UNIVERSITY FOR PEACE AFRICA PROGRAMME · PDF fileThe participants also discussed the value of a ... Bini, Urhobo, Itsekiri, Ikwerre ... Nigerian government ostensibly to address the

Addis Ababa Office UPEACE Africa Programme P.O. Box 2794 code 1250 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Tel: (251) 11 618 0991 Fax: (251) 11 618 0993 Cell: (251) 911 837 022 Email: [email protected] Web: www.africa.upeace.org

Geneva Office 5 chemin du Rivage 1292 Chambésy/Geneva Switzerland Tel: (41-22) 737-3080 Fax: (41-22) 737-3090 Email: [email protected] Web: www.upeace.org

Main Campus & Headquarters P.O. Box 138-6100, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 205-9000 Fax: (506) 249-1929 Email: [email protected] Web: www.upeace.org

University for Peace Université pour la Paix

UNIVERSITY FOR PEACE AFRICA PROGRAMME

WORKSHOP REPORT

YOUTH LEADERS TRAINING WORKSHOP ON

NONVIOLENT TRANSFORMATION OF CONFLICT

PORT HARCOURT, NIGERIA 13 - 17 NOVEMBER 2005

Final Report Page 2 NVTC Youth Leaders Training, Nigeria 2005

The Africa Programme of the University for Peace would like to express its sincere appreciation to its donors for the generous funding which has enabled the realization of this important programme activity.

Canadian International Development Agency

Government of The Netherlands

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation


Executive Summary

igeria, the most populous country in Africa, is the world’s seventh-largest exporter of petroleum. With daily production of 2.5 million barrels of oil, more than 90 per cent of Nigeria’s national income comes from its oil earnings. Nearly all of the nation’s oil reserves are found in the Niger

Delta, perhaps the most conflict-ridden region of Nigeria. In spite of the enormous wealth accruing from oil production, most of the region’s oil-producing communities lack basic necessities and amenities. Widespread frustration among the populace is deep and has triggered two levels of acute conflicts: amongst the various peoples, and between the citizenry on the one hand and the oil companies and Nigerian government on the other. Oil and gas exploration activities affect human rights, appropriation of scarce land, population shifts and displacements, generation and distribution of wealth, democracy, rule of law or the lack thereof, and governance. Grievances associated with petroleum and the government’s management of the ‘oil curse’ have led to political, social, and economic struggles, which have been fought by both violent and nonviolent means. Youth leaders from the region posed an explicit request for information and skills on how better to use nonviolent methods following a UPEACE curriculum development workshop for West African universities in Abuja, 8-12 March 2004. In response, a youth leaders’ workshop on Nonviolent Transformation of Conflict was planned for 13-17 November 2005 by UPEACE; the Nigerian National Universities Commission (NUC); the University of Jos; the Centre for Social and Corporate Responsibility (CSCR), Port Harcourt; and the Joint UNDP/UNESCO Foundations for Africa Future Leadership, Dakar. An advance mission identified a stellar group of local resource persons, facilitators, and leaders in the Niger Delta, and thus 29 formally selected participants were designated by 24 civil society organisations. The diverse representatives came from women’s groups, environmental organisations, human rights advocacy groups, fishermen and farmers’ organisations, faith-based groups, and academia. The workshop introduced the principles, theories, and methods of strategic nonviolent struggle, while also focusing on the link between conflict management and leadership skills. Led by a seasoned senior trainer and globally-recognised author on the subject, the workshop rekindled participants’ interest in the potential of nonviolent struggle. During small breakout group sessions, it emerged that most participants, if not all, had previously been involved in some form of nonviolent action. The final day of the workshop was devoted to leadership training. Professional evaluators found the participants’ appraisal of the workshop overwhelmingly positive. Among the strengths cited were course content, clarity on the importance of strategy, essentials of joint decision making and sharing responsibilities, value of decentralisation, necessity for collective action, and most of all the supremacy and practicality of the nonviolent action technique. Participants understood and seemed to internalise the significant connexion between strategic nonviolent struggle and conflict transformation—the inherent link between the means and ends in conflict engagement. Power configurations can be altered by nonviolent struggle, thereby bringing about effective and practical social change, even in the face of institutional failures and asymmetries in power. Nonviolent struggle―unlike armed struggle or guerrilla warfare―can lead to stable, long-term results that benefit all parties to a conflict, without bloodshed or physical and economic destruction. Attendees expressed a resolve to renew their efforts in attempting to transform the acute conflicts of the Niger Delta through application of disciplined nonviolent methods. Through the articulated understanding and satisfaction of participants, UPEACE is overwhelmingly pleased with the results of the workshop. Four publications are forthcoming from the UPEACE Africa Programme as a by-product of the workshop, which can reinforce this success. The participants also discussed the value of a network amongst themselves, to share experiences and communications, an encouraging outcome given the depth of the disputes in and among the peoples of the Niger Delta.

N


BACKGROUND

The University for Peace (UPEACE), an affiliate of the UN; the Nigerian National Universities

Commission (NUC); the University of Jos; the Centre for Social and Corporate Responsibility

(CSCR) in Port Harcourt, and the Joint UNDP/UNESCO Foundations for Africa Future

Leadership jointly sponsored a youth leaders training workshop on Nonviolent Transformation

of Conflict in the Niger Delta, Nigeria, 13 to 17 November 2005.

Some twenty-nine formally selected participants attended the workshop, as designated by twenty-four civil society organisations, in Port Harcourt, 13 to 17 November 2005.

Nigeria contains the Federal Capital Territory and six geo-political zones, namely the South-

South, South-West, South-East, North-Central, North-West and North-East. The area referred

to as the ‘Niger Delta’ was originally limited to the South-South geo-political zone and is

primarily inhabited by the ethnic minorities of southern Nigeria, including, among others, the

Ijaw, Ibibio, Efik, Bini, Urhobo, Itsekiri, Ikwerre and Ogoni. Of these peoples, the largest are the

Ijaw. Politically, the Niger Delta currently comprises the Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River,

Delta, Edo and Rivers States. In recent years, particularly within the context of Nigeria’s oil

politics, and for the purposes of the Niger Delta Development Commission, established by the

Nigerian government ostensibly to address the needs of the people, the term ‘Niger Delta’ has

often been used interchangeably with the phrase ‘oil-producing states’—a term meant to describe

the original six states of the Niger Delta plus three contiguous marginal oil-producing states.

The new states of Abia, Imo and Ondo have, therefore, been added to the original six,

comprising nine states that make up what is broadly termed the Niger Delta.


CONFLICT IN THE NIGER DELTA

The fact that the workshop took place in the Niger Delta for youth leaders from the region is apt

because the Niger Delta region is arguably the most conflict-ridden of the six geo-political zones

of Nigeria. The mainstay of the Nigerian economy is oil, and nearly all of the nation’s oil reserves

are found in the Niger Delta region. In spite of the enormous wealth accruing from oil

production, however, most oil-producing communities lack basic necessities such as potable

water, electricity, roads, health-care facilities, and basic

communications. Acute conflicts in the region derive mostly

from issues relating to crude oil and natural gas exploration.

Exploitation is undeniable and profound, and readily visible

are the attendant problems of underdevelopment,

environmental degradation, and the deprivation and

marginalisation of the communities where the vast oil

resources are located. Oil and gas exploration activities have

also affected issues relating to human rights, appropriation of

scarce land, population shifts and displacements, the

generation of wealth, rule of law, democracy, and good

governance, to name a few concerns. Violations of human

rights have ranged from violent repression of peaceful protests, to the 1995 judicial murder of a

celebrated environmentalist, Ken Saro Wiwa, who had mobilized his Ogoni people to protest

peacefully the environmental damage that had been caused by the transnational corporation Shell

Oil, including even the sacking of whole villages.

Hence widespread frustration among the populace of the Niger Delta has triggered conflicts

amongst the various peoples on the one hand, pitting one group against another in internecine

strife. On the other hand, disputes rage between the citizenry and the oil companies and the

Nigerian government. Without sufficient political space, institutionalised mechanisms of political

action, and trusted procedures for redressing the apparent inequities, the conflict has in recent

years taken on a new dimension whereupon some youths in the region have engaged the federal

government and multinational oil companies in sustained violent conflicts, resulting in deaths

and wanton destruction of property and whole villages and towns. Even as we write, headlines

blare in the international news media about guerrilla warfare, armed struggle, and violent seizures

of oil-producing facilities, accompanied by injury to life and limb.

Ken Saro Wiwa


The conflict in the Niger Delta has thus

neither been managed nor resolved.

Rather, it is increasing in intensity. The

reputation of Nigeria’s government, and

that of the oil companies, and the

profits of international shareholders are

at stake, to say nothing of the security of

the local peoples of the Delta. The local

communities in the region are

additionally engulfed in rising violent

crimes and a situation of general and

pervasive insecurity. Almost no one

would disagree with the statement that

there is now compelling need to seek

appropriate means and intention to

manage, resolve, and transform the

conflict.

‘To the people of the Niger Delta, the conflict in the region is one of existence, survival, and humanity’. – Elias Courson, Rapporteur

As diverse as are the peoples of the Niger Delta, so also have been the effects of oil exploration

and exploitation, and the ensuing strife and conflicts. Men, women, youth, boys and girls,

farmers, and fishermen have been affected by the conflict in different ways. Women and girls

who were already marginalized by the social structures in place before the conflicts have become

even more vulnerable.

ORIGINS OF THE WORKSHOP

The genesis for the Port Harcourt workshop was a UPEACE Curriculum Development

Workshop for universities in West Africa, which took place in Abuja, Nigeria, from 8 to 12

March 2004. Jointly sponsored with the Nigerian National Universities Commission (NUC), and

the University of Jos, after the formal end of the workshop a Youth Forum was additionally

On 23 December 2003, an oil spill occurred in Rukpokwu community, in the Obio-Akpor local government area of Rivers State, Niger Delta, on the Trans-Niger trunk line of Shell Nigeria. Bursting as a result of equipment failure, the spill had devastating effects on the local farmers' farmlands, fishermen's fish ponds, and other economic crops. This was but one catastrophic spill, yet it is indicative of the environmental ruin faced by countless agrarian communities, which, due to governmental and corporate policies, have seen little restitution for damages or recourse to justice. Photo: Courtesy of CSCR


attended by 35 youth leaders from different parts of Nigeria. The Youth Forum, 11 to 12 March

2004, was conducted ‘to examine the content of training materials for youth on peace education

and conflict prevention, and to explore mechanisms for the delivery of such training’. (For a

report on the Abuja curriculum development workshop, go to http://www.upeace.org.) During

the course of the forum, youth leaders sought help on how to use nonviolent methods in conflict

transformation. They expressed concern that in their schools they had never been taught that

there is an historic method for fighting for social justice without violence, and that even in dire

circumstances it is possible to engage in practical alternatives to armed struggle. In particular,

they were fascinated to learn that, as now widely acknowledged, the student-led 1986 boycott in

Port Elizabeth, South Africa, which was led by young people approximately their age or

somewhat older, had sparked the application of international third-party sanctions against the

apartheid state, eventually bringing the South African government to negotiations with the anti-

apartheid movements and free elections in 1994. They had never been told of the pivotal role

played by youth leaders, nor had their teachers introduced them to nonviolent approaches. This

was the spark for the November 2005 Youth Leaders Training Workshop on the Nonviolent

Transformation of Conflict in Port Harcourt, more than a year later, specifically organized to

respond to the urgent requests and felt needs expressed by the youth leaders who had been

present in Abuja.

PURPOSE AND ORGANISATION OF THE WORKSHOP

The workshop offered the participants a concise alternative to armed insurrection and violent

struggle in the search for social justice, especially when institutionalised political procedures have

failed. Given the on-going conflicts in the Niger Delta region, the choice of a means of

engagement for local disputants is of great importance. UPEACE is neither advocating nor

promoting groups or individuals to identify or perpetuate conflict. Rather, UPEACE in general is

concerned with offering nonviolent struggle as an effective, efficacious, and less volatile means

for groups to work to achieve social, economic, and political justice—a technique that increases

the odds for results that can benefit all parties. In emphasizing nonviolent action as a realistic

alternative to armed struggle, the workshop gave an introduction to the philosophies, principles,

theories, and methods of strategic nonviolent struggle. The action methods may be individual or

collective efforts to persuade and pressure others, conducted by nonviolent means as part of the

project of affecting the course and conclusion of a conflict. The meeting also focused on the

nexus between conflict management and leadership skills, hence a full day of training on


leadership development was conducted by the joint UNDP/UNESCO Foundations for Africa

Future Leadership.

Advance Planning Mission

To assure the success of the workshop, a planning mission to the region was undertaken in

advance in August 2005, in order to meet and consult with a broad range of civil society leaders

from academia, youth groups, faith-based organizations, environmental groups, and other

identified non-governmental organisations (NGOs) across the Niger Delta. A team was led by

the respected Nigerian journalist Dapo Olorunyomi, accompanied by Dominic Voloninno and

Jide Fajoyomi, which spent four days travelling in the Niger Delta to search out diverse

representatives from a variety of institutions and sectors, with a view to seeking their opinion on

how best to manage the process, since the UPEACE Africa Programme did not wish to impose

an agenda, but, rather, wanted a cross-section of communities to own the process. The advance

meetings also sought the support of a number of constituencies in identifying resource persons

and facilitators, who would help to steer events at the programme, identify the most appropriate

local partners among the host of available organizations, and decide a suitable venue for the

event. The eventual selection of participants and location for the workshop was based to a very

large extent on this firsthand assessment, which had taken place three months earlier. As a result

of the advance mission, it was possible to enlist a stellar group of local resource persons and

facilitators, including academicians from universities in the Niger Delta, for the workshop.

Local Partners

The Centre for Social and Corporate Responsibility (CSCR), an NGO based in Port Harcourt,

acted as the key local partner for the workshop. CSCR works to promote transparency, best

practices, and respect for human rights within the Niger Delta justice system, and among the

multinational corporations operating in the area, although, in a sense, all of the participants

represented groups that were in effect local partners.


Centre for Social and Corporate Responsibility organisers, faculty and staff of the University for Peace, and professional evaluators from the UPEACE Africa Programme at the workshop. The senior instructor, Robert L. Helvey, is fourth from left, front row. The coordinator of the workshop, Nigerian journalist Dapo Olorunyomi, is fifth from right, front row.

Through a process and model known as ‘shareholder leverage’, CSCR brokers relationships and

facilitates dialogue between the peoples of the Niger Delta and the oil-producing companies

whose activities have an impact on the populace. CSCR acts as a neutral liaison between the

multinational oil companies and the local communities, and, by so doing, promotes dialogue

rather than violence. It is an organization committed to:

• facilitating the healing process of traumatized individuals and communities in the Niger

Delta,

• promoting access to justice for individuals and communities in the Niger Delta,

• establishing and maintaining corporate and social responsibility for all citizen and

constituency stakeholders in the Niger Delta.

Acting on the advice of its advance team to the Niger Delta, the UPEACE Africa Programme

chose CSCR based on the organisation’s track record and avowed commitment to nonviolent

resolution of the Niger Delta conflicts, the closeness of the organisation to the grass roots, and

the presence of an existing structure that could enhance the benefits of the programme for the

people.


Facilitators, External Resource Persons, Local Resource Persons, and Rapporteurs

The team of facilitators was led by Dapo Olorunyomi, who in

addition to a distinguished record as a journalist had most

recently served as country director for Freedom House in

Nigeria. It included Professor Mary E. King of UPEACE and

Oxford University, the acclaimed author Robert L. Helvey, and

Aminu Isa Waziri of the UNDP/UNESCO Foundations for

Africa’s Future Leadership. Resource persons were drawn from

academic institutions including Professor Olawale Albert of the

University of Ibadan and Oxford and Harvard Universities;

Professor Lucky Akaruese of the University of Port Harcourt;

the Reverend Mother Marie Pauline B. Eboh, a former university don at the University of Port

Harcourt and now clergy who is leading the development of a new college in Abia State; Dr.

Owolabi Babalola of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Ibadan; and

Courson Elias of Niger Delta University, Bayelsa, who also served as one of the rapporteurs for

the sessions on nonviolent transformation of conflict.

Participants

In all, twenty-nine formally selected participants attended the workshop, as designated by

twenty-four civil society organisations. There was thus great diversity in representation—

women’s groups, environmental organisations, human rights advocacy groups, fishermen and

farmers organisations, faith-based groups, and other civil society organizations that are working

in the Niger Delta and whose activities are focused on conflict management for the region.

Participants came from all nine of the states that make up the Niger Delta. Part of the criteria for

their selection—as recommended to the advance mission—included their closeness to the

grassroots and level of involvement in issues that directly affect men and women across the oil-

rich area. According to the team leader, Dapo Olorunyomi, only groups that would give

something back to their communities were invited.

PROGRAMME

During the first three days of the four-day workshop, participants were exposed to the major

characteristics of strategic nonviolent action, an essential area of knowledge for the peace maker,

its advantages and benefits, as well as the training considerations involved. Led by a seasoned

trainer and globally-recognised author on the subject, the workshop rekindled participants’

Dapo Olorunyomi


interest in the field of nonviolent struggle; it became evident in the

small group discussions that many participants, if not all, had in the

past been part of efforts to pursue social justice through disciplined

nonviolent action. A central point was that there are always realistic

alternatives for fighting to resolve your grievance without armed

struggle and violence, and for highly practical reasons. Properly

planned and prepared, with discipline, and depending on timing,

organised popular dissent can enable a society to oppose tyranny or

despotism effectively, yet without making the fundamental grievance

worse. Scholars and practitioners alike have gathered a body of

experience, which shows that the use of nonviolent struggle can lead to stable, long-term results

that benefit all parties to a conflict—without bloodshed or physical and economic destruction.

By the 1970s, scholars had shown that nonviolent resistance has historically improved the odds

of reaching negotiations and enhances the potential for reconciliation between adversaries.

On each of the three days, breakout group discussions

followed each training session. (See Appendix 1 for details).

The fourth and last day of the workshop was devoted to

leadership training, ably conducted by Aminu Isa Waziri of

the Joint UNDP/UNESCO Foundations for Africa Future

Leadership Programme, based in Dakar, Senegal. This activity

was based on the recognition that the leaders of organisations

involved in conflict management require necessary leadership

skills for their activities, as do youth leaders in order to

become effective agents for positive, constructive social

change, and to be able to pursue their goals with rigorously

nonviolent action. This part of the training usefully highlighted

and re-echoed the links between leadership and the use of nonviolent action in conflict

transformation. During the day’s sessions, presentations by Mr. Waziri were followed by group

discussions. What had earlier been addressed by Mr. Helvey on the need for self-discipline, self-

reliance, and other leadership capacities to use nonviolent tactics effectively were reinforced by

the sessions on leadership development. (See Appendix 2 for highlights.)

Robert L. Helvey

Aminu Isa Waziri


EVALUATION

The UPEACE Africa Programme insists on professional evaluation of every activity to measure

the success of the seminar or workshop, identify the lessons learnt, and recommend the way

forward. A two-person team of trained professional evaluators carried out the evaluation of the

workshop, based on a methodology developed by Dr Amr Abdalla, Professor and Dean of

Academic Programmes for UPEACE at its main campus in Costa Rica. Dr. Phoebe Nyawalo, a

seasoned educator from Kenya, led the team, and was assisted by Joan Mbagwu, a

nongovernmental leader from Lagos. Dr. Nyawalo expressed approval that the programme had

been conceived for Africa, noting that ‘the UPEACE Africa Programme should be considered as

being for Africa’, meaning that it is specific to the realities and needs of Africans. The evaluation

was conducted through individual questionnaires, direct one-on-one interviews, and summary

group discussion at the end of the programme. Pre-test questionnaires were administered to

participants on the first day to gauge their familiarity with the subject matter. A second set of

questionnaires were provided at the end of the programme, to assess the value of the workshop

for the participants, and the results were scored and quantified. The evaluating team also

conducted direct interviews with the participants at different stages of the workshop. The

evaluation provided the organisers an opportunity to get confidential and in-depth feedback

from the participants on their assessment of the workshop. For instance, they praised the

organisers on the design of the course content, which, they agreed, had responded to their needs

on issues such as the need for a clear vision, importance of strategy, essential need for joint

decision making and sharing of responsibility, value of decentralisation, necessity for collective

action through allied organisations, and most of all the supremacy and practicality of the

nonviolent action technique. They gave high praise to the eight films that were shown as having

made concrete the theoretical material that had been presented. Participants, however, suggested

that gender should be main-streamed in future courses, particularly in the sessions on leadership.

They also strongly expressed the sentiment that, given the importance and relevance of the

course, UPEACE should offer to other parts of Nigeria and Africa the opportunity to benefit

from such a workshop. Helpful suggestions were also made for improving future programmes,

including the necessity for better logistical support, and timely arrival of the planned educational

materials.

RESULTS OF THE WORKSHOP

Participants commended the workshop as a success on many fronts. While participants were

advised to develop contacts and share their experiences with others, the attendees also expressed


their resolve to renew their efforts in the attempt to transform the acute conflicts of the Niger

Delta through application of disciplined nonviolent methods. They pledged to go back to their

different communities to spread the significance and realism of nonviolent action rather than

violent struggle against oppressive policies, indicating that they felt more empowered and

strengthened to carry out this responsibility effectively as a consequence of the workshop. They

expressed high interest in the four publications to be published by the UPEACE Africa

Programme as a by-product of the workshop (two of whose authors, Desmond George-Williams

and Christopher A. Miller, were among the facilitators present), and they committed themselves

to their use.

‘Sustenance of the struggle will be of benefit to the Niger Delta. UPEACE has contributed greatly in organising this programme. We are the leaders. We should take this message to our people to make a change. It is time for us

to start working. Let’s take the message back to our people’. – David Alagoa, Coordinator, Peacemakers International, Bayelsa, Nigeria

In the course of small breakout group sessions, it emerged that most participants, if not all, had

previously been involved in some form of nonviolent action. Of course, not everything that is

not violent qualifies as nonviolent action, by which is meant a specific body of action methods

and strategic principles that involve risk and which have the capacity to apply nonviolent

pressure or nonviolent coercion, often involving withdrawal of cooperation or obedience with

the opponent or target group. The participants agreed that the workshop had energized them to

continue with the struggle for equity, justice, and environmental preservation with a deepened

appreciation of the necessity to seek social justice without injury to the life or limb of the target

group. They said that they were now informed and prepared advocates of nonviolent action,

whose methods are different from those of violent resistance and institutionalised political

action. Implicit in this understanding is the recognition that representative and institutionalised

political processes had failed to bring justice in the Niger Delta, yet the attendees are now in

possession of a way to press for transformation of the conflict and fairness without violence. A

fundamental principle of nonviolent struggle is based on symbolic expressions of protest and

communication, withdrawal of anticipated cooperation or submission, or possibly direct

intervention or disruption of the normal operation of a system. The knowledge acquired at the

workshop had increased their capacity, they asserted, even as they agreed that the organisers of

the meeting had helped in the process of initiating positive and constructive social change long

overdue in Nigeria.


The participants agreed amongst themselves that a network

should be set up to enhance the sharing of experiences and

communications. This is particularly important because of

disputes within and among the peoples of the Niger Delta,

which, as noted in the opening background section, had

divided groups that might be allies and prevented the unity

that is essential for effective nonviolent action. Participants

were advised not to limit their networking to the Niger

Delta area, but to reach out across Nigeria and beyond, in

order to allow for the hybridisation of knowledge and

lessons. In this regard, extensive use of the World Wide

Web was recommended, because of the abundant materials

available. Mr. Helvey’s book, On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking about the Fundamentals, as an

example, can be downloaded from the Albert Einstein Institution www.aeinstein.org, under

Publications. Networking, the participants noted, will enhance the sharing of responsibility,

maintain the spirit of cooperation, and help in creating the necessary links and publicizing of

activities. Participants, however, warned that any network that might be created should be a

departure from previous such efforts that had failed.

The participants pledged to go back to their communities to continue working against the

injustices that they believe have precipitated violence, yet with enhanced effectiveness resulting

from understanding that nonviolent struggle can be realistic and effective, even against a target

group that uses violent sanctions. Concerned that issues of ethnicity had pitted the different

communities in the Niger Delta against themselves, they resolved to return to their communities

with improved awareness of the need to plan with clarity of goals and objectives based on a

shared vision, carry out careful research, define concrete and achievable goals, use

communications and electronic technologies more effectively, prepare for opposition and

retaliation, and understand that risks are involved in any struggle for justice.

Interestingly, two participants at the workshop who had been at loggerheads as a result of

belonging to different communities in the Niger Delta and who had previously been arch rivals,

to their own detriment, spoke openly about how each had harmed his own cause. The two

attendees said they had not spoken to each other for a long time because of differences, even

Mr. Chizor Wisdom Dike Executive Director, Community

Rights Initiative (CORI)


while working on the same issues that are related to transforming an acute conflict. Thanks to

the workshop, they said, they had become friends and colleagues again in a mutual struggle for

justice and fairness. The workshop thus served as a catalyst for competing groups to come

together.

The workshop also exposed the cost differential between the nonviolent strategy and other

means of struggle. Participants agreed that their rights as citizens and inhabitants of the oil-rich

Niger Delta could better be achieved at the least social cost through the nonviolent strategic

approach, saying that it did not matter if the process were slow. Participants said they believed

that wider knowledge of the principles of nonviolent struggle would benefit their people, who

have continued to suffer from policies that allow negative effects from oil exploration and

production. They thanked UPEACE for its efforts in putting together the programme in

cooperation with impressive local partners, in response to the heartfelt plea of the Nigerian

youths who were present in Abuja in 2004, saying that they would be able to work with resolve

and new tools for effectiveness, and with hope of initiating nonviolent social-change processes

that could improve life for all the citizens of Nigeria.

In his closing remarks, Dapo Olorunyomi observed that the workshop

had shown that there is a promising future for the work of the

participants. He highlighted the necessity to build high-quality

leadership, while noting that this goal requires strong efforts. Although

he had carried much of the responsibility, and his judgement was

crucial to the success of the endeavour, he thanked the organisers and

the participants for making the programme a success. He specifically

thanked the Rev. Fr. Kevin O’Hara, the executive director of CSCR,

for the effort and commitment of his organisation to the cause of the

Niger Delta people. Earlier in a brief comment, Father O’Hara spoke

of his organisation’s deep involvement in the struggle to finding a lasting solution for the Niger

Delta impasse, and he urged participants to return to their communities and use the skills they

had acquired in searching for positive impact on their communities.

‘Looking at conflict resolution, Nigeria is empty, and an empty sack cannot stand upright. We are the ones to fill this sack and fill it well’.

– Bassey Archibong, Programme Director, SHED Africa

Rev. Fr. Kevin O’Hara, Executive Director,

CSCR


CONCLUSION

The workshop achieved its aim of exposing the participants to a realistic, alternative technique of

seeking social justice, which does not seek to achieve legitimate goals by injury or harm to the

lives or limbs of the opponent. This does not mean that the target group will throw down its

weaponry when faced with disciplined nonviolent protagonists, but that power configurations

can be changed by nonviolent struggle that are effective and practical in bringing about social

change. Considering the spate of conflicts in the region, and, in fact, in Nigeria as a whole, the

knowledge derived from this workshop was both apt and empowering for positive social change.

Responding to the constituency of youth was highly appropriate. As one of the participants

noted, ‘The youth are the ones who carry out the violence in the inter-communal and intra-

communal conflicts. We, the youth, can also be the solution’. In a number of comments,

participants urged that similar training and instruction should be taken across the country and

throughout the continent on a Pan-African basis.

Iyenemi Wokoma, Esq., M.A., Jide Fajoyomi, M.A.


APPENDIX 1: REPORT ON THE TRAINING SESSIONS ON NONVIOLENT

TRANSFORMATION OF CONFLICT (DAYS 1 - 4)

In the opening ceremony on 13 November 2005, Dapo Olorunyomi welcomed participants,

faculty, and facilitators to the workshop. Professor Mary E. King gave a keynote address

welcoming the guests. She reviewed briefly the history of the University for Peace (UPEACE) as

a treaty organization of the UN, set up by the General Assembly of the UN in 1980. Dr.

Boniface Dumpe spoke about the Centre for Social and Corporate Responsibility (CSCR), giving

the origin of the organisation and its activities. Participants were entertained by a cultural troupe

from Rivers State Council of Arts and Culture, Port Harcourt, followed by a movie on the Port

Elizabeth Boycott (part of the series by filmmaker Steve York ‘A Force More Powerful’) which

focuses specifically on the 1986 economic boycott led by student in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

It highlighted basic elements of organising a consumers’ boycott, which utilised economic

relationships as a context of working to end apartheid through popularly-based nonviolent

resistance, steering militant youth away from violence, which would be crushed by the state. It is

now generally agreed that the Port Elizabeth Boycott catalysed the international third-party

sanctions that effectively ended apartheid.

Dapo Olorunyomi opened the training session on 14 November, introducing the workshop team

of organisers, the facilitators, resource persons, and rapporteurs. He offered ground rules for the

conduct of the workshop. Dr. King briefly commented and introduced two Nigerian former

students of the University for Peace, who prepared the final report of the workshop: Iyenemi

Wokoma, a lawyer, and Jide Fajoyomi. She introduced Christopher A. Miller, author of Only

Young Once: A Youth Introduction to Nonviolent Struggle and of a training manual for directors of

youth groups, and Desmond George Williams, author of ‘Bite Not One Another: Selected Accounts of

Nonviolent Struggle in Africa, among four publications related to the workshop being published by

the UPEACE Africa Programme.

Workshop evaluators gave participants a pre-test questionnaire to return before the lead trainer

(retired U.S. Colonel Robert L. Helvey) commenced the training process.

Helvey reviewed the focus of the training course on the fundamentals of strategic thinking in

nonviolent struggle, a technique for promoting political reform and achieving social change

without bloodshed. He distinguished between pacifism and nonviolent action, noting that the

latter aims at achieving social change without violence, whereas pacifism refers to opposition to


all wars, two different schools of thought. In emphasising the importance of vision-driven

nonviolent action, he said that strong motivation for him had come from the final moments of

the late Ken Saro-Wiwa, leader of a nonviolent movement in the Niger Delta, while undergoing

trial at a tribunal set up by a Nigerian military government to try him and nine other Ogoni

activists over the alleged murder of four Ogoni men. Saro-Wiwa was executed in a judicial killing

in 1995. The episode, Mr Helvey noted, had affected him personally, and he noted that he had

derived insights from Professor Omo Omoruyi’s work ‘The Politics of Oil: Who Owns Oil,

Nigeria, States, or Communities?’ (For Omoruyi’s paper, go to

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/particles/politics_of_oil.htm.)

In nonviolent action, Helvey said, it is important not only to have a vision but to establish

objectives that take into consideration all of the parties, including the opponents. The workshop

thereafter broke into small breakout groups, each to identify its own Vision of Tomorrow. The

groups returned and presented the results of their envisioning exercise, which included such

elements as social security, job creation, infrastructure development, health facilities,

participatory decision-making, and responsive and responsible leadership, among others.

In nonviolent struggle, Helvey pointed out, power relations are important, and understanding the

sources of power makes it possible for the struggle to be successful. All systems need constant

replenishment to sustain them. Their sources of power include authority (legitimacy), human

resources, skills and knowledge (technology), intangible factors that contribute to obedience such

as religion or cultural values (psychology, ideology, and habit), material resources such as

property and finances, and the capacity to enforce sanctions. The sources of power find

expression in institutions and organisations, or pillars of support. A critical session in the

workshop allowed participants to identify the pillars of support for those in power, as well as for

those who are fighting for changes in power relationships in order to accomplish positive change

without armed struggle.

A movie on the struggles of the Itshekiri people of Ugborodo, Delta State of Nigeria, produced

by CSCR, was shown to the participants, after which they broke again into small groups to

brainstorm on the strength and degree of support of each pillar. Helvey narrated the 1987-1988

case of the pro-democracy movement in Burma, to show how the pillars of support for the

authoritarian regime were gradually won over by the nonviolent action of the people, led by the

students and other social groups.


The day’s session focused on appreciation that the nonviolent activist is fighting for better,

equitable power relations in society, but not fighting against people or individuals. The training

showed that power is fragile and transient, and can be changed. The first full day of training

ended with a movie on the nonviolent resistance of the civil society in Chile, during the era of

military dictatorship under General Augi\usto Pinochet, which showed how the military generals

were obliged to give way to democratic rule, nonviolently.

Sessions on 15 November further brainstormed on power asymmetries. Nonviolent struggle may

be the only way that groups in steeply unbalanced power relationships can equalise themselves.

Helvey explained how a power asymmetry between an adversary and those struggling to bring

about social change from popular action requires planning strategically. This entails learning how

to take advantage of the power inequality itself. Thereafter, discussion shifted to the

mechanisms of change involved in nonviolent struggle, that is, the aim or the result of initiating

change through nonviolent action. Mechanisms explain what you are intending to achieve, or

describe what change resulted. Scholars have identified the mechanisms of change as follows:

1. Conversion

2. Accommodation

3. Nonviolent coercion

4. Disintegration.

In conversion, the target group accepts a new point of view and the goals of the nonviolent

protagonists. The mechanism experienced most frequently world-wide and historically in

nonviolent struggles is accommodation, wherein the target group does not necessarily have a change

of heart or alteration of beliefs, but accedes to the nonviolent protagonists because it would be

easier or cheaper to do so, adjusting to new circumstances produced by the nonviolent

movement, but without changing its positions on the underlying issues. It is often an

acknowledgement that outright refusal to accommodate the demands of the nonviolent

movement would be too difficult and not worth the cost politically. Nonviolent coercion occurs

when internal divisions develop in the ranks of the opponent, which can happen without the

adversary’s will or consent. The target group may retain control and the capability to use the

security apparatus, but its capacity for repressing the nonviolent resisters may be circumscribed,

because its own citizenry has paralysed the system. A participant asked whether nonviolent

coercion does not amount to violent action. Helvey explained that this mechanism explains a

situation in which the opponent or target group has no choice but to accept the perspective of


the nonviolent protagonists, it does not imply violence, and he was adamant in saying that that

the greatest contaminant to any nonviolent struggle is the employment of violence—which must

be avoided at all costs, particularly because today it will result in a label of ‘terrorist’. The fourth

mechanism, disintegration, or collapse of the opponent’s power system, is exceedingly rare, but has

occurred.

Three categories of action methods—largely symbolic and peaceful actions—were identified:

• Protest and persuasion, or actions to send a message, since it is essential to communicate the

grievance clearly. Common methods in this category include vigils, parades, or

demonstrations.

• Noncooperation, or actions to suspend co-operation and withdrawal of obeisance, of which the

most frequent methods used are probably the boycott and strike.

• Nonviolent intervention, or forceful acts that either disrupt established patterns of behaviour or

create new ones. Sit-ins and hunger strikes would fall into this classification of methods.

Participants were given a list of 198 action methods of nonviolent struggle, a now classic

tabulation by the scholar Gene Sharp, and the workshop broke into syndicate groups to enable

participants to identify from among the 198 methods those that they had personally

encountered, participated in, or had seen employed in Nigeria in the past. When the small groups

reported back, it became clear that a very high number of the action methods had been utilised,

yet very few of them fell into the categories of noncooperation and nonviolent intervention.

Helvey observed that there is a great need to learn and strategise on the use of such action

methods, because they can be highly effective in changing power configurations, so that

seemingly indomitable adversaries are forced to listen, stop doing something, start doing

something, or change. Helvey urged participants to ruminate on the list of methods they already

used in the past, and examine carefully what had worked and what was not effective.

After lunch, a movie on the student sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in the 1960s U.S.

civil rights movement was shown. The civil rights movement in America was largely

decentralized, but, as the film revealed, a high degree of networking contributed to its successes.

The importance of research and strategic planning in nonviolent action also became visible in the

film. A number of planning tools were discussed as follows:

Planning tools

A plan should be followed sequentially:


• Statement of the problem: do not write symptoms of the problem, but, rather, the real

underlying problem

• Make your assumptions explicit

• State the facts related to the predicament and discuss these facts

• From the examination of the facts, reach your conclusions

• Make recommendations

Ask yourself whether the recommendations are:

• Suitable

• Feasible

• Acceptable

Plan format

• Situation (an appraisal or observation of the environment)

• Mission (vision concept, tasks, and people to carry them out)

• Execution

• Logistics and administration

• Communications

In using the planning tool, one may decide to carry out the activities in phases. One must not

forget training and identification of organisations with which to network. Importantly, the

objectives and methods of achieving them must be linked; the is the connexion between the ends

and means, also important in strategy.

Christopher A. Miller led a session on communications, of which the highlights were as follows:

• communication must support what is being done

• communication should aim to influence attitude and beliefs, similarly to commercial

advertisers

• the target audience must be identified

• messages must be brief, short, and to the point

• messages must be credible

• language must be simple

• the message must be visible

• messages should be repeated over and over again


• the messenger is also a key factor

• feedback must be ensured, so that you can make changes and adaptations.

Participants discussed the phenomenon of propaganda. Questions, observations, and comments

flew, and ultimately there was consensus that a central plank of nonviolent struggle is to hold

onto the Truth and pass messages which are credible to the people whose support is needed.

Dr. Mary King concluded by saying that nonviolent groups in the Niger Delta can benefit from

international solidarity, but only if they resist the temptation to exaggerate, because

embellishment and overstatement destroys the reputation and credibility of the communicator.

A film on the nonviolent struggle of the Polish workers’ union Solidarity in the 1980s came as

the last event of the day.

Helvey started the day’s activities on 16 November by identifying the contaminants of

nonviolent struggles. Violence remains the major contaminant, and, if introduced into the

struggle for whatever reasons or in response to whatever provocation, it gives the wrong signal

to the opponents about the intentions of the nonviolent activists. Several other contaminants

were noted that could equally render a nonviolent campaign ineffective, for example, excessive

secrecy, rigidity in decision making, not keeping to time commitments, partisanship and

bickering, lack of commitment, and so on.

The workshop reconvened to deliberate issues of group mobilisation for nonviolent struggles. It

was observed that students have always been in the vanguard of social movements calling for

positive change in social and power relations. Other social groups, such as labourers and

workers, were also identified as critical to the success of a nonviolent endeavour. To obtain the

support of the segments of society needed for successful nonviolent advocacy for social justice,

Helvey emphasized the need to understand the sociology of groups whose support is sought.

The workshop broke into small groups to identify the particular situations of different sub-

groups in society, and how their specific perspectives could affect their support for nonviolent

action. The breakout groups discovered that all sorts of groups are potential supporters of

nonviolent struggles for social justice, because of their social location and their position, even if


asymmetrical. A series of exercises enabled participants to appreciate the intricacies of mobilizing

certain segments of society in nonviolent actions.

The workshop reconvened to watch a film on the Danish nonviolent resistance to the German

Nazi military occupation during the Second World War. The entire society of Denmark unified

itself against Hitler, and its collective nonviolent action saved most of the country’s Jews. The

film reinforced the efficacy and benefits of planned and strategic nonviolent action.

After participants had a short break, Helvey recapitulated the issues treated from the first day.

Participants made a number of comments and interpretations. Professor Lucky Akaruese

observed that government agencies need this kind of training more than the masses or the civil

society organisations attending the workshop, because the discipline and peaceful symbolic

nonviolent protests in Nigeria have been greeted with violence by government agencies’

responses to carefully planned demonstrations. Patrick Naagbaton stressed the importance of

networking, in order to continue what has been learnt at the workshop. He suggested the

creation of a Web site. Bassey Achibong urged that the organisers and participants to take

decisive action on the issues discussed, noting that the workshop should not be allowed to go the

way of others in the past; there should be follow up. Dr. Owolabi Babalola urged participants to

bring leadership to the grass roots following what has been learnt at the workshop, advising that

a way should be created for nonviolent action groups to be strengthened as a result of the

workshop.

Miabiye Kuromiema noted that the process should be thought through very carefully, so that

people and leaders can emerge from this activity understanding the requirements of working

towards the realisation of nonviolent action in the Niger Delta. Barrister David Alagoa asked

participants to develop on existing network and make it inclusive, the better to start a networking

process. Barrister Uche Okwukwu said the cause of the crisis in the Niger Delta can be

attributed to ‘ethnicisation’ and unjust allocation of resources. He urged the group to speak

against unjust allocation of resources and enjoined all organisations present to preach peace,

equity, and justice. Iyenemi Wokoma advised on the need to develop a culture of documenting

what has been done in the Niger Delta to enable others to build on that; it is important to write

reports and case studies, she said, so that other Nigerians and Africans as a whole can learn from

the experiences of the many groups that are seeking positive social change in the Niger Delta.

Randolph Okosi, of Bayelsa State, who represented a youth group and a fishermans’ association,


appealed to the leaders present to endeavour to take the message of nonviolent struggle to the

grass roots in the Delta and reach out to those involved in advocacy, those who are based in

communities. Dapo Olorunyomi advised that participants should learn from what has been

discussed and commit themselves to further continuing education bit by bit.

The day’s activities ended with the movie ‘Bringing down a Dictator’, about the student-led

nonviolent resistance of Serbian civil society against the dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic.

CONCLUSION

It was evident that the participants found the workshop exciting, educational, and participatory.

It responded to deeply felt needs. They each departed better informed and ready to commit

themselves to nonviolent peace-building, drawing from the trove of methodologies, practical

insights, and protocols learnt during the workshop.

– Elias Courson and Niyi Ibietan, Rapporteurs


APPENDIX 2: LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT TRAINING

A full day of the workshop was set aside for training in leadership development, led by Mallam

Aminu Isa Waziri, from Kano, Nigeria, and professional staff of the Joint UNDP/UNESCO

Foundations for Africa’s Future Leadership programme, based in Dakar, Senegal. The

participants explored what makes leadership effective, from their own experiences.

Waziri remarked that his organisation focuses on leadership training and internships for young

people, in order to lay the foundations for developing a new breed of leaders among all the

sectors of African societies. He thanked UPEACE Africa Programme for the collaborative

efforts with the Joint UNDP/UNESCO Programme which, he noted, had taken shape with

positive prospects for continuing involvement of the two organizations in a number of activities

aimed at leadership development in Africa.

In his presentation, Waziri raised core issues and questions on leadership. According to Waziri,

leadership is about the development of vision and strategies, the alignment of relevant persons

behind these strategies, and the empowerment of individuals to make the vision a reality, despite

inevitable obstacles. As noted by Waziri, leadership motivates, encourages the abilities of other

people, plans strategically, coordinates, catalyses, and gives a spur to the vision of the populace.

He noted that leaders help in setting direction, aligning constituencies, giving motivation,

inspiring people as well as empowering others toward goal attainment, solving big problems,

taking major decision, and managing change, including dealing with conflicts and creating

resources.

A good leader, Waziri noted, must be able to develop others into leaders, noting that continuity

was necessary in leadership. However, he observed, performing effectively as a leader entails

developing the necessary leadership skills. He therefore enjoined the participants to develop

themselves in order to have an impact on the people.

Noting that there are different types of leaders, Waziri pointed out that a good leader was one

that combined basic competencies including integrity, knowledge and skills, with other related

competencies. He spoke extensively on issues regarding leadership such as leadership virtues,

advising that participants should lead by example in their respective positions.


The session ended with opportunities for the participants to ask questions and share their views

on what they had learnt. Among other barriers to achieving leadership goals within the Nigerian

context, participants identified lack of integrity and corruption. They reasoned that addressing

the perennial problems bedevilling development in the region, particularly in the Niger Delta

area, called for an objective mind, the judicious use of funds, and renewed commitments to

serving the people

Participants were able to identify the inter-connexions between leadership development and

conflict management. The organisers were commended for their ingenuity and initiative in

including the leadership module in the training, even as they expressed their satisfaction with the

trainer and their readiness to be guided in their activities with their newly acquired knowledge of

leadership development.


APPENDIX 3: Participant List

Name Title/ Organization Role Contact 1 Abigor

Ms. Rebecca

Centre for Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution Delta State

Participant Tel: +234 08027645982 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

2 Agwana Ms. Violet

ERA, Port Harcourt Participant Tel: +234 08035535228 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

3 Akaruese Prof. Lucky

Head, Department of Philosophy Faculty of Humanities University of Port Harcourt Rivers State

Local Resource Person

Tel: +234 08035200219 08037108410 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

4 Alagoa Mr. David (Esquire)

Coordinator Peacemakers International Bayelsa State

Participant Tel: +234 0803-7078472 Email: [email protected]

5 Archibong Mr. Bassey

Programme Director SHED Africa Cross River State

Participant Tel: +234 08063577424 08054007645 Email: [email protected] [email protected]


6 Ayemi Mr. Abba

Centre for Social and Corporate Responsibility (CSCR) Rivers State


Tel: +234 08035005530 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

7 Babalola Dr. Owolabi

Institute of African Studies Peace & Conflict Studies Programme

Participant Tel: +234 08023403382 60397177 Email: [email protected]

8 Chiekwe Mr. Patrick A.

Save Earth Nigeria (SEN) Rivers State

Participant Tel: +234 08056577801 Email: [email protected]

9 Courson Mr. Elias

Niger Delta University Department of Philosophy Wilberforce Island Bayelsa State

Rapporteur Tel: +234 08034105679 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

10 Dike Mr. Chizor Wisdom

Executive Director Community Rights Initiative (CORI) Rivers State


Tel: +234 0803-3409171 Email: [email protected]


11 Draper Ms. Tracey

Pro-Nigeria International Bayelsa/ Akwa Ibom


12 Eboh Marie Pauline (Rev. Mother Prof.)

Daughters of Mary Mother of Mercy, DMMM. Generalate Umuahia, Abia State



13 Eboh Mr. Uzoma Kingsley

President, Programme Coordinator Universalist Club


14 Edem Mr. Edem O.

Akpabuyo Bakassi Green Movement (ABGREMO) Cross River State

Participant Tel: +234 08037114770 08065292379 Email: [email protected]

15 Ehinmosan Mr. Abraham

Coordinator Ilaje National Youth Congress Ondo State



16 Emori Mr. M. N. I. (Esquire)

Executive Director Citizens’ Right Protection Society (has consultancy status with the UN) Cross River State

Participant 16, Target Road Calabar, CRS, Nigeria Tel: +234 08036726474 Email: [email protected]

17 Ereba Mr. Patrick



Tel: +234 08035005387 Email: [email protected]

18 Etela Mr. Dabo Owgn

University of Port Harcourt Department of Political Science

Participant 174 Niger Street Port Harcourt Rivers State Email: [email protected]

19 Famuyiwa Ms. Motunrayo

Foundation of Truth Assembly (Lagos)


20 Fajoyomi Mr. Jide

UPEACE Resource Person

Tel: +234 08060458859


21 George-Williams Mr. Desmond

Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies FBC

Participant Email: [email protected]

22 Helvey Mr. Robert L.

Robert Helvey Associates Resource Person

Email: [email protected]

23 Ibietan Mr. Niyi

ECO-OUTREACH Rivers State

Rapporteur International Institute of Journalism NUJ National Secretariat Complex Area 11 Garki-Abuja Federal Capital Territory Tel: +234 08034232098 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

24 Jaja Ms. Gloria

Community Rights Initiative Participant Tel: +234 08036703674 Email: [email protected]

25 King Dr. Mary E.

Professor of Peace & Conflict Studies, UPEACE

Resource Person


26 Kpalap Mr. Bariara

Information Officer Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) Rivers State



27 Kuromiema Mr. Miabiye

Coordinator Ijaw Youth Council (ITC) / Our Niger Delta Bayelsa/ Delta/ Rivers State


28 Liondjo Mr. Philippe

IT Assistant UPEACE

Resource Person

University for Peace 5, chemin du Rivage ; 1292 Chambésy/Geneva Tel: +41 (0)22 737 3080 Fax: +41 (0)22 737 3090 Email: [email protected] Website: www.upeace.org

29 Mbagwu Ms. Joan

UPEACE Evaluator

Evaluator Olive Branch Konsult 31, Lagos-Abeokuta Exp way Lagos, Nigeria Tel: +234 08033400846 Email: [email protected]

30 Mene Mr. A. Sunny

Coordinator Niger Delta Foundation for Skill Acquisition and Youth Empowerment Edo State


31 Miller Mr. Chris

Consultant, Researcher Resource Person



32 Mislaw Ms. Esther J.

Mangrove Women Development Foundation Delta State


33 Muzan Mr. Menes Abinami

Universalist Club

Participant Tel: +234 850-617-8257 Email: [email protected]

34 Naagbanton Mr. Patrick

Coordinator Niger Delta Project for Environment Human Rights and Development (NDPEHRD)


35

Njoku Prof. Placid

Director National Universities Commission (NUC)

Plot 430, Aguiyi-Ironsi Street Maitama District P.M.B. 237 Garki G.P.O. Abuja, Nigeria Tel: +234 9 413 3184 Email: [email protected]

36 Nyawalo Dr. Phoebe

Lead Evaluator UPEACE

Evaluator P.O. Box 29 Masend, Kenya Email: [email protected]


37 Okwaraofum Ms. Grace

Observer Participant Email: [email protected]

38 Okon Ms. Emem J.

Executive Director KEBETKACHE Woman Development and Resource Centre Rivers State


39 Okosi Mr. Randolph

Akassa Youth Akassa National Surveillance Brotherhood Bayelsa State

Participant Email: care of: [email protected] Tel: +234 08060558495 08051246218

40 Okwukwu Mr. Uche

President Congress for the Liberation of Ikwerre People (COLIP) Rivers State

Participant Tel: +234 08037087483 084572934 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

41 Olawale Mr. Albert

Peace & Conflict Studies Programme, University of Ibadan



42 Olorunyomi Mr. Dapo

Freedom House, Nigeria Lagos

Planning Team Leader


43 Onofiok Mr. Wilson

Coordinator Akpakip-Oro Youth Forum Akwa Ibom State


44 Reyenieju Mr. Daniel

Itesekiri National Youth Council


45 Ristau Prof. Carolyn

Pro Natura International Nigeria University of Pennsylvania

Participant Tel: +234 0806-394-8099 Email: [email protected]

46 Sampson Mr. James

Coordinator Odiomna Fishermen and Farmers Association Bayelsa State



47 Sigalo Mr. Marvin Barivure

Universalist Club Participant Tel: +234-802-329-0865 Email: [email protected]

48 Usanga Mr. Chidi




49 Volonnino Mr. Dominic

Programme Assistant UPEACE

Resource Person

UPEACE 5, Chemin du Rivage 1292 Chambesy/ Geneva Switzerland Tel: +41 (0)22 737 3080 Fax: +41 (0)22 737 3090 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Website: www.africa.upeace.org

50 Wokoma Ms. Iyenemi

UPEACE Resource Person


Documents

UNIVERSITY FOR PEACE AFRICA PROGRAMME · PDF fileThe participants also discussed the value of a ... Bini, Urhobo, Itsekiri, Ikwerre ... Nigerian government ostensibly to address the