native authorities, incorporated into the colonial framework, were forced to navigate an imposed system that redefined their traditional land governance practices. The integration of these authorities, while seemingly a mechanism for local representation, often served to legitimize colonial rule, which later became an avenue for reinterpreting customs in the postcolonial state. The colonial administration also imposed rigid territorial and governance systems, which continued to shape institutional complexities in the postcolonial state. Subsequently, in the postcolonial state, these fragments are perpetuated through state law and statutes.