By RANIA H.
The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) has criticized former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo’s efforts to facilitate dialogue between the Federal Government and Tigray authorities, questioning the neutrality and substance of his mediation initiative.
In a statement issued on September 6, TPLF said it remains committed to resolving the conflict through peaceful dialogue but argued that any meaningful peace process must be led by an independent and impartial mediator.
The party questioned whether Obasanjo’s initiative was sufficiently independent from the Federal Government, citing what it described as a lack of concrete proposals, prior consultation and a clearly defined path toward dialogue.
TPLF recalled that Obasanjo visited Tigray in June and reportedly indicated that he would return within one or two weeks. However, according to the party, he did not return until nearly two months later.
TPLF said Obasanjo subsequently explained that officials from the Federal Government had asked him to delay advancing his peace initiative until the National Dialogue conference was concluded.
The party argued that the explanation raised concerns about the extent to which his mediation efforts were influenced by the Federal Government.
It further alleged that some of Obasanjo’s subsequent visits to Tigray were made at times when the Federal Government sought to demonstrate to the international community that it was pursuing peace.
TPLF said the visits were not accompanied by clear agendas or substantive proposals and that his latest visit similarly failed to establish a concrete framework for negotiations.
According to TPLF, an effective mediator should operate independently, remain impartial, closely monitor developments and work toward solutions without providing political legitimacy or advantage to any party accused of abuses.
The party also criticized what it described as insufficient and inconsistent international attention to the situation in Tigray, arguing that mediation efforts should focus on addressing the suffering of victims rather than concealing or prolonging abuses.
Despite its criticism of Obasanjo, TPLF reiterated that it was prepared to participate in peaceful negotiations.
It said it would engage in a credible, reality-based and time-bound process aimed at securing a fair and lasting peace, provided that the process is facilitated by an independent and impartial mediator.
Disputes over implementation of Pretoria agreement
TPLF’s statement also raised broader concerns about the implementation of the November 2022 Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (CoHA), signed between the Federal Government and TPLF.
Nearly four years after the peace agreement was signed, TPLF argued that it had failed to produce sufficient improvements on the ground. It blamed what it described as inadequate monitoring by the African Union High-Level Panel and international partners, which it said had allowed implementation to become largely controlled by the Federal Government.
The party accused the Federal Government of maintaining what it called an economic blockade, military pressure, political restrictions and psychological warfare against Tigray.
It also alleged continued drone scouting and attacks in parts of the region, as well as the deployment of troops and weapons and attacks against Tigray forces in Sheraro.
TPLF further pointed to remarks by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in the House of Peoples’ Representatives, which it interpreted as indicating that the CoHA had lost significance for the Federal Government.
The party said the remarks raised questions about the agreement’s continuing relevance and the basis for current peace initiatives. The Federal Government has not, in the statement cited by the TPLF, been presented as accepting these allegations.
TPLF also rejected comparisons between the Tigray conflict and the Nigerian Civil War, particularly the experience of Biafra, as a potential model for resolving the conflict.
The party argued that the Nigerian Civil War was characterized by military siege, economic blockade, starvation and attacks on civilians before ending with the defeat of Biafran forces. It therefore questioned whether the Biafra experience could provide an appropriate model for achieving a peaceful settlement in Tigray.
Obasanjo’s August visit
Obasanjo visited Mekelle on August 24 and met with Tigray Regional President Debretsion Gebremichael as part of his continuing efforts to facilitate dialogue.
According to the Office of the Press Secretariat of the Tigray Regional President, the visit took place without a prior appointment.
Tigray authorities reportedly expressed disappointment over the lack of meaningful follow-up to discussions held during Obasanjo’s June visit.
During the June discussions, five issues were reportedly identified as possible entry points for dialogue between the Tigray authorities and the Federal Government. The United States has meanwhile expressed support for Obasanjo’s continued involvement in the peace efforts.
U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia Ervin Massinga and Walter Parks, Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Mission to the African Union, said Obasanjo’s role in carrying out his African Union mandate remained important and expressed hope that he would return to Tigray soon.
The U.S. officials also urged authorities to prioritize the worsening drought affecting millions of people and ensure that internally displaced people are able to return to their homes safely and with dignity.
“We look forward to engaging former President Obasanjo” on the issue, the U.S. officials said, emphasizing that peace and stability in Tigray are critical to Ethiopia’s future.
Despite its criticism of Obasanjo, l TPLF said it was ready to participate in negotiations if they were conducted through a credible, impartial and time-bound process aimed at achieving a lasting political settlement.
