Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanism

1.1.What are Institutions?

 are set up or establishment or organization for achieving some
goals of development.
 refer to personalities/infrastructures upon which the development
of the society is anchored.
1.2. Traditional Institutions for Conflict Resolution
 long evolved and anchored on conflict resolution and governance
of the society.
 were modeled along the line of public will and trust have been
coached in truthful operation and pragmatic dynamism.
 The institutions facilitates peace and the enhancement of harmony in
an enabling environment.
 These institutions included the family, palace, market, numerous
associations and supernatural influences.
The Family
 The family is a traditional institution existed in African society.
 The family system revealed welcoming unity so that mutuality was
enhanced.
Market
 In the market the mechanism for maintaining conducive atmosphere
for bargaining was put in place.
 It gave rise to some agents of peace and harmony.
 Palace

 It is the highest political institution

 A royal institution with legitimate authority and a symbol of state formation.

 It represented the splendor of cultural heritage in the traditional societies.

 The king had the sovereign power

 He put a hold and a zeal on the issues of conflict.

•This was done along with the assistance of his chiefs, who met in the palace,
to resolve conflicts especially of criminal tendencies.
 1.3 Problems Associated with the Institutions

 Many of the institutions are gradually fading out.

 They are not strikingly functional as of the past.

 Their tendency for conflict resolution.

 Foreign religions and western education have created new

 That you should know have gone with the wind of colonialism and
foreign religion.
 2. Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanism

 There are various methods of conflict resolution in traditional African

societies.

 Adjudication

 Reconciliation,

 Mediation

 Negotiation and


 2.1. Arbitration

 It is defined as the enabling will and power to decide.

 It determines a course of action quite instrumental to decision

making.

 This let us to understand African will-power to engage in the

absolute control of conflict resolution in their environment.

 Such a will-power must be understood as a process leading to

generate development in the society.
 2.1.1. Significance of Arbitration Method in Conflict Resolution

 It produced great levels of trust, confidence & mutual understanding.

 Its arbitrators had lived up to their expectation of being impartial
 They had interpreted the customs and norms creditably suitable to
issues of conflict handled in the arbitral proceedings.
 The juristic tradition had made it possible to yield positive results.
 The implementation of the arbitral decisions of the arbitrage
practically fitted into the dynamics of cultural heritage.
 Arbitration, therefore, had a long history of existence in theory and
practice in pre-colonial African societies.
 Truth was yet another axis upon which arbitration revolved.
 The parties to the conflict must embrace truth and honesty of
purpose to allow for positive and speedy arbitrage.
 No one was excused or excluded from respecting the truth in the
context of fruitful and functional arbitration in traditional African
societies.
 Decision in arbitrage revolved around duties and responsibilities and
not rights.
 Obligatory sanctions functioned adequately well in traditional
arbitration.
 It recognized humaneness of disposition and discharges normal
responsibilities to one’s neighbor, kin and kith.
 The law and procedure are intelligible and acceptable to the people.

 The majority often gains a hearing.

 Witnesses join in and give their opinion on the merits of a case.

 In brief, judicial procedure reflects the common African principle that government
and decision are ultimately by popular consent (Allott, 1960:68-69).

 Moreover, it is significant to observe that the notion of cooperation and consensus

still predominate in arbitration as with negotiation discuses in the previous unit.

 The notion of cooperation and consensus still predominate in arbitration as with

negotiation discuses in the previous unit.
 2.1.2. Challenges of Arbitration
 The acceptability of the decisions of the arbitrators by the greater
majority (both parties to the conflict and the crowd of audience) was
akin to the degree of their integrity.
 Confidence was expected to be reposed on the arbitrators by the parties
to the conflict.
 Therefore, a lot was demanded from the arbitrators to be relied upon
for demonstrating the art of peace making so earnestly.
 Measuring the degree of development which followed the process of
arbitration was yet a significant challenge
 Therefore, the arbitrators need to demonstrate enthusiasm in their bids
to resolve conflict.
 2.2. Adjudication
 It is defined as the process of reaching and concluding decision on issues of
conflict.
 It is a systematic approach to pronouncing judgment on conflicting situation.
 It tries to identify guilt and innocence in a conflicting atmosphere.
 Judgement was mild and restorative of peace and harmony in the society.
 It is one of the methods of conflict resolution in traditional African societies.
 It projected towards formalizing the rule of law.
 It is a procedural means of adjudging the right or wrong sides of conflict.
 It is, however, punishment inclined and focused.
 It is a difficult task requiring great wits, designing mind, sound memory, quick
action and objective identification of issues.
 It also involves fascinated attention, skillful listening and utmost deliberation to
the degree that the ensuing results became effective.
 The nature of evidence in adjudicatory process was elastic, stretching with high
degree of imaginative focus.
 It was, however, a difficult task to adduce evidence given the nature of the conflict
(simple or complex).
 The complexity of a conflict determined the length of time, adjudicatory technique
or mechanism and number of witnesses to adduce evidence.
 The adjudicators had a long way to go before pronouncing judgment. Whether
simple or complex, evidence must be thoroughly adduced, clearly deciphered and
promissory towards effective adjudication.
 The determination of right or wrong was no doubt very onerous.
 Adjudication in traditional societies was tied down to customs and norms.
 The adjudicators were honest set of people who respect customs and norms.
 They were men of conscience and fear of the supernatural.
 Peacemaking justice as Fadipe (1991) researched, was
peculiar to the process of adjudication among the traditional
societies.
 The machinery of justice was akin to establishing the rapport
for inaugurating peace and harmony.
 Punishment was anchored on the judicious pronouncement of
verdict to a case under adjudication method.
 This left no one in doubt, that evidence had been thoroughly
cross - examined.
 Punishment was not considered as the ultimate rudiment of
the conflict.
 It was, however, desirable for correctional purposes and preventive measure
against re-occurrence of such an offence in the society.
 It behooves on the offenders, therefore, to exhibit robust sense of responsibility
and maturity towards the acceptability of the verdict whose pronouncement was
the collective decision of the adjudicators.

2.2.2. Challenges of Adjudication

 There was difficulty in determining the means of decision making.
 A person outside a particular locality who was tried in a place quite different from
his own run the risk of not meeting the requirements with the host custom and
norm.
 The direction of judgment was very challenging to the adjudicators.
 Thus, you may want to observe the adjudicators and their deliberation before
arriving at and concluding judgment to a conflict in view.
 The adjudicators have to be smart with a thorough level of judgement.
 2.3. Reconciliation
 Reconciliation is a process of restoring order and normalcy to a hitherto worst
situation.
 In conflict parlance it means a way of reaching agreement or compromise
towards healing the wounds of misunderstanding.
 It is a positive means restoring friendly relationship and thereby prevent chaos or
crisis.
 It is a method of conflict resolution in traditional African societies.
 It also paved the way for members of the society to channel their thought pattern
around mutual understanding.
 It recognized the dynamics of pacification and the soothing( calming) “medicine”
for the vexed parties to the conflict.
 The process of pacification and persuasion revolved around the expertise and
experience of the pacificator.
The third party in the reconciliatory process must possess the following attributes:

 Ability to listen;

 Capacity for interaction;

 Passion for understanding the issues of the conflict;

 Knowledge of customs and norms of the society;

 Discerning mind for the interpretation of facts;

 Understand the mood of the parties to the conflict;

 Readiness to appraise objectivity; and

 Determination to restore peace and harmony.

 The language of conciliation and persuasion must be a comforting oil and
must penetrate to the psyche and conscience of the parties to the conflict.
 This was why proverbs and maxims were instrumental to nailing the truth
and ascertaining the facts expressible in the issues of conflicts.
 The responsibility of the reconciliatory was anchored on
To moderate injured feelings,
To restore peace,
To reach a compromise acceptable to both disputants and
To satisfy the desires of the people for social justice (Matson 1953:48).
 Driberg (1934) claimed that the responsibility went beyond the
reconciliatory and fell in the society.
 Because there was collective responsibility for a course of action in
traditional African societies.
 Interestingly, reconciliation was accorded a human face position.
 It was not “a winner takes all” affair.
 The parties to the conflict were made to understand the consequences of
their action towards affecting social justice and development.
 There was no victor, no vanquished in the resulting verdict given.
 The parties enjoined to give peace a chance by shifting the ground of their
annoyance and aggression.
 They were made to exhibit the “forgiveness” of the conflict through:
 demonstration of apology,
 display of hugging each other,
 showing evidence of joy by smiling,
 public eating and drinking in a gourd together; and
 appreciating the modalities of reconciliation.
 The public demonstration of the acceptance of the verdict of reconciliation
involved that the end justifies the means.
 Reconciliation method as you will find out was a magic captivating the
interests of the parties to the conflict and the civil society.
 Reconciliation requires proper language of persuasion to achieve, a soft
word, no doubt, turns away anger hence the words of elders are anchored
on wisdom.
2.3.2. Characteristics of Reconciliation

 It paved the way for further development in societies.

 It integrates the real aspects of the process to present day development
process.
 Reconciliation allowed for the demonstration of human face and the
upholding of good conscience and mannerism.
 It often bridged gaps in societal goals and understanding.

 Harmony among groups was borne out of reconciliation.

 Always set it on fire and restored order and peace.

 The collective will and customs of the society made reconciliation

fruitful and functional.

 Thus, it preserves of all in traditional societies.

 It was upheld as the collective responsibilities.