I mean no disrespect to the distinguished Group of Experts who have been diligently working to ensure the project serves a meaningful purpose. However, it appears they may soon regret becoming involved in this ill-fated venture. It is unfortunate that they were swept away by the euphoria of the ‘Transition,’ much like any impassioned social media activist. Before producing the Draft Policy, they should have clearly addressed some difficult questions, such as whether there is genuinely a Transition in the legal sense of the term. There hasn’t even been a change of government, for crying out loud!
I do not support the idea of revisiting three decades of atrocities. This particular Initiative arose from the movement that culminated in the 2018 change of Administration. It would be unrealistic to expect it to extend far beyond the events of 2012 or 2013, when protests gained momentum.
The 1995 FDRE Constitution remains the uncontested supreme law of the land. The Prosperity Party’s manifesto clearly states that it is a continuation of, rather than an opposition to, the EPRDF. The current Prime Minister assumed power as the Chairman of the EPRDF, having been duly elected by the 180-member Council of the EPRDF, which continues to govern in various capacities. Consequently, the policies and systems that prompted the protests are validated, except for isolated instances that can always be prosecuted through the regular justice system.
Exactly what Transition are we discussing here? The Group of Experts has considered alternatives dating back to 1991, including 1995 and 2018 as possible transitions. However, the rest of the country and the international community have a significantly different time frame—post-2018.
It is no surprise that the Initiative’s foreign sponsors are openly saying it will amount to nothing, and its fate will likely mirror that of the Commission established to determine Identity and Inter-State Boundaries, as well as the Reconciliation Commission. In fact, some of us previously proposed to the Dialogue Commission that the Transitional Justice Initiative be abrogated and disbanded, as it is fraught with anachronism, disorientation, and insincerity, resulting in a waste of limited resources.
Moreover, I can see that the donors are beginning to ask some uncomfortable questions, which led to the recent symposium intended to ease their concerns. Intimidated by the Americans and the latest UN Agency report, the Ministry of Justice has audaciously announced the launch of an auxiliary Special Prosecution Office under its auspices (but accountable to the House of Peoples’ Representatives) within a month, along with the establishment of a corresponding Special Bench by the Federal Supreme Court to handle the cases. I sincerely doubt this will happen. The timing of the symposium, coinciding with the American delegation’s extended African tour, speaks volumes about who truly owns the Initiative.
In fact, the delegation was not impressed. With diplomatic finesse and courtesy, they bluntly conveyed to the world that the project is a failure. Who could blame them? Even donors are held accountable and must produce follow-up reports to Congressional Committees. Moreover, the fact that the Transitional Justice Initiative is primarily instigated and supported by the donor community makes it fundamentally rootless.
- Establish a Cut-off Date
Auditors emphasize the importance of a cut-off date in the executive summary of an audit report. This date is defined with precision, as it is crucial for determining accountability for any breaches in the system. Without a clearly established milestone, the audit findings fail to identify who is responsible for financial losses and cannot provide credible recommendations.
Similarly, the first step for a Transitional Justice Initiative should be to determine an appropriate cut-off date, along with the rationale behind it. The Initiative aims to mark the beginning of a new era, serving as a means to “break with past traditions of atrocities and injustice,” as indicated in the Draft Policy document. The Office cannot afford to meander through three decades of atrocities at its convenience, as this could put EPRDF’s Special Prosecution Office under scrutiny.
When the Dergue suspended the Revised 1955 Constitution and overthrew the so-called “3000-year-old Solomonic Dynasty,” it established a clear cut-off date. In its own way, the Dergue attempted to address Transitional Justice issues, as no revolutionary government could ignore. The National Advisory Council, formed under Proclamation 2/75, had the potential to function as a Transitional Justice Office due to the diverse composition of its members.
Similarly, when the EPRDF came to power in 1991, it suspended the 1987 PDRE Constitution and later established the Special Prosecution Office, led by Girma Wakjira, through Proclamation number 22/92.
In both cases, the legal frameworks not only permitted but necessitated Transitional Justice, although their implementation led to another cycle of severe systemic atrocities.
One would expect a significant milestone or fundamental change to justify the introduction of Transitional Justice in 2018. However, the Draft Policy merely cites “political reform unveiled in 2018” as its rationale. This is surprising, considering that during its 27-year tenure, the EPRDF “unveiled” seven major political reforms of a similar nature. What makes this one different?
In a manner that undermines its credibility, the Draft document seeks legitimacy by pointing to the issuance of amnesty, the establishment of a Reconciliation Commission, and an Identity and Inter-State Boundary Commission. It is important to note that both commissions no longer exist, and their dissolution highlights the mortis causa state of the Transitional Justice Initiative. Even if they were still functioning, it would give the impression that definitive Transitional Justice measures were already in place, leaving the Office in a state of irrelevance.
The Policy Document submitted by the group of experts fails to provide a convincing temporal scope. In this unclear context, I question what procedures the Special Prosecutors Office plans to implement and when it is intended to be dissolved. Reports indicate that the Office is intended to be permanent, with new offenses excluded from the Revised Penal Code of 2004 defined within its mandate. In retrospect, it seems unfair to have condemned the Dergue for enacting a Special Penal Code without considering the prevailing circumstances.
At any rate, it appears we are destined to exist in a perpetual state of Transitional Justice ad infinitum!
- Which Transition, if I may ask?
While the Transitional Justice project office is sluggishly procrastinating, an unexpected wave of ‘Transition’ has ironically caught up with it. I nearly laughed out loud when I heard that the recent American delegation demanded the government hold EDF officers accountable for wrongs committed during the Tigray War through the Transitional Justice mechanism currently under consideration.
I understand that when the Americans arrived, they believed they were reviewing the state of Transitional Justice as part of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement signed in 2022. However, the Ministry of Justice and the Ethiopian government had a different transition in mind. They intended to promote the eclectic Draft Policy prepared by the Group of Experts and submitted to the government in 2023.
Although the Draft Policy aimed to address recent developments, where the government in power is the alleged sponsor of the atrocities, it was primarily established to cover crimes from the pre-2018 EPRDF era. It was nothing short of professional dishonesty to include post-2018 atrocities insincerely, especially when the alleged perpetrator remains in power and continues to control the narrative.
God Bless.
You can reach the writer via estefanoussamuel@yahoo.com
