What Went Wrong At Aburi: Interrogating the Gap in the Use of Good Offices and Mediation in the Nigerian Civil War

Abstract

Good offices and mediation are traditional means of dispute resolution. Both dispute mechanisms have been used in achieving truce and armistice unrivaled by any other known dispute resolution methods like arbitration, conciliation, and judicial settlement; this is possible because of its overlapping nature and for which distinction is now blurred. This study attempts to distinguish between good offices and mediation, use and abuse in practice and its consequences when improperly applied. Using the constructivist theory, the study interrogates the use of good offices in the conflict stage of the Nigerian Civil War where the Ghanaian Head of State Lt- General J.A. Ankrah had invited parties in Nigerian Crisis to Aburi, Ghana, early steps toward resolving the looming crisis by negotiation. This study identifies some elements of mediation in dearth to have averted the eventual Civil War. It argues that a good offices provider should equally armed self with skills of a full mediator maintaining that the tempo of a negotiation may require switching from providing good offices to full mediation and not necessarily calling off negotiation within negotiation. The study maintains that all that was required in the instance was Lt-General J.A. Ankrah’s reappearance at the table to build consensus while interpreting messages. The study uses secondary sources of data and a qualitative research design. It concludes that negotiation may fail where it is laced with more stoppages as such tempo found to close negotiation may be lost in course of time. It recommends the overlapping skills of good offices and mediation in one breathe evidently lacking at Aburi