Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a global problem with epidemic proportions in many African countries, including Nigeria (Ajayi et al., 2022; Balogun & John-Akinola, 2015; Renzetti et al., 2018). Most common forms of intimate partner violence against women in Nigeria are physical violence, including slapping (77%), kicking (40%), and verbal abuse such as shouting (93%) (Abdullahi et al., 2017; Dim, 2018). Recent research shows that 80% of cases of IPV occur due to excessive control over women by the perpetrators (Abdullahi et al., 2017).

In Nigeria, social, cultural, and religious norms perpetuate female submission and reflect “structural violence” with male dominance over women. Women are expected to obey and conform to social expectations (Gardsbane et al., 2022; Zust et al., 2017). Additionally, the traditional payment of a marriage dowry or bride price reinforces such social expectations and male dominance over women. This is still a common practice that invariably subjects women to the authority and control of their husbands (Ajayi et al., 2022; Olayanju et al., 2013; Princewill et al., 2019). Any resistance or opposition to such male power and control can result in more violence against women (Ajayi et al., 2022; Nwabunike & Tenkorage, 2017).

In many African societies, access to justice in cases of IPV remains highly problematic. This is due to patriarchalism and a culture of silence that create barriers to help-seeking (Ajayi et al., 2022; Anitha & Gill, 2022). There is also the problem of minimal legal opportunities for women to receive help and support from official institutions (Kalunta-Crumpton, 2017; Tenkorang et al., 2017). Therefore, informal help (informal mediation) can be of great importance, and this role is usually taken up by religious leaders such as Catholic priests and nuns. However, there is no clear methodology on how to conduct such informal mediation when it comes to ending IPV and meeting the needs of victims. To our knowledge, there are no studies that analyze victims’ perceptions of informal interventions done by religious leaders (more specifically, by Catholic priests and nuns). To interpret the methods of informal mediation by religious leaders, it is important to take into account the values and norms of the specific religion with regard to intimate relations, marriage, violence, and divorce as this might impact the approach taken. The theoretical framework therefore addresses this topic.

The intervention of religious people in family issues is common in underdeveloped countries, mainly in rural areas, but has been little investigated. Some related studies in this area focus on the pastoral care and counseling of victims (Ademiluka, 2019; Akangbe Tomisin, 2020; Neergaard et al., 2007; Odeleye, 2019; Tedder & Smith, 2018). A broader knowledge of comparable interventions is crucial to develop better practices and enhance victims’ satisfaction and experiences.

To provide an overview of victims’ experiences of IPV, their expectations and experiences with the (informal) mediation by Catholic priests and nuns, their evaluation of the mediation agreement, if one is reached, as well as their experiences after the mediation, we undertook in this study. The following research questions guided this investigation:

1.

What kinds and intensity of IPV are experienced by victims who seek help?

2.

What expectations do victims have of mediation?

3.

How do victims perceive the process of mediation?

4.

How do victims evaluate the agreement reached in mediation?

5.

What are the long-term consequences of mediation for the victims, and are there indications of revictimization?

In what follows, we focus on the terminology used in previous research to describe the nature of IPV and mediation so as to gain insight into victims’ perceptions of informal mediation. In the results section, the research questions described above are elaborated on. This is followed by a discussion of the main results, limitations of this study, and possible areas for future research.

Theoretical framework

IPV against women worldwide will continue, particularly because it is hardly considered a social problem in developing countries like Nigeria, where violence seems to be part of daily life (Ajayi et al., 2022; Akangbe Tomisin, 2020; Tenkorang et al., 2017). Most men mainly demonstrate IPV in a heterosexual union against women by using control to subjugate their victim. Perpetrators abuse victims physically (slapping, hitting, kicking, etc.), emotionally, or psychologically (intimidation, belittling, insults, or verbal abuse), sexually (forced intercourse), socially (disconnection from family members or friends), and economically (deprivation of financial aids and provision) (Balogun & John-Akinola, 2015; Conroy, 2014; Goodman & Fels, 2011; Kelmedi, 2015; Nwabunike & Tenkorage, 2017; Mapayi et al, 2013). All these forms of IPV are categorized as coercive control which limits victims’ freedom and ability to seek justice. This act is also promoted by structural barriers like patriarchalism (Nwabunike & Tenkorage, 2017; Romana & Frantz, 2013; Zust et al., 2017).

Formal and informal mediation in cases of IPV

Formal mediation involves a neutral and professional third party who seeks to guide conflicting parties through the process of mediation to reach an agreement acceptable to both parties. In cases of IPV, such mediation can be provided by outsiders, such as court-annexed mediators, social workers, therapists, or lawyers who specialize in mediation in IPV cases (Goodson & Hayes, 2018; Mahenge & Stöckl, 2021). Access to such mediators can be by reference, for example, at the point of contact with police or a court, who might refer to mediation. One can also access them through direct connections, lawyers, or other third parties who encourage victims to seek help from a mediator. This is typically a regulated process to which both parties, the victim and the perpetrator, have to agree (Boniface, 2012; Mahenge & Stöckl, 2021; Raines & Indovina, 2020).

There is an extensive debate about the appropriateness of mediation in the context of IPV. Most scholars argue that screening is an essential tool used during mediation to detect coercive control, power imbalance, and threat. A coercive-controlling perpetrator might use threats to suppress the victims’ interests during mediation. Mediation is considered unethical when this is the case (Ballard et al., 2011). Raines and Indovina (2020) recently argued that there is a limit to which screening might be productive in mediation. Irrespective of the debate on the safety of the victims, these scholars claim that mediation in IPV is still beneficial to victims and perpetrators if they are willing to engage in such a formal mediation process.

Informal mediation is typically done by third parties who have a connection to the conflicting parties and feel a social or moral obligation to help. In traditional societies, one’s status often determines the responsibility to mediate, and this often falls on the head of a family or on a doctor, teacher, community leader or religious leader (Latta and Goodman, 2011; Mahenge & Stöckl, 2021). Usually, this form of mediation is carried out without professional training in mediation or conflict management with the goal of restoring peace and harmony in a marriage and/or family (Neergaard et al., 2007).

The cultural settings and norms in which most victims find themselves determine the possibility of their accessing mediation and their willingness to seek third-party help (Ajayi et al., 2022; Gardsbane et al., 2022; Golriz & Miner, 2021; Zust et al., 2017). As Mahenge and Stöckl (2021, p. 234) mention, “habitus” plays a crucial role in help-seeking behavior in IPV. Most women may consider mediation useless and even risky given the existing social norms related to male dominance, and this may result in the acceptance and even justification of violence against them. Indeed, only one in three victims of IPV in Nigeria seeks help from informal third parties, and almost none (1.9 percent) seek it from formal mediators (Tenkorang et al., 2017).

Generally, the Catholic Church supports an equal gender role in marriage as a foundation of the marital relation. Men might be mentioned as head of the family, however, this is defined as a serving role and does not contradict the equality of men and women. A second important pillar of the Catholic view on marriage is the freedom of both partners to engage in the marriage. The Catholic Church does not formally recognize divorce but acknowledges that separation of married couples may be necessary, especially if the well-being of a spouse or children is threatened. There are no specific directives and guidelines for what these principles imply in a patriarchal society such as Nigeria (Ademiluka, 2019; Code of Canon Law, n.d.; Pope John Paul II, 1995). Boyer et al. (2022) and Neergaard et al. (2007) argued that counseling in cases of IPV in such a context is one of the most challenging parts of pastoral care because of the nature of the issue and the religious and societal norms which the religious leaders are involved in developing. The conservative view on divorce might put women more in danger, compared to a more liberal view (Simister & Kowalewska, 2016). Moreso, priests and nuns in Nigeria receive training on vocational development (theology or philosophy), but they do not receive any training on counseling or mediation in cases of IPV. In resolving issues of IPV, these religious leaders use their training in vocational development to listen to and counsel the conflicting parties (Dankasa, 2015, 2016; Eze et al., 2013; Tedder & Smith, 2018).

Victims’ expectations of mediation interventions by Catholic priests and nuns.

In Nigeria, most potential third parties who might serve as mediators are religious leaders, who are respected for their spiritual position and typically trusted enough to confide in. Nigeria is a highly religious country, with an almost 50% Christian and nearly 50% Muslim population (Dowd, 2016; Odok, 2020). The two religions hold different views of the position of women in society and family life. In both, religious leaders play an essential role as informal mediators in all conflicts, whether community, social, or personal (Dowd, 2016; Golriz & Miner, 2021; Odok, 2020). Therefore, the preference for a faith-based mediator to address IPV is explained by this tradition in Nigerian society of weekly attendance at church and seeing religious leaders as highly influential (Christensen et al., 2017). Our focus is on how informal mediation functions within the Nigerian Christian circle and specifically within the Catholic Church, which is one of the largest Christian groups in Nigeria. As mentioned earlier, the Catholic Church in Nigeria offers general training in pastoral care to its religious leaders, but—to the best of our knowledge—it offers no specialized training on how to counsel or mediate in IPV cases (Dankasa, 2016; Eze et al., 2013; Mudge et al., 2021; Neergaard et al., 2007; Zust et al., 2017).

In Nigeria, as in many societies, it is taboo to either discuss family secrets with third parties or to report abuse to authorities or formal mediators. Therefore, victims rely primarily on informal mediators, such as priests and nuns, for help. They view priests and nuns as counselors, therapists, and moral guides (Ademiluka, 2019; Neergaard et al., 2007). The expectations of victims are based on the assumption that their religious leaders will act not upon patriarchal cultural norms but upon Christian values of respect and nonviolence and the expectation that these religious leaders have the authority to talk to the perpetrator and be listened to. For these reasons, victims expect priests and nuns to provide permanent solutions to their problems (Ajayi et al., 2022; Goodson & Hayes, 2018; Olakunle, 2014; Tenkorang et al., 2017). An important question, therefore, is to what extent religious leaders who act as a third party in cases of IPV are familiar with the value of gender equality in marriage and are sensitive to the real needs of victims. Do these informal mediators aim to foster dialogue and forms of transformation in the marital relationship, or do they opt for a normative and evaluative approach based on patriarchal beliefs, giving directives to the conflicting parties?

Victims’ experiences during mediation

Theorists of conflict resolution and reconciliation propose that victims of violence have a need to tell their stories, referring to the disclosing process of victims (Raines & Choi, 2016). However, this disclosure might be risky in Nigeria for several reasons. First, the revelation of IPV does not align with the culturally accepted norms about family secrets. Second, and due to the former, nuns and priests may negatively evaluate or judge a victim’s behavior, generating further emotional harm or revictimization. Third, victims’ voices, concerns, and needs might not be well represented by the priests and nuns, resulting in poor mediation outcomes and new cycles of IPV (Drumm et al., 2018; Zust et al., 2017).

According to Drumm et al. (2018) and Dyer (2010), priests and nuns, at best, might try to assist victims in expressing their feelings and providing counsel and advice on dealing with their problems. An essential expectation in this respect is that victims can talk in confidence and be approached with empathy by the mediators and that the mediator will also protect their interests. Priests and nuns might also speak to the perpetrators informally and separately or invite the victim and perpetrator to a joint meeting. They also might try to solve the problem through force, imposing a solution and favoring either the victim or the perpetrator or finding a compromise agreement (Bollen et al., 2013).

During the process of mediation, a victim might interpret the behavior or strategy of the priest or nun as partial and unsatisfactory (Gerkin, 2012). Victims are often the vulnerable, less powerful, and more emotional party and are likely to suppress their interests and concerns, making their voices not heard during the mediation (De Mesmaecker, 2013; Goodson & Hayes, 2018; Tenkorang et al., 2017; Wiggert et al., 2015).

Reaching a mediation agreement

Research indicates two ways in which compliance in an agreement between victims and perpetrators can be viewed (Raines & Choi, 2016). First, in a mediation with an asymmetrical power base between parties, high-power parties tend to coerce lower parties into reaching an agreement. These agreements are usually in favor of the parties with more power. Second, mediators chosen based on their common belonging to a church community may sometimes initiate or impose a settlement on victims, for example through moral appeal, referring to shared values and norms. These mediators use an evaluative model or even more assertive mediation roles to derive their goal of imposing a settlement upon the victims (Raines & Choi, 2016; Rossi et al.,