Tigray Opposition Figures Reject Participation In National Dialogue

Key opposition parties in Tigray reject the Tigray Interim Administration’s commitment to engage with the National Dialogue Commission, labeling the process illegitimate and exclusionary.

Participation in the dialogue was one of a dozen objectives outlined in the mission document signed by newly appointed TIA President Lt. General Tadesse Werede, who has pledged to “coordinate with and engage in the national dialogue process” as part of the administration’s transitional responsibilities, alongside tasks such as ensuring the return of displaced persons and overseeing disarmament in accordance with the Pretoria Agreement.

Dejen Mezgebe (PhD), Chairman of the Tigray Independence Party Party (TIP), and Berhane Atsbeha, Head of Communications for the Salsay Weyne Tigray Party—both pro-secessionist figures—voiced sharp criticism to the commission to The Reporter.

They argue that the dialogue framework fails to reflect the will of the Tigrayan people.

“The so-called national dialogue—what kind of dialogue excludes key stakeholders? It was dead on arrival,” Dejen said. “It was formed under a government that itself is a party to the conflict. A regime that wages war cannot organize a neutral dialogue. That’s a contradiction.”

– Advertisement –

Berhane echoed this sentiment, dismissing the Commission as “state-sponsored theatre”.

He argued: “We hear about the National Dialogue Commission, but let’s be honest—who was consulted before it was formed? Who elected its members? This is just another mechanism to project legitimacy, not to solve real problems. There are many voices now saying the future should be shaped through dialogue. But we must ask: dialogue with whom? Under whose terms? If it’s the same centralized system dictating the terms, then it’s not a dialogue—it’s a lecture.”

Berhane feels the dialogue offers little to Tigray.

“It does not acknowledge our suffering, our demands, or our rights. It’s a show for the international audience,” he said.

Both figures emphasized that for any political process to be considered credible, it must be rooted in consent, historical accountability, and local agency.

“For the people of Tigray, any process that excludes our right to self-determination is unacceptable. The Commission does not recognize our distinct political questions—it wants to fold us into a centralized national narrative,” Dejen asserted.

Berhane went further, questioning the government’s intentions.

“Dialogue is not about silencing demands—it’s about making space for them. If the National Dialogue Commission cannot guarantee that, then it has no mandate to speak for us,” he said.

Berhane argues the initiative must start by acknowledging war crimes, displacement, and denial of identity.

“Without that, how can there be healing? The current process skips over accountability—it wants reconciliation without justice,” he said.

The opposition figures who spoke with The Reporter reflect the persisting skepticism in Tigray about the federal government’s reconciliation efforts in the post-war period.

While the National Dialogue Commission was created to address Ethiopia’s widening political rifts, it has struggled to gain the trust of opposition groups, particularly in regions that experienced the brunt of protracted conflicts.

In response to such concerns, Professor Mesfin Araya, head of the National Dialogue Commission, acknowledged delays and gaps in outreach to the region.

“Our reach has yet to touch Tigray for this process, and we acknowledge the delay,” he told The Reporter. “But let me be clear: it is not for lack of intention or will. We are preparing to engage with the region meaningfully. Dialogue, by its nature, requires that participants come willingly, with trust. That trust has to be built. And that is the stage we are at.”

He further stressed the need for grassroots engagement.

“When we speak of national dialogue, it’s not something that starts in Addis and ends in Addis. It is a process meant to reach the actual people. In regions like Tigray, we need to sit with community leaders, political actors, and civil society—everyone must have a chance to speak and be heard. Otherwise, it won’t be national, nor will it be dialogue.”

Both the TIP and Salsay Weyane Tigray maintain that genuine dialogue must begin with recognition of what they call “historical injustices,” including war crimes, forced displacement, and the constitutional right to secede.

“We are not boycotting dialogue—we are rejecting a fake one,” said Dejen. “Let the international community be clear: the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission does not speak for Tigray. Its framework is built to preserve the existing political order.”