The new mediation law of OHADA, embodied by the Uniform Act relating to meditation (AUM), does not lack virtue. Its many qualities, warmly welcomed by the doctrine, bring back, generally, to a clear openness and pragmatism. Nevertheless, the analysis of the AUM also reveals certain tendencies towards exclusion and indeterminacy, therefore diametrically opposed to the above-mentioned qualities and do not mix well with the search for efficiency displayed by the OHADA legislator. This is the whole paradox of the new legislation, which does not fail to evoke the image of the blivet to the art lover. Like this impossible object, the “ohadian” mediation creates an optical illusion in the viewer : she charms him with her assets, but ends up revealing to the attentive eye its illogical dimension, its aporias. This ambivalence manifests itself essentially with regard to two important aspects : Firstly, the very notion of mediation and on the other hand, the mediation agreement. It belongs to OHADA, in particular through its judicial body, to correct the imperfections of his new work in order to restore its integrity and guarantee its full development.