Mediation Lessons From The Sudan By Valentino Buoro – TheNigerialawyer

For the first time in the history of this Column we are today
focusing on an issue in politics – not because of political
persuasions or stance, but the significant role mediation is
playing to shape the political lives of a people – the Sudanese

It is no longer news that the Government of former President
Omar Al Bashir was toppled by the Sudanese Military on April 6 this
year, following massive protests by the Sudanese people who boldly
stepped out to say enough is enough.

Soon after that development which has seen the main rulers of
yesterday in confinement, the people were not yet done. They needed
assurances of a return to a civilian rule since according to them
the new military leaders were active participants in the ousted
regime. Again they poured out into the streets of Khartoum and many
other cities, in response to the call of the Alliance for Freedom
and Change to demonstrate in millions. According to journalists and
observers, the number of demonstrators this time around exceeded
the number of protesters on the demonstration of April 6, which led
to the overthrow of President Omar Al Bashir.

As I write this however, the issues between the Sudanese people
and the Military Junta has been resolved through mediation
facilitated by African Union (AU) and Ethiopian mediators.
According to news reports, the ruling Transitional Military Council
and the opposition Alliance for Freedom and Change (AFC) have
reached an agreement on power sharing during a transitional period
of three years and three months. The presidency will rotate and a
technocratic government will be formed by the AFC. The agreement
was announced in the early hours of Friday morning July 5. A legal
committee will work out the agreement into a watertight text, which
is to be signed within two days. The transitional period starts
when the text is signed, African Union mediator Mohamed Alhassan
Lebatt said.

For those not familiar with the dynamics of mediation, the
announcement last Monday that the parties had agreed on most points
except one contentious issue was certainly troubling. The question
then was, would the mediation succeed or fail? This situation was
not helped when African Union envoy to Sudan Mohamed Lebatt and
Ethiopian mediator Mahmoud Drir called on the parties to directly
negotiate to discuss the point of contention. However the Alliance
for Freedom and Change renewed at a press conference on Monday
evening its reservation on direct negotiations with the
Transitional Military Council before agreeing on the basic issues,
declaring their adherence to the joint African-Ethiopian
initiative.

What you have seen play out in the preceding paragraph is the
finest of the traditions of mediation. You should take an interest
in the mediators’ position that the one contentious issue yet
unresolved should be negotiated directly between parties. The
mediators were not minded to offer any suggestions or make an input
because mediation agreement is what the parties themselves have
decided to do. It was not also unusual as the Alliance for Freedom
and Change insisted, that they will have no direct negotiations
with the Transitional Military Council; declaring rather their
adherence to the joint African-Ethiopian Initiative. This is a
familiar scenario that plays up often and again in mediation.

The reservation of the AFC is not without foundation. It is all
so often that when contending parties negotiate directly there is
the likelihood of a stalemate since each party is stuck to its
position which triggered the mediation in the first instance. No
one has told us how this point of contention was resolved. We may
never know, because mediation is confidential.

The happy ending of the power contest between the people of
Sudan and their military is a great lesson for all political
observers and active players in Africa. There can be no better
evidence of the use, capacity and power of the mediation process.
As we say in mediation, the first victory is the willingness and or
acceptance of contending parties to come to table for an attempt at
mediation. During the course of mediation, certain points may be
agreed upon while others remain unresolved at first attempt. When
this occurs parties must remain calm and keep an open mind to a
continuation of efforts to resolve the issues.

The Sudanese mediation victory should also be an eye opener for
Nigerian politicians and political office holders. All it takes to
lessen the tension in and around governance is the willingness to
listen to voices of dissent and to share the awesome hold on power
with others who indisputably have a stake.

The Nigerian judiciary has commendably taken great strides to
institute the practice of mediation in the court system. An
appreciation and use of these methods will deepen democracy and
institute an egalitarian society. Mediation does not in any way
deny you the use or the legal protection of your lawyers. When at
any mediation parties have agreed on what to do, it behooves on
their legal counsel who attend such sittings to reduce these into
an enforceable legal text. That is what the Sudanese mediation
agreements expressly stated. In a country like ours which is
already blessed with a robust Attorney-Mediators and Mediation
Advocates groups, we are all set for the next levels if we so
commit.

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!