As Ethiopia accelerates its transition towards a private sector-led economy through macroeconomic, structural and sectoral reforms, the institution representing the business community faces its own critical turning point.
For decades, the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Associations (ECCSA) has operated under Proclamation No. 341, a legal framework from a different era whose structural limitations and fragmented model have constrained the unified voice of domestic and international enterprises.
At the centre of the advocacy for institutional reform is Kenenisa Lemi (PhD), Secretary General of ECCSA. A scholar and veteran higher-education leader, Kenenisa moved from academic administration—including service as Vice President for Administration and Student Services at Jimma University—to becoming a leading advocate for Ethiopia’s commercial interests.
In an exclusive interview with Capital’s Eyasu Zekarias, Kenenisa discusses the weaknesses of the current legal framework, the status of the long-awaited revised Chamber Proclamation now before the Prime Minister’s Office, and the resolution of high-profile institutional disputes. He outlines his vision for an integrated, modern chamber capable of representing a private sector preparing for continental and global integration.
Capital: The Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce has operated under different legal frameworks over the years. What are the major shortcomings of the existing proclamation, and what changes are expected under the proposed legislation?
Kenenisa: The Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce was established in 1947 under Regulation No. 90 to promote trade and investment, improve the business environment and build the capacity of the private sector.
Internationally, chambers of commerce serve as bridges between governments and the private sector. They represent business interests, facilitate dialogue and help create conditions that support commercial activity and investment.
Following the change of government, Regulation No. 90 was replaced by Proclamation No. 148 during the Derg regime. At its establishment, the Chamber operated under a voluntary membership model. However, the Derg introduced mandatory membership and reorganised the institution in line with its socialist economic structure.
Later, Proclamation No. 341 was introduced in 2003, bringing another major restructuring. Unfortunately, the legislation came at a time when the country’s economic policy placed the government at the centre of development, while the private sector had a relatively limited role.
As a result, the Chamber’s institutional capacity and ability to represent businesses were weakened. The institution was reorganised as the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Associations, with responsibilities divided among different business categories and associations.
In principle, trade is a broad economic activity. Whether a business produces and sells goods or purchases and resells products, both activities are part of the trading system. Separating them into fragmented institutional structures weakened the collective representation of the private sector.
The proclamation also encouraged the establishment of separate associations based on categories including gender, age and business activity. Some organisations operated outside the formal Chamber structure while maintaining close working relationships with the government.
This created an institutional imbalance. Although the Chamber was formally responsible for representing the private sector, its ability to coordinate businesses and influence policy was increasingly constrained.
The private sector raised concerns about the proclamation from the beginning, including its name, organisational structure and institutional arrangements. We believe these shortcomings contributed significantly to the fragmentation of the business community.
Capital: How does the proposed proclamation address these longstanding problems, particularly in the context of the government’s ongoing economic reforms?
Kenenisa: The country’s economic direction has changed considerably. The current reform agenda seeks to move Ethiopia towards a private sector-led economy, creating greater opportunities for businesses to participate in investment, production, trade and national development.
Three major reform areas have been particularly important: macroeconomic reform, structural reform and sectoral reform. These reforms have addressed many concerns raised by the private sector, although several challenges remain.
We continue to present outstanding issues to the government and identify areas requiring further improvement. It would be unrealistic to claim that all problems have been resolved. However, the overall policy direction has created a more favourable environment for strengthening the private sector.
Against this background, work on the new proclamation began in 2009 E.C., following the change in government. The process involved extensive discussions and consultations coordinated by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, in collaboration with the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and various sectoral associations.
The draft has passed through several stages of discussion and revision and has now been submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office for consideration.
The main objective is to establish a stronger and more unified institution capable of representing businesses effectively, coordinating their interests and engaging the government on economic and policy matters.
Capital: The proclamation has been under discussion for several years. What has delayed its approval?
Kenenisa: One major reason was the difference in institutional interests between the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Chamber regarding the organisation’s structure and name.
Initially, there was a proposal to establish separate chambers for commerce and industry. However, we argued that dividing the private sector into separate representative institutions would undermine its collective strength.
Internationally, the chamber system is generally designed to provide a unified institutional platform for businesses. Although countries may use different names and organisational arrangements, the fundamental purpose is to bring the private sector together under a common representative structure.
If separate institutions are established for commerce and industry, the private sector risks losing its ability to speak with one voice. It would also reduce its capacity to lobby the government, influence policy and advance common business interests.
Following extensive discussions, the differences have largely been resolved. Both sides have agreed on a unified institutional name, and the revised draft has been submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office.
We expect the new administration to give the matter the necessary attention and move the approval process forward.
Capital: Has the government given any indication of when the proclamation might be approved?
Kenenisa: We have not received official confirmation of a specific approval date. Nevertheless, we are optimistic that it will be approved during 2026.
The private sector is actively following up on the matter. Our board committee has approached the Prime Minister’s Office to emphasise the importance of resolving the issue.
Recently, the Prime Minister held a direct consultation forum with representatives of the business community. The discussions continued for three days, during which private-sector representatives identified and consolidated their major concerns.
I had the opportunity to present the unified private sector’s concerns to the Prime Minister. Among the 10 to 11 major issues raised was the need to approve the new Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce proclamation.
This demonstrates that the matter has reached the highest level of government attention. The Prime Minister is aware of the concerns, and we expect the government to take the necessary steps.
The proclamation should no longer remain pending. It is an important institutional reform that would strengthen the private sector’s representation and support the country’s broader economic transformation.
Capital: There was also a public dispute between ECCSA and the Addis Ababa Chamber of Commerce, which eventually reached the courts. What was the disagreement about, and how was it resolved?
Kenenisa: The disagreement between the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and the Addis Ababa Chamber of Commerce should never have escalated to a court case. It could and should have been resolved through discussions between the respective boards and management teams.
The Addis Ababa Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Associations is one of 21 member chambers under the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce. It is part of our institutional structure, just like the regional chambers in Oromia, Amhara, Tigray and Sidama.
Our organisational structure follows the country’s federal arrangement. Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa operate at the city level, while the other chambers are organised at the regional level. The structure extends down to the grassroots business community.
One of the main issues in the dispute concerned ownership of the Chamber building in Addis Ababa.
Historically, the building was constructed during the Imperial period for Ethiopian merchants, with contributions from the private sector and government support. Its original purpose was to strengthen trade, bring merchants together and promote modern commercial activity.
The inscription on the building’s cornerstone reflects that historical purpose. During the Derg regime, the property was expropriated as part of the nationalisation policies of that period. It was later returned to the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce through a formal process, with the relevant document signed by former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.
The ownership issue later became a subject of disagreement and was taken to court. The court examined the relevant documents, and the dispute was eventually resolved.
The Addis Ababa Chamber apologised, and the two institutions reached an understanding. We have since restored our relationship and are working together as a parent chamber and its member chamber.
Capital: Why have disagreements and institutional divisions continued to emerge within Ethiopia’s chamber system?
Kenenisa: The primary reason is the weakness of the existing legal framework, particularly Proclamation No. 341. As I mentioned earlier, the proclamation contributed significantly to the fragmentation of the private sector. It encouraged the establishment of separate associations based on gender, age and different business categories.
For example, separate structures emerged for young traders, women traders, women exporters and other groups. While representing specific interests is not inherently problematic, creating disconnected institutional structures without a strong coordinating framework weakens the overall business community.
This fragmentation has created overlapping responsibilities, competing institutional interests and disagreements over representation and authority.
It has also made it difficult for the government to engage the private sector through a single, organised and representative institution.
I would not deny that individual interests, management differences, operational weaknesses and personal ambitions have also contributed to some conflicts. These factors should not be overlooked.
However, the fundamental problem remains the legal framework that has divided the business community and weakened its collective institutional capacity.
That is why we consider the proposed proclamation essential. It should establish a clear governance structure, define institutional responsibilities and create a more coordinated system through which businesses can participate in national economic discussions.
