Breaking the Silence: Why Tigray Must Speak with Absolute Clarity in the Face of Manipulated Mediation

Tigray’s Communication Failure and Abiy’s Strategy of Incremental Control

Four years ago, Abiy declared that he would “solve the TPLF problem in days, not weeks or months.” And in the first month of the war, he played the role of a victorious commander—marching into peaceful and unarmed Mekelle, boasting that no military had achieved such a feat. He assured Ethiopians that the issue was resolved. But his illusion of swift victory crumbled within months. The war did not end as he promised. Instead, it escalated into a protracted conflict that exposed the limits of his military strategy and the resilience of Tigray’s resistance.

Yet, Abiy did not abandon his ambitions—he simply adapted his methods. He turned to diplomacy, deception, and calculated political maneuvers to achieve what he failed to accomplish by force. One of his most blatant manipulative acts came in the form of the Andinet Park ceremony, where he orchestrated a grand spectacle to recognize the COHA facilitators and signatories. In that ceremony, he cleverly framed himself as a champion of peace while subtly planting seeds of division within the TPLF leadership—portraying certain figures as visionaries while branding others as obstacles to reconciliation. This deliberate act was not just about optics—it was a calculated move to weaken Tigray’s internal unity and create friction between political factions.

Abiy’s most strategic maneuver, however, came in the way he subverted the COHA agreement itself. Instead of allowing the TPLF to form its own regional government as stipulated by the agreement, he manipulated the process to create the Tigray Interim Regional Administration (TIRA) through a federal proclamation—a move that negated the principles of the COHA and kept Tigray under de facto federal control. Despite violating the spirit of the peace agreement, he managed to get away with it unchallenged, using diplomatic maneuvering and media narratives to justify his actions.

His media campaign was relentless—state-controlled outlets flooded the information space with the claim that TPLF was obstructing peace efforts and refusing to cooperate. Meanwhile, Abiy’s government worked quietly behind the scenes, ensuring that the African Union (AU), the World Bank, and the IMF viewed him as the responsible peace broker while painting Tigray’s leadership as the problem. By successfully controlling this narrative, he deflected attention away from the violations of COHA and shielded his administration from external pressure.

Abiy’s Weaponization of the NEBE: A Calculated Political Trap

Another crucial part of Abiy’s manipulation was using the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) to further dismantle and weaken the TPLF. According to the COHA agreement, TPLF’s status as a legal party should have been automatically reinstated after the federal government reversed its designation of it as a terrorist organization. The Ethiopian Parliament officially removed TPLF from the terrorist list, but Abiy refused to restore it as a registered political party.

Instead, he instructed the NEBE to require TPLF to reapply for registration—a deliberate move to create another bureaucratic roadblock. By doing so, he deprived TPLF of its longstanding legal status and ensured that its party apparatus remained dismantled, weakened, and unable to function as a legitimate political entity fully.

The AU Assembly and Obasanjo’s Message: A Diplomatic Weapon for Abiy

The recent AU Assembly highlighted a troubling dynamic in the ongoing Ethiopian conflict. Rather than advocating for the full and fair implementation of the Pretoria Agreement, the discussions were dominated by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s preferred narrative. Ethiopia, not Tigray, dictated the tone, agenda, and outcomes. This imbalance was reinforced by former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the AU’s lead mediator, who issued a thinly veiled warning: unresolved issues should not undermine or reverse the agreement’s progress.

At first glance, this statement might appear neutral. In reality, it was a calculated move to shift the burden of the agreement’s success onto Tigray while shielding Abiy from accountability. Obasanjo’s framing conveyed three clear messages:

1. The agreement will proceed on Abiy’s terms, regardless of Tigray’s legitimate concerns.
2. Tigray must not challenge the process, even if Ethiopia fails to uphold its commitments.
3. Any resistance from Tigray will be framed as an obstacle to peace.

This type of language is not accidental. It is part of a broader strategy to pressure Tigray into compliance while granting Abiy the flexibility to implement—or ignore—the COHA as he sees fit. It is a diplomatic tactic that punishes those demanding justice and rewards those controlling the narrative.

Obasanjo’s reference to “contested territories” remaining independent is particularly dangerous, as it directly legitimizes Abiy’s long-term plan to strip Tigray of its rightful lands. This statement aligns with Abiy’s strategy to maintain Amhara and Eritrean occupation in Western, Southern, and Northern Tigray while keeping Tigray politically weak and economically isolated.

The Most Challenging and Critical Issue: Western and Southern Tigray

The most pressing and politically volatile issue in this entire process is the carefully orchestrated and strategically planned settlement of Amharas in Western and Southern Tigray—an effort deliberately designed by Abiy Ahmed to permanently alter the demographic and political landscape of these regions. Abiy promised the Amhara political elite that he would deliver these Tigrayan territories into their hands, granting them land, homes, and administrative control.

This is the most significant obstacle to peace because it represents an existential struggle for Tigray. If Tigray fails to reclaim these lands and restore their original populations, the very foundation of its autonomy and identity will be undermined.

However, reversing this settlement program is not just a matter of policy — it is a colossal political and logistical challenge. According to unofficial sources, at least 200,000 settlers have already been placed in Western Tigray alone. These settlers now consider the land their permanent home. Many do not recognize that they are living on stolen land, as they were deliberately mobilized and fed government propaganda that Tigray’s territories were “historically Amhara.”

This is where Abiy’s real trap lies—he knows that international bodies are often hesitant to support mass relocation, even when the settlers were illegally placed. By delaying the implementation of COHA, he ensures that settlement becomes an irreversible reality. The longer these settlers stay, the harder it becomes to remove them.

Why Removing Settlers is Critical

1. Avoiding Permanent Occupation: Every day that passes without action further legitimizes the settlers’ presence. Abiy is betting on creating facts on the ground—a well-known colonial strategy that slowly normalizes occupation. If this continues unchecked, Tigray risks permanently losing these territories.
2. Preventing Ethnic Redesign of Tigray: These settlements were not organic; they were state-sponsored. If left in place, they will alter the ethnic composition of Tigray, weakening its historical and political claim to its own land.
3. Sending a Clear Message: If Tigray fails to reclaim its lands, it signals weakness and invites further aggression. Nothing less than full restoration is acceptable.

The Role of ‘YeTekeze Zeb’ (Tekeze Guard) Militia

The Tekeze Guard (YeTekeze Zeb), a militia force trained and armed under the direct guidance of Ethiopia’s federal military generals, presents an additional roadblock to removing illegal settlers from Western Tigray. These militia forces were armed and actively integrated into the Ethiopian army strategy.

The federal army generals openly celebrated and admired the Tekeze Guard’s role in Abiy’s fight against the Amhara forces (Fano), proving that these militias were not just rogue elements but a structured force that Abiy strategically leveraged for his political and territorial objectives.

Why ‘YeTekeze Zeb’ Is a Major Obstacle to COHA Implementation

1. Settlers and Militias Are Interlinked—Many of the Tekeze Guard fighters are settlers themselves, meaning that removing the settlers is not just a civilian relocation issue but also a military disarmament challenge.
2. A Built-In Justification for Future Conflict—Abiy knows that disbanding these armed militias will trigger a backlash, creating yet another excuse for delaying COHA implementation.
3. A Deliberate Destabilization Strategy—By embedding heavily armed militias within the illegal settler population, Abiy has made the issue far more complex—ensuring that any attempt to return Tigray’s rightful lands could lead to escalated military confrontations.
4. A Hidden Threat to Tigray’s Security—Even if Ethiopia theoretically agrees to withdraw its federal forces, the presence of a militia embedded in the settler population means that a potential fifth column remains behind, threatening any meaningful return of displaced Tigrayans.

The Need for Clear Communication on Settler Removal and Militia Disarmament

Tigrayan politicians must clearly and publicly state that returning Western and Southern Tigray is not just about settlers—it is also about dismantling the militarized structures that Abiy has embedded within these territories.

They must articulate that:

• The COHA’s success depends not just on returning displaced Tigrayans but also on the full demilitarization of YeTekeze Zeb and similar militias.
• The Ethiopian government must take responsibility for ensuring that militias do not remain behind as a destabilizing force.
• Any attempt to use armed settlers as a justification for delaying the return of displaced Tigrayans must be rejected outright.

What Tigray Must Say Clearly

Tigray’s leadership must abandon vague, open-ended statements and speak in absolute, unambiguous terms:

• Abiy’s selective implementation of the COHA must be challenged: No real peace can exist while Ethiopian, Amhara, and Eritrean forces remain in occupied Tigrayan territories.
• The return of displaced Tigrayans is non-negotiable: It is not enough to say that IDPs should return “gradually” or “when conditions allow.” A transparent, monitored process must be enforced.
• All illegal settlers in Western and Southern Tigray must leave immediately.
• No federal administration over occupied territories: The AU must not be allowed to frame this as a neutral compromise. Any federal control over Tigrayan lands is occupation and must be rejected outright.

The Consequences of Failing to Be Clear

The alternative is not just a loss in negotiations—it is the slow erosion of Tigray’s very existence. If Tigray’s leaders fail to assert themselves clearly, Abiy will continue manipulating the process until the region is carved up beyond repair. There is no room for compromise on this issue—Tigray’s survival depends on absolute clarity and unwavering resolve.

Moving forward, Tigray must demand legally binding commitments with clearly defined enforcement mechanisms. It must stop relying on ambiguous diplomatic engagements that allow Abiy to dictate terms. If clarity is not ensured from the negotiation phase, the implementation and monitoring phases will be doomed to failure.

Tigray has already seen how a lack of clarity in COHA led to the manipulation of the IRA formation, the continuation of occupation in Western and Southern Tigray, and Abiy’s unchecked diplomatic victories. This cannot happen again.

Tigray must dictate the terms of its survival—not wait for others to define them.