Examining some of the raisons d 'etre for the Ethiopian anti-terrorism law

There has been a proliferation of counter-terrorism legislation around the world following 9/11, a turning point in the history of counter-terrorism. Ethiopia passed its anti-terrorism law in July 2009. This law and its application have been controversial since its promulgation. A debate on several issues relating to the law and its (mis)application was held in August 2013. Whether the law is needed at all was one of the contentious issues deliberated on. Proponents argue that the clear and present danger of terrorism in Ethiopia coupled with inadequacy of ordinary laws to deal with this reality necessitated the law. They also contend that the United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) requires Ethiopia to pass the law. Challengers dismiss these justifications as pretexts and maintain that the real reason for passing the law is to discipline dissent and crack down on opposition. This article scrutinizes the aforementioned justifications for the law and concludes that they are invalid

Comment: The Preliminary Inquiry in Ethiopia and Its Adverse Impact on the Rights of the Accused

Whether preliminary inquiry should be conducted following completion of criminal investigation was one of the issues that arose in criminal proceedings of leaders of some opposition parties who were arrested (in June and July 2020) following the assassination of Hachalu Hundessa. The Court accepted the request of the Office of the Attorney General for the holding of preliminary inquiry. While the request of the Office of the Attorney General and the ruling of the court are consistent with the 1961 Criminal Procedure Code, in view of the unique nature of the Ethiopian Preliminary Inquiry, both the request and the ruling adversely affect the right of the accused to a fair trial. The application of the law regulating preliminary inquiry would be a departure from the principle of equality of arms and the right of the accused to confrontation, both of which are elements of the right to a fair trial. It is argued (in this comment) that using evidence obtained during preliminary inquiry against the accused is inconsistent with the FDRE Constitution and relevant international legal instruments

Comment: Court’s Reluctance to Safeguard Rights of the Accused in the Ethiopian Counter-terrorism Prosecutions and its Broader Implication

Ethiopia’s former and current anti-terrorism laws recognize information obtained through court authorized interception as evidence in counterterrorism prosecutions. This comment briefly examines Federal High Court rulings in two counterterrorism prosecutions where the accused challenged the admissibility of intercepted materials into evidence for not being obtained with court warrant. Though the objections in both cases could have been easily addressed by verifying whether a court warrant was in fact issued prior to intercepting the material in question, the court did not take this course of action. In one of the cases, the court presumed that a court warrant was issued; in the other it ignored the objection altogether and admitted the contested material into evidence. The comment can serve as a basis to undertake further research on whether the courts are doing justice in enforcing rights of the accused the safeguarding of which do not require constitutional interpretation. It might also invite investigation into its broader implication on whether the courts have the readiness to meet public and legal professionals’ expectation in safeguarding human rights were they empowered in the realm of constitutional interpretation