1

AFRICA SECURITY BRIEF

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Africa: 

Preventing Conflict and Enhancing Stability

BY ERNEST E. UWAZIE 

A PUBLICATION OF THE AFRICA CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES

◆ Backlogged court dockets in Africa, often requiring claimants to wait years, are common. The resulting 

perception that justice cannot be attained through official channels is a potential catalyst for intergroup 

violence and political instability.

◆ Alternative Dispute Resolution is an increasingly popular complement to official legal channels to resolve 

less serious disputes in a timely manner through mediation while enhancing claimants’ sense of justice.

◆ Establishing legislation supporting Alternative Dispute Resolution as well as broadening the number and 

caliber of mediators can expedite the adoption of this mechanism.

HIGHLIGHTS

NO. 16 / NOVEMBER 2011

typically do not function, the need for prompt resolution of disputes is particularly critical. Without timely, accessible, affordable, and trusted mechanisms to 

resolve differences, localized disagreements or crimes 

can degenerate into broader conflict. This contributes to cultures of violence and vigilante justice.

In a southern Nigerian community in May 2006, 

for example, approximately 100 organized, angry 

youth confronted village-hired armed watchmen after several months of complaints that the watchmen 

repeatedly harassed villagers, beat them with ropes, 

Many African citizens have lost faith in the ability of their nations’ courts to provide timely or just 

closure to their grievances. A 2009 survey in Liberia 

found that only 3 percent of criminal and civil disputes 

were taken to a formal court. Over 40 percent sought 

resolution through informal mechanisms. The remaining 55 percent went to no forum at all. This includes 

cases where claimants felt the need to take justice into 

their own hands, often with violent consequences.

In postconflict and fragile contexts, where societal tensions are already high and justice systems 

We have decided to take another measure since government has failed to address our case. . . . Yes, the 

only system I can try now to work is violence to carry on hostility, organize my brothers because we are hurt and the 

government is not sensitive to our feeling. We will go and jump on the perpetrator and kill him in the same way.1

—Brother of victim of alleged ritual killing in Liberia
2

extorted money, and sexually assaulted some young 

girls. During the confrontation, one of the youth was 

shot by a watchman. The police responded by arresting a number of other young men. This further 

aggravated the sense of injustice in the community, 

stoking fears of retributive violence. As the village 

leadership was seen as siding with the watchmen in 

order to cover up the leaders’ complicity in the affair, 

respect for village authorities and elders among the 

youth plummeted, further weakening social stability. 

The incident simultaneously exacerbated a lingering 

chieftaincy dispute in the community that had been 

pending in court for 10 years.

Even when courts are involved—while they may 

address the legal question, since they are not focused 

on conflict resolution or mitigation—they may miss 

the underlying catalyst. At times, court judgments 

can escalate disputes. As one Nigerian lawyer noted, 

“when the judge proclaims a winner, that is the beginning of the real conflict.”2

 Formal litigation, grounded in an adversarial process, is limited in ensuring 

fairness and satisfaction for disputants.

Lack of confidence in the justice sector has a profound impact on governance in a society. According 

to a recent survey conducted in 26 African countries, 

respondents who expressed confidence in their judicial 

systems were more than three times as likely to say 

that they have confidence in their national governments. Indeed, the relationship between confidence 

in national government and confidence in the judicial 

system was the strongest among any other institution 

surveyed—including the military, electoral systems, 

and religious authorities. In other words, trust in the 

judiciary is often a litmus test of citizens’ judgments of 

their governments.3 The lack of predictability in the 

legal environment, furthermore, undermines private 

sector investment and development.

Despite numerous attempts at modernization, 

many African countries are still struggling to establish 

functional, timely, and trusted judicial systems. Most 

courts in Africa are fraught with systemic problems, 

such as antiquated structures. Countless judges still 

take notes by hand, as there are no stenographers. Records are archived manually and a reliable computer 

in an African court is rare, especially at the magistrate 

courts that handle most cases. The biggest problem, 

however, is overcrowding. Many judges or magistrates 

have over 100 cases per day on their dockets, a number impossible to adjudicate. It can take many years to 

get to trial and months to have a motion heard. Disputants often express frustrations at the “come today, 

come tomorrow” syndrome and mounting legal fees 

for professional representation with each futile court 

appearance. It is not uncommon in African countries 

for a dispute to take a decade or more to reach resolution. As a foreign diplomat in East Africa once joked, 

“it is easier for one to pass through the mouth of a lion 

than go through the . . . legal system.”

These lengthy delays, in turn, open the court 

system to manipulation. The chairman of Nigeria’s 

Independent Electoral Commission lamented in 2010 

that “our courts have been overburdened and sometimes overwhelmed,” enabling litigants to exploit the 

system’s dysfunction to “delay or frustrate the course 

of justice.”4

In many cases, this ineffectiveness reflects the 

“in-between” state of African justice structures. The 

formal legal system is overloaded and cannot provide 

timely and effective closure. It is also more costly 

in time and money for disputants. Meanwhile, the 

sphere of influence of the traditional justice system 

has been greatly diminished with modernization, 

especially in urban areas. The average Ghanaian 

disputant would prefer the indigenous chief’s arbitration, just as an Ethiopian would prefer to turn to 

the traditional Shimangele (elder) for conciliation of 

most civil or family matters. However, these options 

are not available for many citizens.

Dr. Ernest E. Uwazie is a Professor of Criminal Justice 

at California State University–Sacramento and the Executive Director of the Center for African Peace and 

Conflict Resolution. 

“respondents who expressed 

confidence in their judicial 

systems were more than three 

times as likely to say they 

have confidence in their 

national governments”
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) encompasses a series of mediation mechanisms for resolving conflicts that are linked to but function outside 

formal court litigation processes.5 Whereas trials are 

formal affairs governed by strict rules, mediation involves third-party neutrals facilitating negotiations 

between disputing parties.6 The focus of mediation is 

usually on the interests of the parties themselves as 

opposed to their negotiating positions. It is designed 

to provide an opportunity for claimants to have their 

views heard and undertake a process that satisfies all 

sides in a way that a court proceeding cannot.

Mediation is most effective and appropriate for 

conflicts that have multiple parties, have ongoing or 

long-term relationships that the parties wish to preserve, 

require confidentiality, or are driven by underlying issues 

rather than the immediate facts or events being disputed. Well-trained mediators know that the process itself 

is as important as the outcome. When disputants believe 

that their positions have been seriously considered, it 

increases their buy-in to settle and comply with resolutions—as they primarily value the integrity of and the 

opportunity to participate in the process.7 In this way, 

mediation allows parties to feel they have received their 

“day in court” in a way that trials commonly do not.

Mediation revolves around the help of an independent facilitator or mediator who has developed finely 

honed counseling and resolution skills through training 

and life experience. An initial mediation training curriculum of 40 to 60 hours includes practical exercises on 

the anatomy and analysis of conflicts, theory, mediation 

ethics and strategies, communication dynamics, active 

listening techniques, cross-cultural competency, consensus-building, and bringing the parties to closure, among 

others. Trained facilitators guide the mediation process 

to ensure trust, confidence, and productive communication between parties. Outcomes may range from the 

parties’ gaining a better understanding of each other’s 

points of view to the parties’ arriving at a written and 

even binding agreement.

The process usually begins well before the parties 

meet in mediation. The mediator makes sure that the 

parties understand what the process entails, that it is 

voluntary and resolution-seeking, and that the parties 

agree to participate. Wrongs are also acknowledged 

and recommended future behavior is emphasized. 

Mediation assumes that the parties are willing, rational, able, and motivated to settle. Motivation of the 

parties to settle is weighed against the consequences 

of an imposed judgment, stalemate, or “self help” 

(that is, parties taking matters into their own hands).

Mediation—and ADR more generally—has 

helped courts around the world reduce delays and 

costs to litigants, deliver justice faster and fairly, and 

allow parties to exercise control over their case resolution without feeling alienated.8

THE ADR TRACK RECORD IN AFRICA

The notion of ADR fits comfortably within traditional concepts of African justice, particularly its 

core value of reconciliation. Pioneering ADR projects in Ghana, Ethiopia, and Nigeria have generated 

positive results and illustrate the suitability of ADR 

in African contexts.9 Under these arrangements, 

ADR was used as the default resolution method. 

Formal court litigation, or instances where the judge 

actually judges, are reserved for cases of constitutional 

or legal interpretation, where there is a need to set 

precedence, in cases with major public policy implications, or as a last resort after ADR has been tried.

As part of a project on judicial reform, for example, Ghana held its first mediation week in 2003 

in which about 300 cases pending in select courts in 

Accra were mediated over 5 days. The effort was a 

major success, with 90 percent of surveyed disputants 

expressing satisfaction with the mediation process and 

stating that they would recommend it to others. The 

achievements of this initiative led to a followup ADR 

round in 2007 where 155 commercial and family cases 

from 10 district courts in Accra were mediated over 4 

days. Almost 100 cases were fully mediated or concluded in settlement agreements. Eighteen cases reached 

partial agreement and were adjourned for a later mediation attempt. A total of 37 cases were returned to 

court. The 2007 program was expanded through 2008, 

“mediation allows parties to feel 

they have received their ‘day 

in court’ in a way that trials 

commonly do not”

3
and over 2,500 cases in seven district courts in Accra 

were mediated, with over 50 percent of the cases completely settled. This demonstrated both the scale and 

potential reduction in backlog that ADR can generate. More than 40 district courts in Ghana have since 

initiated court-connected ADR programs. In the ADR 

Center in the town of Ashaiman, for example, a group 

of five mediators settled 476 of 493 cases considered 

between January and June 2011. By 2013, all district, 

circuit, and high courts in Ghana will have functioning mediation programs, with a projection of 10,000 

case mediations annually—significantly reducing the 

pressure on Ghana’s court system.10

Ghana’s positive experience with ADR greatly influenced the creation of the country’s landmark ADR 

legislation in 2010—finalized after nearly 10 years of 

consultations, consensus-building, bill drafting, and 

multiple changes in government leadership and in the 

judiciary. ADR Act 798 is the most comprehensive 

ADR legislation in Africa. Under Section 82 of the 

law, mediation agreements are recognized as binding 

and enforceable as court judgments. The Ghana experience provides potentially useful lessons for other 

African countries contemplating ADR, especially regarding the importance of gaining official support and 

funding, establishing relationships between mediators 

and traditional chiefs to maximize the complementarity of their efforts, and instituting the enforceability 

of out-of-court settlements or mediation agreements.

During an initial ADR project in Ethiopia in 

August 2008, 31 cases from the civil and family court 

dockets from the Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association (EWLA) in Addis Ababa were referred for 

mediation. During the 3 days of the pilot, all cases or 

complaints were handled by newly trained mediators, 

17 of them resulting in full settlements, 6 in partial 

agreement or adjournment, and 8 returned to court 

or the EWLA. As in Ghana, over 90 percent of disputant survey respondents expressed satisfaction with 

the mediation process, an intention to use it in the 

future, and a willingness to recommend it to others.

Since the creation of the pioneering Lagos Multidoor Courthouse and its ADR Center in 2002, disputing parties now have the option of choosing among 

court-connected alternative methods to resolve their 

disputes, including the Lagos State Ministry of Justice’s 

Citizen Mediation Centers (CMC). Similar multidoor 

courts and CMCs either currently exist or are emerging 

in a dozen other locations in Nigeria, with an average of approximately 200 cases mediated monthly and 

resolution or settlement rates ranging from 60 to 85 

percent. This represents a significant portion of caseloads in Nigeria where it is not unusual for judges to 

add up to 50 new cases to their docket each day.11

In November 2009, in an effort to elevate and expand the use of ADR as well as generate publicity and 

educate the legal profession, Lagos State held its first 

mediation week. About 100 medium-scale commercial disputes were selected from the Lagos Island High 

Court docket with the consent of disputants, lawyers, 

and judges and scheduled for mediation over 5 days. Using lessons learned from earlier experiences, nearly 60 

percent of the mediations resulted in agreement. Over 

98 percent of disputants surveyed expressed satisfaction 

with the process, and nearly 70 percent said they preferred mediation to court litigation. Most of the participating lawyers also found the process satisfactory and 

indicated that they would recommend it to their clients.

THE FUTURE OF ADR IN AFRICA

ADR can contribute to building an effective dispute settlement system and bridge the gap between 

the formal legal system and traditional modes of African justice. The institutionalization of ADR in African legal systems should also bolster security and development. While some conflict is inevitable in any 

society, its effective resolution directly hinges on the 

availability of trusted processes and skilled personnel. ADR is a practical tool to foster peacebuilding 

and conflict resolution at both the interpersonal and 

community levels. By reducing disaffection with the 

lack of access to justice—and the perceived need for 

disputants to take justice into their own hands—the 

potential for violence and rebellion is reduced.

ADR is also a potentially valuable mechanism 

for stabilization and statebuilding efforts. From land 

disputes in Liberia, to reconciliation in Côte d’Ivoire, 

and competition for resources aggravated by widespread displacement in Africa’s Great Lakes region, 

ADR can deliver quick (though not immediate) relief 

to some recurrent conflict triggers in fragile contexts, 

while more complex and long-term judicial sector 

4
5

“by reducing disaffection with 

the lack of access to justice . . . 

the potential for violence and 

rebellion is reduced”

restructuring and capacity-building unfolds. In the 

newly emerging state of South Sudan, for instance, 

studies of intercommunal disputes found that conflicting parties sought an “organic mechanism for the 

court members to advise one another and improve 

their capacity to handle changing and interethnic 

cases, rather than necessarily to produce binding 

agreements or fixed definitions of law.”12 With a view 

to meeting this need while fostering longer term judicial development, one of the first public acts of South 

Sudan’s first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 

Chan Reec Madut, was to call for wide use of ADR 

mechanisms in the still inchoate judicial system.13

Notwithstanding these benefits, ADR programs 

in Africa face key challenges, including inadequate 

political support, human resources, legal foundations, 

and sustainable financing. Many governments are slow 

to understand or recognize the need for ADR, hence 

ADR programs are often donor initiated. The lack of 

national or local government support constrains institution-building that will in turn spur the development 

of personnel and create an enabling legal framework. 

Furthermore, some lawyers view ADR as a threat to 

their income, especially among those without any 

ADR exposure. Some judges may also resist ADR for 

fear of losing “control” over nonlitigation processes of 

resolution or out-of-court settlements.

Any effective ADR system must have a flexible 

design structure that is rooted in satisfying the interests 

of the parties in dispute and professionally administers fair justice in a dynamic yet culturally appropriate 

manner. To integrate ADR as a popular and effective 

tool in building a stronger culture of justice in Africa, 

several steps by governments and donors are required:

Enact robust ADR legislation. While most 

African court rules or policies permit the judge to 

encourage parties to settle out of court, enacting 

legislation would elevate the status of ADR before 

a skeptical disputant, build public confidence, and 

further increase ADR utilization. Legislation would 

also provide a framework for reference, review, and 

reform as well as institutionalize much needed education and professional training.

Invest in broad capacity-building. National and 

local governments and international partners should 

invest in training and infrastructural support for ADR 

networks comprised of mediators and advocates who 

can continually advance best practices. In addition to 

legal professionals, capacity-building efforts should include training of local and religious leaders, traditional 

authorities, election officials, police and security personnel, human rights organizations, public complaints 

bureaus or offices of ombudsmen, and women and youth 

leaders. This would increase the country’s conflict mitigation and prevention capacity as well as reduce the 

number of cases that burden court dockets. Particular 

emphasis should be given to supporting ADR networks 

in Africa’s conflict-prone and postconflict countries and 

communities. Given the high levels of community participation and legitimacy achieved in ADR experiences 

thus far, ADR could also play a vital healing and trustbuilding role in transitional justice contexts.

Create appropriate incentives for stakeholders. 

To develop and broaden adoption of ADR mechanisms, 

their benefits and contributions to legal professionals 

must be clear. For lawyers, strategic use or inclusion of 

ADR should offer an additional tool to enhance the efficiency of their practice, potentially increase revenue, 

and achieve greater satisfaction for both the lawyer and 

client. Awards and recognitions by the legal profession, 

including reviews for senior advocates and national 

merit honors, would also elevate the support and use of 

ADR among members of the bar and bench.

Measure progress. To maximize the efficiencies 

and complementarities of ADR with the official judicial process, a systematic monitoring process should be 

established. This includes measuring key qualitative and 

quantitative data that would then lead to adjustments in 

the scope and focus of ADR efforts. Indicators include 

ADR usage, percentage of cases filed and processed 

through ADR vs. court litigation, the average time 

spent on a case, the number of successful ADR settlements with agreements reached, the number of qualified 

ADR practitioners and trainers, the number of ADR 

institutions and services in the country, community acceptance, and level of service satisfaction by disputants 
6

and practitioners. The ultimate test of an ADR system 

will be how much it affects a country’s conflict vulnerability and mitigation capability.

Target youth early. With nearly 70 percent of the 

African population 30 years old or younger, a substantial rate of youth restiveness is inevitable and poses a 

major challenge to the already strained criminal justice 

systems that cannot afford excessive incarceration. The 

ADR technique of victim-offender mediation for lowlevel offenses, such as fights, vandalism, and petty theft, 

could serve as a more effective alternative to more costly 

and punitive approaches. Likewise, ADR techniques 

to address youth unrest and violence based on peace 

education and restorative justice principles should be integrated into school programs. One pilot project in the 

Niger Delta region of Nigeria in which schools launched 

peer mediation programs demonstrated reductions in 

acts of school indiscipline (fights, drug use, bullying, 

cheating) and gender biases, an increase in school attendance and critical skills (communication, problemsolving, leadership), and popularity among teachers, 

principals, students, and participating communities.14

NOTES

1

 Deborah H. Isser, Stephen C. Lubkemann, and Saah 

N’Tow, Looking for Justice: Liberian Experiences with and Perceptions of Local Justice Options, Peaceworks No. 63 (Washington, DC: 

United States Institute of Peace, 2009), available at <www.usip.

org/files/resources/liberian_justice_pw63.pdf>.

2

 Kekarias Kenneaa, at an Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) training in Addis Ababa, December 29, 2007.

3

 Magali Rheault and Bob Tortora, “Confidence in Institutions,” 

Harvard International Review 32, no. 4 (Winter 2011), available at 

<http://hir.harvard.edu/india-in-transition/confidence-in-institutions>.

4

 Jacob Segun Olatunji, “How INEC’ll resolve election disputes—Jega,” Nigerian Tribune (Ibadan), November 12, 2010.

5

 Stephen Goldberg, Frank Sander, and Nancy Rogers, Dispute Resolution, 2d

 ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1992).

6

 Kimberlee Kovach, Mediation: Principles and Practice (St. 

Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1994).

7

 Wayne D. Brazil, “Court ADR 25 years After Pound: Have 

we found a better way?” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution

18, no. 1 (2002).

8

 David B. Lipsky and Ronald L. Seeber, “Appropriate Resolution of Corporate Disputes: The growing use of ADR by U.S. 

Companies,” Cornell/PERC Institute on Conflict Resolution, 1998.

9

 The ADR projects in Ghana and Ethiopia were implemented between 2003 and 2008 with funding from the U.S. Department 

of State with Ernest Uwazie as the Principal Investigator/Project 

Director. The Nigeria project was implemented from 2008-2009 

and was funded by the World Bank with Ernest E. Uwazie as the 

social scientist consultant and trainer. References to the ADR experiences in these countries are drawn from these projects.

10 “Strategic Plan for Judicial Service ADR Programme 

2008–2013,” The Judicial Service of Ghana, available at <http://

www.judicial.gov.gh/>.

11 Abdulwahab Abdulah and Tosin Adejuwon, “ADR Will 

Decongest the Courts—Fashola,” The Vanguard (Lagos, Nigeria), 

November 3, 2009.

12 Cherry Leonardi et al., Local Justice in Southern Sudan (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, October 2010), 82.

13 Ngor Arol Garan, “Chief Justice Calls for Speedy Dispute 

Resolution,” Sudan Tribune, September 13, 2011.

14 The author was project director of the initiative, which 

was funded by the JAMS Foundation.

AFRICA CENTER FOR 

STRATEGIC STUDIES

Director: Ambassador William 

M. Bellamy (Ret.)

National Defense University

300 Fifth Avenue, Building 21

Fort Lesley J. McNair

Washington, DC 20319-5066

Phone: + 1 202-685-7300

Web site: www.africacenter.org

AFRICA CENTER 

REGIONAL OFFICE 

IN DAKAR

Deputy Regional Manager: 

Claude Toze 

Phone: 221 33 869 61 60

Email: TozeC@ndu.edu

AFRICA CENTER 

REGIONAL OFFICE 

IN ADDIS ABABA

Regional Manager:

Brad Anderson

Phone: 251 11 517 4000 

Email: AndersonBG@state.gov

AFRICA SECURITY BRIEFS

Editor: Joseph Siegle, Ph.D.

Phone: + 1 202-685-6808

Email: Sieglej@ndu.edu

The Africa Security Briefs series presents research and analysis 

by ACSS experts and outside scholars with the aim of advancing 

understanding of African security issues. The opinions, conclusions, 

and recommendations expressed or implied within are those of 

the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 

U.S. Department of Defense or any other agency of the Federal 

Government. For more information on ACSS, visit the Web site at 

http://www.africacenter.org.

The Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS) supports the 

development of U.S. strategic policy toward Africa by providing highquality academic programs, undertaking policy-relevant research and 

analysis, and fostering awareness of and open dialogue on U.S. strategic 

priorities and African security issues. Toward these aims, the ACSS 

is committed to building networks of African, American, European, 

and international military and civilian leaders and articulating African 

perspectives to U.S. policymakers.

AFRICA CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES

http://www.africacenter.org

ISSN 2164-4039