Michael Masrie

 

ADDIS ABABA, 08 Dec. - (ANA) - The first formal pact between the Amhara regional state and one Fano faction signals a tentative opening towards dialogue, reduced violence and cautious stability after two years of turmoil.

 

Ethiopia has taken a significant – though fragile – step towards easing one of its most volatile internal crises with the signing of a peace agreement between the Amhara Regional State Government and a faction of the Fano militia, the Amhara Fano Popular Organization (AFPO).

 

Brokered and witnessed by the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) regional bloc, the agreement marks the first formal accord since the conflict erupted more than two years ago, destabilising one of the country’s largest regions.

 

Regional officials cast the agreement as an essential opening for “relief and security”, but analysts warn its impact may be limited unless Addis Ababa confronts the broader political, security and governance grievances that fuelled the uprising.

 

“This agreement is the result of repeated discussions and negotiations,” said Amhara Regional State president Arega Kebede during the signing ceremony in Addis Ababa. “There is no winner in a conflict. The agreement has made both sides winners and has provided relief to the people of the region.”

 

 

 

 

The AU hailed the pact as a continental milestone. Deputy chairperson Selma Malika Haddadi described it as “a hint of the people’s longing for peace”, adding that every step forward “inches us closer to achieving our goal of Silencing the Guns in Africa”.

 

IGAD deputy secretary-general Mohamed Abdi Ware said: “This agreement is the beginning of freedom of movement for the people, and freedom from the sound of guns.” However, translating signatures into stability will require immediate action: “Both parties should start working from today.”

 

 

 

 

The Amhara region has experienced some of Ethiopia’s most widespread insecurity since 2023, marked by armed clashes between federal forces and a constellation of Fano militias. Conflict has dislocated populations, weakened local governance, destabilised regional economies and exacerbated the national political crisis.

 

Regional authorities have struggled to contain or co-opt Fano forces, which emerged as decentralised self-defence networks before evolving into a politically defiant movement with competing factions and commanders.

 

AFPO representative Captain Masresha Sete, who signed the agreement on behalf of the faction, framed the deal as “a turning point” for Ethiopia.

 

“We entered the forest to find solutions to the people’s questions,” he said. “But since there is no issue that started with conflict and ended with conflict, we have taken the agreement as the only option to bring peace.”

 

He also urged fighters still active in the region to consider peaceful engagement. “Cooperation with a historical enemy is not a solution but a threat to national unity,” he added. “Agreement is not a defeat.”

 

 

 

 

Understanding the implications of the agreement requires understanding the nature of the Fano movement. It is not a single-command armed organisation but a dispersed network of local militias, community defence groups and regionally rooted leaders with varying agendas.

 

The AFPO, which signed the agreement, is one faction within this diffuse ecosystem. A political wing associated with it has been linked to Eskinder Nega, a well-known activist whose leadership has been contested by other Fano groups.

 

 

The Gojjam Fano, led by Zemene Kassie.

The Wollo faction, led by Mihretu Wodajo, also known as ‘Mire’.

Meketaw Mamo's Shewa-based groups.

Battalions led by Baye Kengaw and Habte Wolde in Gondar.

 

While these organisations have occasionally worked together, competition and differences over strategy, territorial control and leadership have fuelled internal conflict.

 

In mid-2025, a coalition called the Amhara Fano National Force (AFNF) attempted to unify several units, but the AFPO declined to join. This decision widened fissures in the movement and limited its capacity to negotiate collectively.

 

This internal fragmentation is why analysts argue that the AFPO agreement alone cannot automatically deescalate conflict across the entire Amhara region.

 

Peace and security scholar Alemu Mullaw argues that the agreement’s institutional legitimacy remains weak. “Considering the representative capacity of Masresha and the forces he brought with him, it is difficult to say this agreement was reached with an accredited leadership of AFPO,” he tells The Africa Report. “This affects the credibility of the process.”

 

Mullaw also questioned the conduct and consequences of the mediation. “The mediators’ role has jeopardised their credibility,” he said, warning that the AU and IGAD risk undermining their future influence if key Fano actors reject the process.

 

Even if the deal signals goodwill, “it is very difficult to say that it is institutional”.

 

 

 

 

Washington-based international conflict analyst Negalegne Mandefiro, stresses that “any peace initiative that contributes to stabilising Ethiopia’s troubled Amhara region deserves encouragement”. However, he cautions that “the dynamics surrounding this accord require deeper scrutiny”.

 

Mandefiro highlights a structural issue that many in Ethiopia’s political arena acknowledge.

 

“The core of the Fano movement’s grievances is directed at the federal government, not the regional administration. Issues of political representation, security arrangements and federal-regional power balances lie at the heart of the crisis,” he says.

 

“Unless the agreement is understood as a first step towards an inclusive and comprehensive peace process involving all Fano factions, the accord risks deepening divisions rather than producing lasting peace.”

 

 

 

 

For Mullaw, Thursday’s agreement follows an earlier round of informal contacts between AFPO representatives and regional officials with IGAD present.

 

These initiatives aimed to identify an entry point for formal dialogue, but they were hampered by disputes within Fano ranks about negotiation authority.

 

“The peace agreement is good because it will encourage other forces to use peaceful options, but

 

it lacks clarity and requires approval from all AFPO leaders. Its institutional strength remains uncertain,” Mullaw says.

 

AU officials, however, view the deal as a credible milestone.

 

In an official statement, the AU described it as a “landmark peace agreement in Ethiopia”, reinforcing its commitment to support the implementation phase, a step analysts say will determine whether the accord becomes symbolic or transformational.

 

 

 

 

Arega used the signing ceremony to urge broader participation from other armed factions. He called on groups still engaged in fighting to present their demands peacefully, stating that the regional government is “always ready for discussions”. He appealed to community leaders to encourage fighters to lay down their arms and support peace efforts.

 

Implementation now looms as the critical test. Neither the federal government nor the major Fano factions outside AFPO have publicly outlined how they will respond to the deal.

 

The AU and IGAD have encouraged an expansion of the process, but there is no formal roadmap for a wider national dialogue on Amhara’s political future.

 

For analysts like Mandefiro, the next steps require political will. “Achieving lasting peace in the Amhara region requires more than written agreements,” he said. “It demands resolving structural grievances and guaranteeing justice, representation and security for everyone involved.”   - (ANA) -

 

AB/ANA/08 December 2025 - - -