Transitional Justice and the Question of Ethnic Crises in Nigeria

Abstract

British colonialism forced different ethnic groups together to form a nation called Nigeria. Since independence in 1960, the country has witnessed series of ethnic conflict. Various factors have contributed to this, such as political manipulation, marginalisation, corruption, favouritism, census manipulation, exploitation, inequality and others. These extraneous factors have affected the unity, peace, development and progress of the country. The question is whether wholesale transitional justice mechanisms should be employed to resolve myriads of ethnic crises in the country. What are the other forms of transitional justice mechanism to be adopted? While acknowledging the relative peace and stability recorded, adopted peacebuilding methods have not led to effective and enduring peace in Nigeria. Additional peacebuilding mechanisms should be considered such as reparations, institutional reforms and prosecution. To ensure peaceful coexistence is strengthened, transitional justice mechanisms must be holistic. Therefore, this Chapter concluded that peacebuilding methods could be complemented by justice, reparations, security, vetting, prosecution, development and guarantees of non-repetition of conflicts.

1. Introduction

British came to Nigeria as explorers, missionaries and colonialists. They created Lagos colony between 1862 and 1885. In 1885, scramble and partition of African continent by the Europeans took place at Berlin Conference in Germany. Nigeria became British colony as a result of the conference. British divided Nigeria into two protectorates: the Southern protectorate; and the Northern protectorate for administrative purposes. On January 1, 1901 Nigeria became a full-fledged British empire with three distinctive administrative units such as Lagos colony, Southern protectorate and Northern protectorate. In 1906, Southern protectorates and Lagos colony were merged by the British authorities. In 1914, Southern and Northern protectorates were amalgamated. The amalgamation of the protectorates gave birth to a geographical expression called Nigeria. Before independence in 1960, a federation of three regions had evolved. It was Governor Arthur Richard that introduced regionalism to Nigeria by creating three regions in 1946, namely: the Western, Eastern and Northern region. The three regions represented by the three major ethnic groups in the county namely, Yoruba, Ibo and Hausa.

British pronounced Nigeria as an independent country on October 1st, 1960. The country was divided into three regions of the North, East and West. In 1963, Nigeria became a republic, excised from the control of the Queen of England. Military boys ceased the rein of government from the civilian government in January, 1966. There was a counter coup in June 1966, which led to the creation of an additional region, the Mid-western region. In 1976, the three regions were developed into twelve States by the military government of General Yakubu Gowon. It was General Muritala Muhammed that further divided the country into nineteen States in 1976. In 1987, another States creation exercise took place, General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida increased the number of Nigerian States to twenty-one. In 1983, General Babangida, a Hausa / Fulani man from the North annulled the general election won by Chief Moshood Kashimawo Abiola, a Yoruba man from the Southwest. The annulment created ethnic and political tension. The annulment brought interim government of Chief Ernest Shonekan to power. Chief Shonekan, a Yoruba man from the Southwest was removed from power through a palace coup led by General Sani Abacha, another Hausa/Fulani man from the North who ruled with the iron fist.

It was General Sani Abacha that further divided the country into thirty-six States and categorised them into six geo-political regions, namely: Southwest, Southeast; South-South; Northeast; Northwest and North-Central. 1999 marks the dawn of democracy after military occupied power for thirty years out of thirty-nine years of the country independence. The election produced Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, a Yoruba man from the Southwest of the country. He was replaced through election woby Dr. Musa Umaru Yar’ ardua, a Northerner who died on power in 2010. Being the Vice-President, Dr. Ebele Jonathan Goodluck was constitutionally promoted to replace late President Umaru Yar’ardua. The ascension of President Jonathan to power in 2010 paved way for his success in 2011 presidential election. In 2015, President Johnathan was removed from office by general Muhammed Buhari, a Northerner, on the promises of fighting corruption, tackling terrorism and revamping the economy. The processes of removing President Johnathan were coloured with ethnic hatred, regional chauvinism, regional bigotry and “born to rule syndrome” of the Northerners. Ethnicity reflects in everything among Nigerians. The country is divided between majorly Muslims North and Christians dominated South. Ethnicity determines political appointments, job allocations, contract awards, economic empowerment, military service, internal security arrangements, education, and political participation. Ethnicity often led to crisis of a great magnitude that always shook the foundation of the country. Majority of people do not consider Nigeria as a nation but a country because of ethnicity.

Nigeria had attempted to resolve crises emanated from ethnicity. Various transitional justice mechanisms have been adopted such as truth commission, memorization, acknowledgement and others. It is important to note that these mechanisms have not brought enduring peace because they were piecemeal arrangements that failed to address ethnic questions such as equity, equality, justice and nationalism. The question is whether wholesale transitional justice mechanisms should be employed to resolve myriad of ethnic crises in the country. What are the other forms of transitional justice mechanism to be adopted? While acknowledging the relative peace in the country, it can be argued that adopted transitional justice methods have not led to effective and enduring peace in Nigeria.

This Chapter is divided into sections and subsections. Section one presents introduction while section two examines contexts of the study. Section three reviews method of conflict resolution while section four provides research method adopted in this study. Section five discusses major findings while the last section addresses the conclusion of the study.

2. Contexts

Contexts of the study were discussed under various subsections such as ethnic conflict, the Niger Delta conflict, farmers/herders conflict, civil war and elections.

2.1 Ethnic conflict

There are over two hundred and fifty ethnic tribes in Nigeria. The three major tribes are Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa / Fulani. The three major ethnic groups dominated the socio-political landscape of the country. The Hausa/Fulani which occupied the north of Nigeria had produced nine out of fourteen Head of States in Nigeria. The Southern Nigeria dominated the economic terrain of the country. The three major ethnic groups had a fair share of the new States. It should be noted that until 1996 when General Sani Abacha created another six States in addition to the existing thirty States, no single State was created for the Ijaw, the fourth largest ethnic in the country. The new six States included Bayelsa State, which is the only State occupied mainly by the Ijaws. Also, exclusion of the Igbo, a major ethnic group in the country’s political arrangement at the federal level often created tension in the country. Protracted political crises, ethnicity, corruption, terrorism, kidnapping, banditry and religious divisions make peace unavoidable thus create further divisions in Nigeria. The question is what can be done to bring peace to the country? It should be kept in mind that this Chapter attempts to examine transitional justice mechanisms as way of addressing questions of ethnic crises in Nigeria.

2.2 The Niger Delta conflict

The Niger Delta is oil producing region of Nigeria. It produces one fifth of the world’s oil and gas, making Nigeria the largest oil producer in Africa and the sixty largest oil producing country in the world. Nigeria cannot adequately account for the proceeds of the crude oil production because of corruption, mismanagement and maladministration. A few aristocrats, military, police, cabal and political office holders corner oil proceeds. Majority of Nigerians live in abject poverty. The oil wealth does not translate to development and growth. The country lives with the narratives of insecurity, inadequate infrastructure, wanton ecological damage, oil theft, corruption, embezzlement, election crises and misrule. For example, the Niger Delta conflict is a result of environmental degradation by the multinational oil companies, human rights abuses and apathy by the Federal Government, multinational oil and gas companies when it comes to the development of the region.

The most prominent among the ethnic groups in the Niger Delta are Ijaw, Urhrobo, Itsekiri, Isoko, and Ilaje. The inter-tribal conflicts have redefined internal interactions, solidarity, integration and relations, and have received international attention. The following ethnic groups’ conflict are discussed in this Chapter: (1) Ijaw/Ilaje conflict - Arogbo-Ijaw and Ugbo-Ilaje inter-ethnic conflict has a long history. It started as a gradual process over decades, which later developed into a full-blown conflict with the attendant destruction of lives and property. While creating more States, the Administration of General Sani Abacha created Bayelsa State in 1996. Warri Southwest Local Government Areas (LGA) with headquarters in Ogbe-Ijoh was also created around the same period. The Ijaw in Ondo State also benefited, a LGA was created for them with headquarters at Igbekebo. The creation of LGAs in Ondo and Delta State for the Ijaw by General Abacha led to violent conflict between the Ilaje and the Ijaw in Ondo State on one hand and the Ilaje and the Itsekiri in Delta State on the other hand. Controversies over land ownership led to crisis between the Ijaw and the Ilaje. The Ilaje argued that the Ijaw are tenant therefore, they should not enjoy a political self-rule. Creation, location and relocation of LGA headquarters led to protracted conflict between the Ijaw and the Ilaje in Ondo State, the Ijaw and the Itsekiri in Delta State. Warri,“the oil city” as popularly called hosted the three ethnic rivalry groups: the Ijaw; the Itsekiri; and the Ijaw. Ethnic rivalry among the three groups existed before the 1960s Nigeria independence. The Itsekiri hosted the largest portion of oil in the region.

The political struggle in the region has been centered on Warri because of the believe that the Itsekiri is favoured by the Yoruba in political and socio-economic arrangements. The conflict between the Ijaw and the Urhobo was a product of mistrust, apprehension and resource control. In a nutshell, the Niger Delta conflict is about land ownership, oil location control, access to oil wealth, divide and rule. As a result of the Niger Delta conflict, Nigeria could not meet the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ (OPEC) production quota. Nigeria, with its abundant oil resources has the capacity to produce about 3.2 million barrels of oil per day. The country’s production level dropped below 2 million barrels per day, OPEC’s production target of 2.1 million barrels per day (mbpd) owing to frequent shut-ins due to renewed attacks on oil facilities in the Niger Delta region. It was reported that prior to the escalation of violent attacks on oil installations, Nigeria produced between 1.4 and 1.8 million barrels of crude oil per day see [1]. Between October, 2013 and January, 2014, Nigeria’s crude production was appreciated following a directive by the Federal Government of Nigeria that oil companies operating in the country should increase output from the deep offshore fields. As a result of the increase in crude production, Nigeria was able to meet its daily production quota of 2.1 million barrels per day allocated to her by OPEC.

2.3 Farmers/herders conflict

Nigeria is predominantly agrarian society. After oil exploration and exploitation, farming is the main stay of Nigerian economy. There are different forms of farming across the country such as crop farming, cash farming, poultry farming and animal husbandry. There are a group of people whose primary job is herding. They are nomad. They occupied the Northern part of the country. They are called the Fulani. The Fulani herders often migrate from one place to the other in search of water and food for the animals. In the cause of movement of animals, they destroyed farms and also engaged in conflict with farmers. Farmers / herders conflict were prominent in the North central of Nigeria particularly in the Benue, Taraba, Adawama and Plateau State. Farmers/herders conflict has been extended to the Southeast and the Southwest of the country. It is important to know that banditry, kidnapping, boko haram and other terrorist group have disguised as Fulani herders to terrorise people of Southern Nigeria. The activities of Fulani herders have divided the country further along the line of ethnicity.

Destruction of farmland by the Fulani herders. The inability of government to curb the Fulani herders’ activities has led to agitations among different ethnic groups in the country. There is a continuous call for the resurrection of Biafra Movement in the Southeast, emergence of Yoruba Nation in the Southwest and other self-determination groups across the country.

2.4 Civil war

Civil war took place in Nigeria between 1967 and 1970. Millions of people were killed. January, 1966 coup and June 1966 counter-coup led to the war. The crises between military echelons from the East and the North extractions led to the civil war. Problems in the military extended to the civilians. Many people from the Igbo ethnic groups were massacred in the North. The exodus of the Igbo from the North and rivalry among the military echelons led to the declaration of the Republic of Biafra in 1967. The declaration led to thirty months of civil war between the Nigerian Army and Biafra war lords led by Odumegwu Ojukwu. It was recorded that 5 million Igbo people were killed during the civil war. Agitations for separate country for the people of Igbo ethnic extraction still rages on in Nigeria. The civil war created mistrust between the Northerners and the Easterners. Since the end of the civil war, the Igbo has not been allowed to produce the nation president.

The civil war also created mistrust between the Yoruba and the Igbo. The Igbo believed that their secession from Nigeria will be supported by the Yoruba. It was noted that the Yoruba backed out when the Igbo warlords were advancing toward the Lagos, the former Federal Capital of Nigeria. The extension of the civil war affected some Yoruba towns and cities such as Ore and Odigbo. The modern-day politics has not recorded cordiality between the Igbo and the Yoruba. The Hausa and the Yoruba have refused to recognise the Igbo in the country’s political arrangement. This has led to a cry of marginalisation from the Igbo and renew of a call for a separate Biafra country by the Igbo.

2.5 Elections

Lack of credible election occasioned by the manipulation of election results have led to a number of crises in Nigeria. Litany of electoral frauds and crises dotted the political landscape since voting commenced in the country in 1923. There have been electoral crises due to rigging, manipulation, ethnic chauvinism, religion bigotry and domination. The following electoral crises have created divisions and almost end the life of the country such as the 1964 Federal Election, 1965 Western Nigeria Election, 1979 General Election, 1993 General Election and 2015 General Election. The annulment of 1993 general election won by Chief Moshood Kasimawo Olawale Abiola, a Yoruba from the Southwest by the Northerners led by general Ibrahim Babangida created tension between the North and the West. Lack of trust and unity among the three different ethnic dominated regions led to rotation presidency, which has produced inept, corruption, kidnapping, banditry and atmosphere of agitations and separation.

3. Methods of conflict resolution

Various attempts at resolution of conflict have been undertaken by the Federal Government of Nigeria including accountability; memorialisation; amnesty and DDR. First, commission and panels of inquiry were created to promote accountability. People are interested to know the truth about political, religious and ethnic crises. Families that lost their relations want to know what happen to them, reason for disappearance and asking for compensation. Attempts at redress of crises by the Nigerian government specifically have included the establishment of various commissions, specifically the Henry Willink Commission of Inquiry in 1958. Taken together, however, reports of various commission and panels of inquiry have no semblance of a purposeful peace agreement. The documents do not address issues affecting the country directly such as the environment, resource control, ethnic divisions, marginalisation, religion intolerance and socio-economic transformation. Peace agreements between warring factions is often powerful. It can serve as constitution or some aspects of it constitutes or contains constitution. Issues contained in the peace agreement may include transition timetable, complex agreements for new democratic institutions, human rights, reparations, security sector reform and empowerment see [2].

Second, human rights violations investigation committee is another method of conflict resolution. It is worrisome to note that peace still eludes the country. The dawn of democracy in Nigeria in 1999 ushered in the establishment of Human Rights Violations Investigation Committee on 14 June1999 by former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo. The Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission was a large-scale attempt to address the various forms of human rights violations in Nigeria immediately after the independence. The seven-person commission was headed by Justice Chukwudifu Oputa and sought to investigate human rights abuses back to the military coup of 15 January 1966 until 28 May 1999, the day before the last military handover to civilians in Nigeria. The report of the commission was submitted to the Federal Government of Nigeria but its findings were not initially made public by the government. It took the combined efforts of human rights groups and civil society groups to publish the document in the United States of America.

Forth, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria makes a provision for a prerogative of mercy. The President of Nigeria usually derives his power from this section of the constitution to make amnesty proclamation. Amnesty is described as “prerogative of mercy” under the 1979 and 1999 Constitution. The President’s Amnesty Proclamation culminated in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programme in the Niger Delta and repentant Boko Haram terrorists. It was created to achieve peace and quickly return the affected regions to the path of development through a series of community-centered reintegration processes. DDR has been criticised for adverse planning and implementation, technical and administrative problems, large-scale corruption and the non-involvement of large segments of society. Most of the ex-militants were rehabilitated in the first phase of the programme. There were many others waiting endlessly for the second and the third phases of reintegration programme. Furthermore, post-amnesty reintegration made no provision for the employment of ex-militants who had completed their rehabilitation vocational and educational training and those that were sent abroad for training. Some were trained but had no jobs to take up afterwards. Proper reconciliation/reinsertion of ex-militants into the community did not take place. The post-amnesty DDR programme is criticised for its inability to reflect local needs and aspirations.

4. Methodology

This study used secondary data collected by visiting National Achieve at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Secondary data were also collected from a study carried out by the author which was sponsored by the Tertiary Education Fund (Tetfund), Abuja, Nigeria. Various textbooks, magazines, newspapers and internet sources were consulted.

Data collected through the secondary methods were subjected to thematic analysis. The following themes were used to present the findings of the study such as transitional justice, prosecutions, truth-telling, institutional reform, vetting and reparations.

5. Findings

This section presents various findings based on thematic analysis of review of literature. The following findings were discussed such as transitional justice, prosecutions, truth-telling, institutional reform, vetting and reparations.

5.1 Transitional justice

Emergence of transitional justice as a mechanism for addressing human rights abuses in post-conflict society or authoritarian rule could be traced to the mid-1980s. Transitional justice mechanisms include accountability, truth-telling, vetting, reparations for victims and institutional reform. Transitional Justice consists both judicial and non-judicial approaches and mechanisms such prosecution, truth commission and findings, awarding of reparation, protecting and restoring of human rights, security sector reform, social and economic resuscitation. “Transitional justice is linked to the four pillars of international law: international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, and international refugee law. The term transitional justice has been increasingly used to refer to the approach toward peacebuilding by governments in countries emerging from deeply rooted conflict to address the legacy of past human rights violations See [3]. The core of the transitional justice approach is that moving forward can only genuinely occur through coming to terms with the past. To build a future free from human rights violations, society must move beyond criminal justice mechanisms to engage in truth recovery, testimony, storytelling, memorialisation, reparations, and institutional reform. Transitional justice as dealing with the rule of law across a range of issues, including constitutional law and administrative law, as well as the traditional transitional justice areas of criminal law, history, and reparations. Reparations are methods of transitional justice focused on victims in post conflict peace building processes.

Generally, for a successful transitional process, recognition of victims of conflict or authoritarian regime must be based on their rights to criminal prosecution, truth telling, reparations and institutional reform. “It is when the victims’ rights recognised this way that their human dignities would be guaranteed. Transitional justice measures as “forms of recognition” and the researcher explained above how non-recognition of victims may lead to resentment in a post-conflict society. This Chapter is not going to discuss various transitional justice measures in detail but will demonstrate the complementary nature of transitional justice measures, such as prosecutions, truth telling, institutional reform and reparations.

5.2 Prosecution

First, prosecution must recognise the rights of victims to reparations and recommend reparations for victims suffering violations of rights. Prosecution of violators of gross human rights, crimes against humanity including terrorism and any other forms of impunity are recognised under the international laws. International human rights law spells out the responsibilities of governments to ensure post-conflict prosecution takes place, these include initiate proper, prompt, thorough, independent and incorrigible investigation of human rights abuses and ensure that international humanitarian law and take adequate measures in respect of violent entrepreneurs, most importantly as related to criminal justice, by quarantining that those involved in serious crimes under international law did nor escape justice and duly punished See [4]. The aim of prosecution is to recognise the victims and ensure victims’ rights are guaranteed and protected by recognising offenders and victims as bearer of equal rights. There are many factors that can hinder prosecution of human rights offenders in a post-conflict society including, the corrupt judicial sector and perceptions of victor’s justice, inadequate resources and the challenges of sheer numbers when the pool of potential victims and perpetrators is in the hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands.

5.3 Truth-telling

Second, truth-telling needs to reveal and recognise victims’ rights to reparations. Truth-telling provides recognition in a way that is perfectly familiar by acknowledging the significance and value of persons, as individuals, as citizens, as victims. Truth commissions, according to United Nations Office of the Special Adviser on Africa use investigations and hearings to identify and compile the list of individuals and institutions responsible for abuses, the patterns of human right abuses, as well as the enabling conditions for abuse. State has a role of including measures necessary to ensure the independent and effective operation of the judiciary, accountability and effective communication. The UN’s set of principles stated that everyone has the alienated right to know the truth about what happened in the past about heinous crime committed, circumstances and the reason for perpetration see [5]. Truth investigations face challenges that range from avoidance by ex-combatants, and the cooperation and political will of actors in peace processes. In Sierra Leone, for example, the concurrence of a tribunal and a truth commission created a lot of misunderstanding, the fighters saw it a plot to trap and make them face consequences.

5.4 Institutional reforms

Third, institutional reforms must recognise the rights of marginalised whose rights were violated by forcing them to participate in conflict. The reparation may be symbolic by allowing the opposing fighters to join the national army. Institutional reforms recognise conditions which enable citizens to relate with one another as equal, re-legitimising the State’s authorities, and preventing the occurrence of conflict. It involves restructuring and occurs within the state security forces, or non-state armed groups to eliminate violent conflict and human rights abuses. Measures necessary to address impunity should include legislative and administrative reforms, to guarantee that public institutions respect the rule of law. Military, security, police, intelligence and judicial sectors who engaged in gross violations of human rights shall not continue to serve the State. Due process of law and principles of nondiscrimination must be followed in their disengagement, Persons found guilty of serious crimes under international law must be removed from official duties during trial or criminal proceeding. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee’s guidelines on Security Sector Reforms highlighted that it is the duty of all actors, their roles, responsibilities and actions- working together to manage and operate the system in a way that is line with democratic norms and principles of good governance see [5]. Government unwillingness, favouritism, nepotism and lack of funds can undermine efforts at security sector reforms. For example, in Uganda, Taban Amin, the son of the former dictator, Idi Amin, was accused of human rights abuses. He was given an amnesty under the Ugandan Amnesty Act, and shielded from prosecutions. He later became a member of the Ugandan security force. In this vein, recognition of human rights abuses for victims suffered a defeat.

5.5 Vetting

Fourth, vetting establishes trust sometimes through investigation and accountability. Vetting could be delivered by the human right commission and the government security agencies. This is a process of performing a background check on a person and ascertain whether he/she has involved in series of human rights abuses identified with political office holders, military, war lords and economic criminals. Vetting is necessary to ensure that doubts are casting off from issues such as reliability, credibility, or judgement of the individual in question, and which could impacted trustworthiness and credentials. Vetting is a integrity testing process including adherence to relevant human rights standards to determine their suitability for public employment. Post conflict society or country in transition from authoritarian rule to democracy often use vetting to exorcise abusive, incompetent, corrupt or conflict entrepreneurs from holding public offices see [6]. It should be noted that vetting process has received little or no systematic attention in Nigeria. Political processes are dotted with people that had involved in extra-judicial killings, human rights abuses, ethnic wars, corruption, fraud and other unwholesome attitudes such as former military generals, warlords, ethnic jingoists, and political manipulators. There are good examples of countries that have adopted vetting in the process of advancing peacebuilding in the world such as Argentina, Hungary, South Africa, Poland, El Salvador, Bosnia and Herzegovina and others.

5.6 Reparations

Fifty, reparations can be briefly introduced as a method of providing material and a symbolic form of recognition by State and offenders to victims whose fundamental rights have been violated. Transitional justice measures provide complementary roles in post conflict societies. The measures have composite relationships. This Chapter, therefore, looks at the complementary roles played by reparations and other measures of transitional justice. Reparations without truth telling are like awarding cash payment to silence or placate the victims. It forecloses any effort to unearth the facts of the conflict and makes accountability unachievable. Conversely, truth-telling without reparations could be regarded by the victims as cheap or empty talk. Reparations also recognise the importance of effective criminal justice to provide victims with satisfaction and to ensure equality and strengthening the trust of victims in judicial process. Criminal prosecution could serve as a form of symbolic reparation to victims that demand justice and demonstrate to the fighters that their action has consequences and nobody is above the law. In another way, reparations without criminal justice could be regarded by the victims as a payment of a ‘crime insurance scheme’, with no responsibility claims on anyone, even the State. In a similar vein, institutional reforms without reparations are like a deliberate attempt not to dignify the victims who were victimised by the State security agencies or militia groups. Also, reparations without institutional reforms can look like offering cash whose legitimacy can have little impact.

6. Conclusion

There is no lineal relationship in transitional justice measures; they are only mutually inclusive, as it is not mandatory or possible for any country in transition to adopt all forms of transitional justice. The adoption of an approach depends largely on the peculiar characteristics of a given country. The most important thing is that transitional justice should be considered in post-conflict societies to recognise the interests and provide remedy to the vulnerable whose rights have been violated. To do this, transitional societies must recognise the interdependent links between measures like prosecution, truth-telling, institutional reforms and reparations as important and useful to the recognition of victims’ rights.

Transitional justice mechanisms such as accountability and security sector reform need to be given adequate consideration in the Nigeria. The way conflicts affected individuals and their expectations in the peacebuilding processes are different. For many reintegration and reparations would satisfy them. Many want accountability, memorialisation, truth and investigation. The above responses also suggest the expected role that transitional justice mechanisms could play in the resolution of conflict such as ensuring accountability and ending impunity, fostering reconciliation and socio-political reconstruction, establishing an historical record and countering denial. For example, transitional justice mechanisms have helped to provide justice and satisfaction to victims and relatives of human rights abuses in countries such as Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Bosnia and others.

In summary, looking generally at the conflict resolution methods adopted, it is clear that the methods have limitations as a peacebuilding process in Nigeria. While acknowledging the relative peace and stability recorded, the peacebuilding methods have not led to effective and enduring peace in Nigeria; additional peacebuilding mechanisms should be considered. One such peacebuilding mechanism is “wholesome” transitional justice. To ensure peaceful coexistence is strengthened, it has to be combined with transitional justice in holism. Therefore, this Chapter reveals that peacebuilding could be complemented by justice, peace, security, institutional reforms, vetting, development and guarantees of non-repetition of conflicts.