On December 4, 2025, reports surfaced in international media and diplomatic circles asserting that the Amhara Regional Government and the Amhara Fano Popular Organization (AFPO) in Addis Ababa had reached a “peace deal.” Masresha Setie, the Former Head of AFPO’s Foreign Relations Department who had reportedly been fired from the particular Fano faction group, was presented as the signatory representing AFPO, while regional president Arega Kebede signed on behalf of the Amhara Regional Government.
The “sustainable peace agreement” between the two sides was witnessed and welcomed in statements released by the African Union (AU) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). The presence of AU and IGAD representatives at the signing was also reported by government-affiliated media. Deputy Prime Minister Temesgen Tiruneh and other regime officials supported the purported “agreement,” portraying it as a reaction to popular calls for peace, despite significant stakeholders vehemently disputing its legitimacy and authenticity.
However, the AFPO leadership and other stakeholders strongly condemned the announcement. As a result of these contradictory accounts from both continental institutions and local actors, serious concerns have been raised regarding the impartiality, legitimacy, and procedural integrity of the AU and IGAD in their handling of this purported agreement. This analysis focuses on dissecting the legitimacy of the AU and IGAD, especially with regard to the principles of neutrality and transparency in peace processes, while acknowledging that inclusive and participatory negotiations are crucial to lasting peace.
RELATED POSTS
Masresha Setie, the former head of AFPO’s Foreign Relations Department, reportedly signed on the organization’s behalf. However, Masresha had been officially fired by the AFPO four days prior to the purported signing. As a result, depicting this event as a “permanent deal” is dubious, untrustworthy, and unreasonable as a true peace accord. It is extremely problematic to frame this as a “permanent peace agreement between the Amhara Region and the AFPO.” On December 5, 2025, the organization swiftly issued an urgent statement denouncing the agreement as fraudulent, requesting clarification from the AU and IGAD, and denouncing the Ethiopian government for fabricating a peace process amid an ongoing conflict in the Amhara region.
AU and IGAD statements continue to present the event as a legitimate peace agreement, despite AFPO’s insistence that there were no negotiations at all between the government and AFPO. This story was promoted by state media, such as BBC Amharic and the Amhara Media Corporation. The claim made by AFPO that no authorized representatives took part in any negotiations is directly contradicted by this promotion.
Suspicion that multilateral organizations are being used for domestic political agendas rather than functioning in accordance with their core values has increased as a result of these contradictions. Reactions from different stakeholders indicate that the dispute has increased uncertainty and tension—rather than carrying out the intended functions of impartial mediation and conflict de-escalation—creating the impression that the AU and IGAD supported a process devoid of fundamental procedural integrity.
The different AFPO leaders and other stakeholders within the Fano movement, including those within the Amhara Fano National Force-Menilik Command (AFNF-MC), have continued to raise several concerns over the impartiality of regional and continental organizations. The AU and IGAD’s acceptance of a signatory who was not delegated by AFPO and lacked legitimate authority, and taking him as a representative of the entire organization, raises significant impartiality and procedural concerns. Stakeholders within the Fano movement also question why the AU and IGAD did not disclose negotiation processes, clarify who was involved, ensure confirmation from all sides before the signing, and failed to publish any verifiable documentation of the process.
Critics further argue that the AU and IGAD have totally endorsed and been influenced by state-driven narratives, raising questions about the impartiality of their mediation efforts and press releases. References have even been made to potential political bias within institutional leadership, including IGAD Secretary Workneh Gebeyehu (PhD), who was a member of the former Oromo People’s Democratic Organization (OPDO) and a close associate of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. By publicly welcoming the deal despite clear disputes over representation, the AU and IGAD have been perceived as endorsing the government’s position rather than serving as impartial mediators.
The controversy surrounding this alleged agreement underscores broader concerns about the erosion of trust in Africa’s peace and security institutions. If continental organizations are perceived as instrumentalized by governments, unwilling to verify facts, or unable to maintain neutrality, then their role in future peace processes will be severely compromised. The potential consequences include loss of legitimacy in the eyes of conflict parties, breakdown of future mediation efforts, diminished trust in multilateral institutions, and long-term damage to the credibility of African conflict-resolution mechanisms.
To restore confidence and uphold their mandates, regional and continental institutions must urgently reaffirm their commitment to the principles of neutrality, transparency, and legitimacy. Specifically, the AU and IGAD should verify representation before recognizing any agreement, ensure transparency in all peace processes, publicly clarify inconsistencies around the December 4 announcement, and safeguard their independence from state pressure. Failing to do so risks weakening not only the current peace efforts in Ethiopia but also the broader credibility of African multilateral institutions at a critical moment for regional security.
Alemu Arage is a university lecturer of Political Science and International Relations. Heis currently pursuing a Doctor of Philosophy in Peace and Security Studies at AddisAbaba University. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the magazine. For further information, please refer to the references here.
