ASSESSING THE FAILURE OF GOOD OFFICES AT ABURI IN THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR

Good offices and mediation are long-standing mechanisms of dispute resolution, both historically recognized for achieving truces and armistices with effectiveness often surpassing arbitration, conciliation, and judicial settlement. Their overlapping nature, however, has blurred distinctions between the two, raising challenges of proper application. This study seeks to clarify the conceptual and practical differences between good offices and mediation, examining their use, abuse, and the consequences of misapplication. Anchored in constructivist theory, the paper interrogates the role of good offices during the Nigerian Civil War crisis, focusing on the intervention of Ghanaian Head of State, Lt-General J.A. Ankrah, who hosted the Aburi meeting as an early attempt at negotiated settlement. The study reveals that elements of mediation were absent at critical moments, contributing to the eventual collapse of negotiations and the escalation of conflict into full-scale war. It argues that providers of good offices should be equipped with mediation skills, as the dynamics of negotiation often require seamless transition between both roles. Specifically, it contends that Ankrah’s active re-engagement at the negotiation table could have helped sustain consensus-building and interpretive clarity, preventing the breakdown of dialogue. Drawing on secondary sources and a qualitative research design, the paper concludes that negotiations falter when interrupted by frequent stoppages, as momentum and trust are easily lost. It therefore recommends the integration of overlapping skills of good offices and mediation in conflict resolution practice, as their combined application could avert negotiation breakdowns similar to the Aburi experience.