When the Mediator Wears a Crown: Rethinking Neutrality Across Cultures

It is widely accepted in mainstream mediation literature that neutrality is a foundational value. The mediator is expected to be an impartial facilitator, standing apart from the parties and guiding a process in which self-determination is paramount. This model, developed and refined in Western contexts, has shaped both scholarship and practice globally. 

However, in many societies around the world (particularly those with strong communal, customary, or spiritual traditions), mediators are not chosen for their neutrality, but, instead, for their embedded authority. These figures may be elders, religious leaders, or traditional rulers whose legitimacy stems from their longstanding roles within the social and moral fabric of their communities. They are approached as trusted guides who are known, respected, and often revered. Their authority does not disqualify them from mediating, rather, it is the reason they are invited to do so. 

Although this may seem to contradict the idea of an impartial facilitator, it invites us to reconsider what impartiality can look like across cultural contexts. In many customary contexts, impartiality is not defined by detachment, but by the social expectation that the mediator (by virtue of their role, reputation, and responsibilities) will treat all parties fairly. Their embeddedness does not erode trust, to the contrary, it sustains it. In Nigeria, for instance, traditional rulers such as kings, obas, and emirs serve precisely this function. They are not neutral outsiders, rather they are ancestral figures and community anchors. Their guidance is accepted because they are part of the community and trusted to uphold its values. 

This raises the question: Can Western assumptions about mediator neutrality survive contact with models in which legitimacy flows from authority, not detachment? The case of Nigeria’s traditional rulers offers a compelling lens through which we can rethink what it means to mediate with integrity, authority, and trust. 

Traditional Authority in Modern Nigeria 

In Nigeria today, traditional rulers still play a vital role in governance and community life, even though not constitutionally defined.  Indeed, various states have traditional rulers laws that regulate their roles, though these laws vary widely in form, content, and currency, with many reflecting outdated colonial-era assumptions or administrative categories. Often seen as custodians of custom and moral order, traditional rulers serve as intermediaries between the grassroots and formal government institutions, resolve local disputes, and promote social cohesion. 

Customary Mediation Systems and Real Practice Systems 
 

Examining this topic in light of system design, customary approaches to mediation reflect the cultural and social structures they are embedded within. As highlighted already, in tightly knit communities, disputes arise within dense networks of kinship and tradition. Authority figures are not distant elites, but known moral anchors. This context provides both the legitimacy of the mediator’s role and the social mechanisms for compliance. 

John Lande’s Real Practice Systems (RPS) theory helps us recognize this, as it moves beyond abstract ideals to examine how mediation actually works in the real world. It emphasizes that mediation is always shaped by the practitioner’s background, values, relationships, and legitimacy within their social context. RPS encourages us to view mediation not as a standardized process but as a dynamic system that varies based on culture and expectations. 

When viewed through an RPS lens, the world of traditional ruler mediation is not a deviation from good practice. Instead, it is a coherent system in which embedded authority, ritualized process, and cultural legitimacy make peace possible. RPS shows us that neutrality and legitimacy are not one-size-fits-all. Sometimes, that legitimacy wears a crown. 

The Wisely Directive Mediation Style 

Traditional ruler mediation in Nigeria is a prime example of what Real Practice Systems (RPS) theory helps us see more clearly. It is a culturally embedded system, shaped by local norms of legitimacy, trust, and ritual. Rather than following a universal script, it adapts to its social context (and is expected to). To understand how this works in practice, we can turn to a mediation approach that might not appear in standard textbooks, but is widely recognized on the ground: the Wisely Directive Mediation (WDM). Thus, while Western literature often distinguishes between facilitative, evaluative, and transformative mediation styles, WDM is chosen precisely for their authority and expected to steer the parties toward resolution.  

WDM involves more direction than conventional mediation, but stops short of arbitration. It reflects a culturally grounded path shaped by trust and legitimacy. One might ask: what happens if a party disagrees with the mediator’s guidance (as although traditional rulers are deeply respected, their authority is not absolute)? Parties retain the option to disengage or seek redress elsewhere, though doing so may carry social costs. 

This model aligns closely with mediation by traditional rulers in Nigeria. Kings, chiefs, and community elders are often approached not for their neutrality but their wisdom. Among the Yoruba, for instance, disputants may go before the oba or an agba (a respected elder), not to explore options, but to be shown the way. The mediator listens, consults custom, and proposes a concrete outcome—an approach that works precisely because it is culturally grounded and expected. 

Where Western mediation assumes neutrality, individual resolution, and legal enforcement, WDM centers embedded authority, communal repair, and ritualized reintegration. The difference is not just stylistic, it reflects a fundamentally different theory of what conflict is, and what resolution requires. 

Still, the presence of traditional rulers as mediators does not necessarily violate neutrality, rather it reframes it. In WDM, neutrality is not about social distance but about a principled expectation of fairness. These rulers are expected to act equitably because of the responsibilities of their office. Their impartiality flows from their role, not from their detachment. This role-based neutrality fosters legitimacy precisely because it is culturally intelligible and rooted in a shared moral framework. 

Anatomy of Wisely Directive Mediation 

WDM is characterized by several interwoven elements that distinguish it from conventional Western models. First, authority is a key feature. The mediator is deliberately selected for their recognized standing, often as a traditional ruler, religious figure, or elder. Their wisdom and moral leadership are the reasons parties trust them. They are considered by many as the moral compass of the community. 

Second, ritual is integral to resolution. Cultural practices bookend the process. Before a session, rituals such as kolanut sharing or libations mark a communal commitment to truth and reconciliation. After the session, shared meals or public declarations serve not only to affirm the outcome but to ritually reintegrate disputants into the social whole. These traditions function as social technology that transforms personal grievances into collective healing. Finally, justice in WDM might look different. Justice here is social and culturally legible, with a focus on restorative justice. 

A Case in Point: Bauchi State 
In Bauchi State, the Emir combined political, religious, and customary authority to resolve a conflict between the Sayawa community and the Emirate. Public sessions invoked Islamic and cultural frameworks, shared values, and issued guidance. The result was a durable settlement, achieved not through dispassionate neutrality but through respected, directive leadership. 

What This Means for Mediation Practice 
The rise of interest in cultural competency, diversity, and post-neutrality frames makes this moment ripe for rethinking. Customary mediation practices offer key insights: 

1. Trust does not always require neutrality. 

2. Self-determination can mean choosing to be guided. 

3. Mediation can be ritual, not just conversation. 

As mediation is increasingly used to address global challenges, diplomacy, climate negotiations, and cross-border intellectual property disputes, etc., it encounters diverse cultural expectations about authority, fairness, and process. For instance, intellectual property disputes often cross borders and draw on global mediation services. In such settings, an assumption that neutrality must mean detachment may not hold. If mediation processes fail to reflect how trust is built within different cultural contexts, they risk not only a loss of legitimacy but also limited uptake and engagement by the communities they aim to serve. Indeed, facilitative, evaluative, and transformative styles offer useful tools, but they are not universal. In some contexts, mediation may only work if it reflects embedded values, and if the mediator, metaphorically or otherwise, wears a crown. 

Cautions and Challenges 

WDM is not utopian. Thus, notwithstanding the foregoing, an important question arising is whether people feel they get justice from these processes? Indeed, in the Dispute System Design literature, evaluation is key to ensuring accountability, learning, and equity. But for many of Nigeria’s traditional dispute systems, there is little empirical evidence about outcomes or user satisfaction. This points to a research gap (and a challenge). If such systems are to be respected and possibly scaled or integrated, they must also be scrutinized: Do they deliver justice? What kind of justice? And to whom? 

In conclusion, mediation is not a one-size-fits-all practice. As this piece has argued, legitimacy can stem from embedded authority, not detachment. In many communities, peace is possible not despite the crown, but because of it. To understand mediation globally, we must be willing to rethink what neutrality, trust, and leadership truly mean, especially when the mediator wears a crown. 

Seun Lari-Williams

Seun Lari-Williams is a PhD researcher focusing on dispute system design in the creative sector at the Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp, Belgium. He holds a bachelor’s degree in law from the University of Lagos, Nigeria, and a master’s degree in Intellectual Property and Competition Law from the Munich… MORE