Jijiga, Ethiopia — Spotting a plume of dust from an approaching vehicle, residents of Gudis village ran to tell their neighbors to hide. Then someone saw the flag on the white Land Cruiser; international aid workers were coming. “We thought you were the military,” said one man to an aid worker who later recounted the story.
The residents of Gudis, a village of pastoralists in Ethiopia’s Somali region, had not seen an aid worker in the six months since the Ethiopian Woyanne military sent thousands of troops to the area to put down a renewed surge by a rebel group, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). Now the village was eager to share its secrets.
At dusk, accompanied by just one villager, the group drove a few miles beyond the cluster of thatched roofs to four, freshly dug mass graves.
“They begged us to stay,” said the aid worker, requesting anonymity.
Indeed, aid workers want to stay, but their presence in places like Gudis comes at a price. As the military campaign winds down in the vast portion of the Somali region known as the Ogaden, international humanitarian groups have been gradually allowed to return, though only in exchange for their silence.
“We have two options: either we come out with a nasty press release tomorrow on protection of human rights, and we will have to leave behind a substantial population still facing atrocities, or we just do our work,” the aid worker said.
Those who do talk – and they are few – whisper stories of public executions, arbitrary detentions, rapes, beatings, and torture of civilians by [the Woyanne] government forces intent on crushing a guerrilla insurgency that draws on sympathetic villagers for support. Others describe equally heinous acts committed by rebel forces against those civilians – often from rival clans – who refuse to help the insurgents, whom the government labels as terrorists.
With journalists prohibited from entering the area under military occupation, most of these allegations are hard to verify, and conflicting versions of the same story are common. For instance, Gudis residents told the aid workers that the 47 young men buried in the mass graves were innocent civilians killed by government forces. An elder from the Abdili subclan that inhabits Gudis said the 47 had been coerced to join a government militia and were slaughtered in a confrontation with the ONLF.
The [Woyanne] government denies any wrongdoing by federal troops, including the allegation that soldiers have forced civilians to form militias.
“I can assure you that the government is not in the business of killing people and putting them in mass graves,” says government spokesman Bereket Simon. “That is why we fought against the military regime.” Mr. Bereket, like Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and many high-ranking members of Ethiopia’s government, was himself once an insurgent in the movement that overthrew a socialist military dictatorship in 1991. The former revolutionaries claim to know from experience how brutal military tactics can backfire by galvanizing support for rebels.
The ONLF has been fighting to win greater autonomy for Somali-speakers, about 5 percent of the population, for more than two decades. The simmering conflict flared up again last April when the ONLF attacked a Chinese-run oil exploration facility, killing 74 people.
The United Nations has called for an independent investigation into allegations across the region, but the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights still has no access; meanwhile, international aid workers say they cannot wait for justice.
In Gudis, and in hundreds of similar villages, food and water are in short supply, leaving the residents to rely mostly on camel’s milk for sustenance. Medical supplies ran out long ago.
“You always come down on the same side,” said the director of one organization operating in the region. “It’s better to keep yourself operational and to do something.”
Still, questions remain about whether the food aid is reaching the people who need it – about 750,000, according to a recent US-funded assessment. Amid the conflict, food disbursements have been slow. The World Food Program (WFP) planned to distribute 53,000 metric tons of food aid in the Ogaden in the three months beginning in December. As of last week, less than 10,700 metric tons had reached beneficiaries.
“One of the things we want to make sure about is that the food gets to the people,” said Gregory Beals, a spokesman for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the agency acting as interlocutor for aid efforts in the region. “That may mean that the food will go a little slower than we originally planned.”
Yet even at the slow pace, aid workers and clan elders say that regional government officials and military forces still manage to divert supplies away from villages suspected of sympathies with the ONLF.
Some aid workers, increasingly frustrated by the situation, are discreetly speaking out. Many say they quietly and privately inform the head of the UN mission in Ethiopia, Fidele Sarassoro. The US Embassy has also convened a roundtable meeting on the Somali region.
For international staff, these surreptitious confessions may put their mission at risk, but for national staff – some who are from the Somali region – the stakes are even higher. Most refused to cooperate on this article for fear that they might be imprisoned or killed.
In spite of the perceived risk, a few local aid workers are eager to confide.
“It’s a relief to speak with you,” said one local aid worker. “You hear these things and they weigh on your heart.”
On February 16, 2008, the Reverend James Orange, a great civil rights leader and a top aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., died in Atlanta, Georgia. Rev. James Orange, chair of the Africa/African American Renaissance Festival. Hired by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as one of the first field staffers, Orange was instrumental in mobilizing youth throughout the civil rights movement, making a significant impact on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In his death, Ethiopians are among the countless others who will mourn the loss of a great friend and advocate of justice, love and respect for all people! He stood up for the Ethiopian people in their time of great need, even organizing a candlelight prayer vigil in Atlanta for the release of the Ethiopian opposition leaders and political prisoners in 2007.
As is true of great man of faith, passion and calling, his impact on the world around him carries on and will not die at his passing. He has touched and inspired many and I am one of them!
I first met Reverend Orange in January of 2007 when he and other African-American and civil rights leaders reached out to the Ethiopian Diaspora by organizing International Human Rights Symposium in Atlanta surrounding the observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
I was privileged to have been given the opportunity to participate in the symposium at Ebenezer Church, to help lay a wreath on the tomb of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and his wife, Coretta King, to march with Reverend Orange, civil rights leaders and thousands of other people and finally to stand before them to speak to them about the injustice going on to their brothers and sisters of Africa.
During that time, I had the opportunity to have numerous meaningful conversations with Reverend Orange about human rights and injustice around the world. It was then that I learned what a great man he was. That time together impacted me and my work with the Anuak Justice Council, an Ethiopian human rights organization that began after the Ethiopian government massacre of Anuak in 2003. Through this, we built a friendship and he became a mentor, a role model and encourager to me to carry on the human rights work, assuring me that things can be changed despite the obstacles in the way.
Reverend Orange was a genuine believer in God—a real man of faith and a strong man of prayer. Before doing anything, he prayed. He told me, “Even if it looks impossible, God can make it possible. He said, “The problem of Africa, with all its misery and suffering, looks like it cannot be changed—that it is beyond ourselves—but, God can change Africa!”
He told me that the problems of Africa would never be conquered through ethnic hatred and division. Instead, he said that Africa needed people to teach love, respect and care for each other if Africa was going to escape its misery.
He said I was already on the journey and that I was now ‘on duty’ or ‘called’ to speak up for the suffering of everyone wherever I saw it. However, he cautioned me to never go forward without praying first for God’s help, but then to not be afraid of the challenges or the difficulties ahead.
We Ethiopians know we have never needed these words more than just now when we are so divided and overcome with discouragement. Even though this great human rights champion is gone now, he has left us with this vision of being your neighbor’s keeper—a protector of all human kind. We now have a job to do and it is up to the living to carry on until our time on earth comes to an end as well.
Rev. Orange knew how to pass on to others the “dream” of justice and equality of all people. He grounded it on his firm belief that God created all men and women in His image, making them all precious children of God. His message of wisdom, his great reliance on God and his enormous capacity to love and forgive will live on in those many others, like myself, African-Americans, Americans, Ethiopians, Africans and all human beings to whom he reached out to encourage, guide and support all over the world. Reverend Orange has shown the world how to be a real neighbor to those close and far.
Reverend Orange probably never anticipated that what he helped start along with Martin Luther King, Jr and other civil rights leaders would lead him to reach not only across America, but across the ocean to deal with the apartheid system in South Africa, the human rights abuses in the Horn of Africa, the injustice throughout the entire continent of Africa as well as to other places of injustice in this world. May we honor his memory by following his example.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5: 17)
Let our sympathy be with his wife, children, grandchildren and friends as they lay his body to rest today Saturday, February 23, 2008, in Atlanta, GA.
———————–
Obang Metho can be reached at [email protected]
Recent events in Kenya bring a smile to all Africans. Darkness and gloom are in the process of being replaced by joy and hope. The Kenyan government should be given credit for its willingness to sit and negotiate. This gesture should not be seen as a sign of weakness. President Kibaki and his party tried to change the outcome of the election by illegal means, but when they saw the destruction caused by their unlawful act, they agreed to sit and negotiate for a better tomorrow. They choose to settle the conflict by peaceful means. They must truly love their country. This is good for Kenya, this is good for their neighbors, and this is good for Africa.
In the December 2007 election we can definitely say that Kibaki lost. The people disappointed the government and Kibaki decided to declare himself the winner by using trickery. The problem was that no one was buying his story, especially the opposition (ODM-Orange Democratic Movement) led by Raila Odinga. The ‘frightened’ state responded with force. The use of force by the authorities unleashed a general breakdown of law and order. It became open season to settle perceived differences by force.
The opposition ODM refused to intervene to save the government from its own follies. ODM refused to back down and accept defeat when it was clear that it has won. ODM demanded that the ‘right to peaceful assembly and protest’ be respected.
The Police used live ammunition to frighten and control the people. The ruling elite, which has been using ethnic divide to stay in power, found itself with a wish come true. Reality is painful. It is impossible to quit “cold turkey” after having played the ethnic card for such a long time. Kenya was taken to the edge due to the selfish and corrupt policies of Kibaki and his cronies.
Here is a chronology of events, which led to this ‘elite caused disaster’.
* Dec 27, 2007 — Elections were held.
* Dec 30, 2007 — Mr. Kibaki is declared a winner in a hastily called ceremony.
* Dec 31, 2007 — Troops and riot police were ordered out in Nairobi. Live TV broadcast is banned.
* Jan 1, 2008 — Riots start. Churches, meeting halls, private residences were torched. Citizens were displaced from their homes.
* Jan 2, — Kibaki accuses ODM of ‘ethnic cleansing’
* Jan 3, — Kibaki says he would accept a re-run of the disputed election if a court orders it. Opposition questions the fairness of Kibaki’s court and rejects it.
* Jan 5, — Kibaki says he is ready to form a government of national unity, but the opposition rejects the offer.
* Jan 7, — ODM cancels planned protests after meeting U.S. envoy Mrs. Jendayi Frazer.
* Jan 8, — AU Chairman and Ghanaian President John Kufuor arrives in Nairobi.
* Jan 11, — ODM calls for international sanctions against Kibaki.
* Jan 11, — ODM calls boycott against Kibaki and his associates.
* Jan 15, — Parliament convenes and ODM wins the post of speaker in the assembly.
* Jan 16-22, –Riots through out the country.
* Jan 24, 2008 — Kibaki and Odinga meet thanks to former UN secretary Kofi Annan.
* Jan 25, — Feb 2 Riots continue.
* Feb 3, — Negotiations resume.
* Feb 15, — Mr. Annan talks of ‘Power sharing and Constitutional reform’.
Mr. Kibaki used every means at his deposal to deny the will of the people. ODM stood firm and refused to budge despite threats and intimidation. As usual the European Union and the US were standing by the sidelines while shouting their orders and threats. They were shedding the usual crocodile tears lamenting the loss of life and property. Their main focus was to save their ‘man in Kenya’ rather than the Kenyan people.
Here is a list of how the European Union and the USA made the crime possible:
* They turned a blind eye when the elite were stealing from the national treasury.
* They loaned money to the government in the name of the Kenyan people, knowing that most of it disappears into the pockets of the ruling elite.
* They pretended not to know when the aid money was flowing back to the western capitals.
* They praised the regime and offered to train their military and police knowing that it was a tool of coercion.
When the regime started to feel the fury of the people, some emissaries started to talk about ethnic cleansing. We can safely say that that is pouring gasoline into the fire.
ODM stood firm. Even though the killings forced moves, and the property destruction was very painful. The leaders in their infinite wisdom were able to see the bigger picture. Kenyans have suffered for a long time under a succession of corrupt and selfish leaders. It was time to make a stand and say enough. If not now, then when?
ODM and CUDP flow out of the same stream. ODM and CUDP have young, educated charismatic leaders, believe in the power of the ballot instead of the bullet, and both have a wide social base. The international powers to be are leery of both movements due to their nationalist tendencies while the western media tries to portray them as ethnic based organizations.
It is clear that ODM studied the 2005 Ethiopian elections and the aftermath very closely. Mr. Kibaki’s actions were similar to Ato Meleses. Mr. Kibaki ordered out riot police and clamped down on the media. Ato Meles closed down the small ‘private ‘ press and called out the so-called Federal Police, in essence his own force. (Agazi or keber zebegena). Mr. Kibaki cried ‘ethnic cleansing’ while Ato Meles was shouting ‘Interamahwe’. Mr. Kibaki like Ato Meles urged the opposition to go to court. In Kenya almost all the killings occurred between civilians, while in Ethiopia all the killing was done by government soldiers. As Mr. Kibaki accepted negotiations, Ato Meles also agreed to talk.
ODM seems to know how to respond. Their demand was simple but firm, “Mr. Kibaki steps down or the protest will continue.” Boycott was requested and foreign friends were asked not to cooperate with the regime. ODM knew you could not win in Kibaki’s Kangaroo court. They were only willing to accept prominent African negotiators. They saw through the ploy of the US and European diplomats who would have liked to drag out the situation so Mr. Kibaki can retrench and attack. They wanted to buy him time. They did not fall for the old Addis trick. ODM stepped up the pressure while still negotiating.
WHAT WENT WRONG IN ETHIOPIA?
This is a very important question. It should be studied so we can learn exactly what works. We cannot overlook that we are faced with a highly militarized state in Ethiopia. The TPLF came to power by the gun and not by the ballot. The TPLF has a nasty history of reverting to violence to settle differences. Unlike Kibaki, Meles has his own army and a security force that is accountable to him and not to the state. The minority government stays in power using terror, bribery and cooption. The current Ethiopian state apparatus was a smooth transition from Derg to TPLF. The new regime disbanded the army but it inherited the Security and an intact Kebele Administration.
Cursory glance shows what stands out is the firm and resolute stand taken by ODM. The use of force by the regime was not a deterrent. The offers of cabinet positions were ignored. The pressure from the EU and the US were respectfully discounted. Offers by ferenjis to mediate were refused. ODM was focused. They allowed the government dig its own grave. ODM focused on the strength of the Kenyan masses. It appealed directly to the Kenyan people to continue the protests. ODM talked to the fernji emissaries but they were not swayed by offers of ‘future democracy’, and ‘democracy requires patience and time’. Imagine if ODM has committed and enthusiastic supporters like the in the Ethiopian Diaspora.
I am sure the TPLF regime is terrified of the possibility of a positive outcome in Kenya. This is why controlling the media is the primary goal of the regime. There has been no mention of Brothers Kibaki’s dilemma. At this time Meles and Bashir are the best of friends. A stable, democratic Kenya will not cooperate with TPLF Security agents, nor would it be dragged in to this ‘terrorist’ hysteria. The minority Ethiopian regime will devise ways to counter the emergence of people’s power. Its thousands of spies and security agents will continue to infiltrate all aspects of society. The opposition has to find ways to cripple the security apparatus. Most of the government supporters do it very half-heartedly. Most are supporting the government half-heartedly. The majority are ‘economically challenged’ spies; doing it for the money and not out of conviction. Except for a few core supporters, the TPLF is a paper tiger. The 2005 Election proved that TPLF is a house built on sand. The people have found many ways to counter the culture of ‘fear’ created by the regime. Their propaganda machine is designed to make them bigger than life but the opposition has to exploit their weakness and expose them for the cowards they are.
We have to believe that they are more scared of the Ethiopian people than we are afraid of them. All you have to look at is the closure of streets and neighborhood when the leaders zip thru town, the bullet proof glass when they appear in public, the secrecy of their whereabouts and their pathological fear of free flow of information and the millions of dollars spent on disinformation.
We thank Kenya for teaching us two important lessons. The FIRST one is how to sustain pressure without wavering from your stated goal, and the SECOND one is not to be disturbed by those who are always predicting the disintegration of our motherland. Even though TPLF regime tried to fan the flames of ‘Interamahwe’, the Ethiopian people proved that our nation is too cohesive and strong for such an evil and devious attempt. We need to reflect and study the Kenyan experience in order to be able to use their pain and losses to help us lay the foundation for a free and democratic Ethiopia.
“Charity begins at home,” goes the old saying. But with the Zenawi regime, it is, “No good deed will go unpunished.” The so-called “Charities and Societies Draft Proclamation No. 00/2007” [hereinafter “Proclamation”] currently under review by the Ethiopian “parliament” is one mean-spirited and uncharitable edict masquerading as a legislative measure. It is an understatement to say the Proclamation is incredibly oppressive, intrusive and arbitrary. It is simply a travesty of law that does not pass the “smell test”, let alone any serious legal analytical scrutiny. It offers a classic case study of law making in a police state — sweeping, stealthy, harsh, heavy-handed and irrational.
Private associations, endowments and trusts have existed in Ethiopia for decades. But modern civil society institutions (that is, domestic and international non-governmental, non-profit, voluntary citizens’ groups that provide humanitarian assistance, communicate citizens’ concerns to governments, advocate and monitor policies, encourage grassroots political participation, promote human rights, environmental protection, health, education, etc.), are a relatively new phenomenon in Ethiopia. Article 31 of the “constitution” of the current regime fully embraces such civil society institutions and provides, “Everyone shall have the right to form associations for whatever purpose.”
The importance of civil society institutions in democratizing Ethiopia has been repeatedly acknowledged by the current regime leader. Zenawi has made public statements declaring his intention to facilitate the establishment and strengthening of professional and popular associations and non-governmental organizations in the country’s development efforts and institution of democratic governance: “The participation of self-organized citizens’ associations is not only the foundation of our development, but also of our democracy.” Various official documents of the ruling regime have emphasized the role of civil society institutions in “building a democratic order in Ethiopia”.
So, what is wrong with Draft Proclamation No. 00/2007? Let’s count the ways.
The Proclamation is a preemptive legal strike aimed at neutralizing and abolishing civil society institutions, and diminishing any threats that may be posed by them against the regime.
An analysis of the totality of the Proclamation shows that the regime, in the absence of a united opposition political force in the country, perceives the greatest threat to its dictatorial powers originating in civil society institutions. The apparent fear of such organizations comes from the inherent potential of civil society organizations to create mass awareness of social and political issues, cultivate a more informed citizenry, mobilize people to make informed voting choices and effectively participate in politics, and equip ordinary citizens with the democratic tools to hold government more accountable.
By imposing an extensive scheme of invasive and suffocating licensing, registration, supervision, compliance and enforcement, and draconian penalty provisions, the regime expects and intends to effectively and “legally” eliminate any potential threats that could emanate from current or future civil society institutions. It is for this reason that the Proclamation sweeps under its regulatory claws all “philanthropic and benevolent” organizations and associations established to aid in poverty and disaster relief, promote economic development and agricultural and environmental amelioration, advance the cause of education, health, art, culture science, sports, enhance access and opportunity to the handicapped, and advocate and defend human rights. Even organizations involved in animal welfare are subject to the Proclamation. In sum, the powers created in this Proclamation to “regulate” all “philanthropic and benevolent” civil society institutions is the unchecked and unlimited power to destroy them. (A partial list of civil society organizations that could be affected by this Proclamation is provided herein. – pdf)
The Proclamation creates powers that can be exercised arbitrarily and capriciously in the regulation of civil society institutions.
The stated objective of the Proclamation is to “maintain public trust, promote compliance and enhance accountability” as well as “strengthen” and provide “full autonomy” in the operation of civil society institutions. But even a cursory reading of the Proclamation shows that there is no rational connection between the provisions of the Proclamation and its stated objectives. The Proclamation sets no discernable standards for civil society licensing, registration, compliance, investigation and enforcement. It merely creates an elaborate bureaucracy with sweeping and unchallengeable regulatory and administrative powers. Application of the Proclamation, and development of any subsequent enforcement regulations and rules, depends entirely on the whims and fancy of the director of the agency, and any directives he may receive from above. In fact, the director of the agency is a political appointee of the prime minister; and he in turn appoints a brigade of deputy directors, registrars and other bureaucrats. He acts cooperatively with a boatload of sector administrators, charities council and others to police and keep a watchful eye on civil society institutions.
The Proclamation grants unbounded discretionary power to the agency director who has quasi-judicial authority, and the director’s decision is not subject to judicial review.
The Proclamation is unabashed in creating an agency with officials whose powers have no legal bounds or limits. The list of extravagant powers conferred upon the agency and its officials is too numerous to enumerate, but a few glaring examples serve to demonstrate the sweeping powers granted to them. For instance, the agency can deny registration to any civil society group if it feels the internal management “rules of the charity are insufficient for proper management and control”. The agency can demand the membership, financial and any other records of a civil society organization at will, and without probable cause of wrongdoing by the organization, its officers or members. The agency can summarily suspend a civil society organization, its members or officers if it suspects “misconduct and mismanagement”.
A civil society organization could be dissolved if the agency determines on its own that the organization is being “used for unlawful purposes”, or is “contrary to public or the national interest”. The agency alone determines what is “unlawful” “or “contrary to the public or national interest.” The agency has the power to determine the “details of the charitable purposes and public benefits” regardless of the stated mission or objectives of the civil society organization. No action of the agency or its director could be challenged in a court of law with independent judges. There is limited administrative review of adverse agency actions, but ultimately, the agency and its director can do whatever they want in the name of “regulating” civil society institutions. In sum, the proclamation grants such sweeping discretionary regulatory powers, the agency and its director become the policeman, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioners of civil society organizations.
The Proclamation is extremely intrusive in the affairs of civil society.
The proclamation is extremely intrusive in the internal management and operations of civil society organizations. Using its sweeping powers, for instance, the agency and its director can appoint, remove, or suspend officers of civil society organizations, manage or freeze their assets, perform intrusive audits without suspicion of wrongdoing, unduly interfere in their internal decision making processes, scrutinize their operations and work plan, review their budget, order changes in their bylaws, and even force testimonial and documentary disclosure with “respect to any matter in question”. Incredibly, a civil society organization is required to return to the agency any money it has collected but has not spent within 2 years.
The Proclamation is so intrusive that it even compels disclosure of civil society membership lists. To closely track financial support for such organizations and identify supporters, it prohibits “anonymous donations” and requires records of donors to be kept for 5 years. None of this excessive intrusiveness can be challenged in court before an independent judge. It is obvious that under such an intrusive scheme of regulation, no civil society organization could feel confident enough to perform its mission. Few individuals would dare join such organizations under these circumstances; and those who do will be forced to endure the uncertainties of potential future persecution for membership in the “wrong” civil society institution.
The Proclamation provides for no judicial or administrative appellate review.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this Proclamation is the complete absence of provisions for judicial or meaningful administrative appellate review. For instance, there is no way to challenge an agency determination of denial of an application to register, order of dissolution, suspension or dismissal of officers in a court of law before independent judges. There is no way for civil society members who are not suspected of wrongdoing to challenge disclosure of their private records or statements to the agency. There is an administrative review process by which the decision of the agency director could be “appealed” to the Justice Minister. But that is like appealing the decision of Tweedle Dee to Tweedle Dum. In sum, the decision of the agency director and justice minister are final in all cases.
The Proclamation micromanages civil society institutions, is extremely burdensome and demands financial accountability and ethical integrity rarely seen or required of public institutions in Ethiopia.
The Proclamation authorizes the agency and its director to micromanage civil society institutions to a point of denying them any autonomy whatsoever. The financial accounting and record keeping requirements are so burdensome, unreasonable and punitive that a civil society organization must spend as much time preparing paperwork for red tape as it must performing its mission. For instance, the Proclamation requires “accounting records” to show “all sums of money received from day to day”. Civil society organizations are prohibited from receiving anonymous donations, so that a person who just wants to make a one time donation without membership affiliation can not make a contribution. Civil society organizations “shall be examined by a certified auditor or internal auditor or an auditor designated by the agency.” Civil society institutions are not allowed to establish a branch or change their name without agency approval. They are not allowed to use an emblem, logo or badge without agency approval. There are few things, if any, that civil society institutions can do without the approval of Big Brother!
The Proclamation has a chilling effect on civil society membership and participation.
No civil society organization could be effective without membership. By definition, civil society organizations depend upon the good will, charity and generosity of ordinary people in the community. Under the intrusive regulations of this Proclamation, few people in the community or society are likely to participate. The fact that government will have ready access to their personal information, role, participation and financial support of these organizations will dissuade many from joining. There is a real possibility of government retaliation if the civil society group is on a disapproved list, or is viewed with suspicion by the regime. Potential civil society members could reasonably fear that their jobs, businesses and private lives could be at risk by the mere fact of their membership. They could be targeted for persecution, harassment or mistreatment. The ironic thing is that ordinary citizens are likely to avoid joining civil society organizations — and thereby forego the legitimate exercise their “constitutional” and human rights to free association — out of fear of government retaliation.
The Proclamation is extremely punitive.
Failure to comply with the provisions of the Proclamation entails imprisonment, fines and administrative sanctions. For instance, administering or membership in an unregistered or “unlawful” civil society organization fetches a 5 year term, and a fine of 10,000 birr. Any person who is a member of or attends a meeting of an unregistered civil society organization could be imprisoned for 2 years, and fined 5,000 birr. Anyone who donates to an unregistered civil society organization is liable to jail time and fines as an accomplice. Any person who provides a meeting place for an unregistered organization is liable for a 2 year jail sentence, and a fine of 5,000 birr. Any person who “prints, publishes, displays, transits information by any means in the interest” of an unregistered organization is exposed to the same penalties. The agency also has the power to “at any time stop or restrict” fund raising by civil society organizations. In addition to the criminal penalties, there are untold numbers of unspecified but ominous administrative sanctions and penalties that can be taken against civil society organizations, their officers, board members and regular members.
In Art. 125, the Proclamation criminalizes civil society participation or advocacy of issues considered “politically contentious”. For instance, a civil society organization could be criminally charged under this section if it took a “political position” on poverty. Similarly, a civil society organization which promotes human rights, and its officers could be charged for speaking out on the “politically contentious” issue of political prisoners, arbitrary arrests and detentions, or torture of citizens. Such a provision is just plainly mindless and absurd.
The Proclamation is manifestly “unconstitutional”. It is also manifestly silly.
Article 131 of the Proclamation makes the following silly declaration: “Any laws and practices contrary to this Proclamation are hereby repealed.” Technical rules of statutory construction (legal interpretation) instruct that “words in a statute are presumed to have their usual and ordinary meaning”. If this provision is taken at face value, the Proclamation trumps and abrogates the Ethiopian “constitution” and all other human rights conventions incorporated by reference in the “constitution”. (Art. 13 (2).)
But there are specific provisions in the Proclamation that are manifestly violative of the regime’s “constitution”. For instance, the agency has the power to “cause the production of documents and search records” of the civil society organization, and “take possession of any books, documents or papers… required as evidence in proceedings for an offense under the Proclamation” (Art. 102), in violation of the right of privacy set forth in Art. 26, inter alia, of the “constitution”. Broad powers granted to the agency to have “full and free access to all buildings, places, books, documents papers of a charity or society” (Arts. 102, 104), are in flagrant violation of Art. 26 as well. Civil society organizations are required to notify the agency of any meetings with a 7 day advance notice (Art. 103), in violation of Arts. 29-32, inter alia, of the “constitution”. The Proclamation authorizes the agency to compel oral testimony from civil society members and officers to obtain “any information which relates to any charity or society” (Art. 102) in violation of the prohibition on coerced statements in Art. 19 (5), inter alia, of the “constitution”. In Art. 125, the Proclamation criminalizes civil society participation or advocacy of issues considered “politically contentious” in violation of Art. 29 (1) (2), inter alia, of the “constitution”. The list goes on and on.
The Proclamation is mean-spirited and discriminatory.
The Proclamation treats civil society organizations, groups and members as enemies of the state, instead of partners in building democracy. It makes no sense to have such a draconian Proclamation in the absence of a demonstrated history of criminality, or convincing proof of abuse of public trust, waste of public funds or fraud in the use of publicly collected funds. In fact, the Proclamation makes no legislative findings whatsoever that civil society institutions in Ethiopia have ever presented law enforcement problems or raised issues of public integrity. In the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing by civil society institutions, one can only conclude that the Proclamation in its totality has no rational relationship to the proper objects of governmental regulation, but rather represents a “legal” assault aimed at abolishing civil society institutions.
On the other hand, the Proclamation irrationally discriminates against foreign civil society organizations, and expatriate civil society workers. It prohibits employment of expatriates in domestic civil society organizations unless justified by the nature of the work or qualification of the individual. Failure to comply with this provision will result in jail time. It is also regrettable that the Proclamation appears to have been patterned in material respects after a similar law in Singapore, a country ranked 141st out of 167 by Reporters Without Borders in the Worlwide Press Freedom Index.
A good charity law should be charitable.
A good charity law should create an environment that enables ordinary citizens to participate in collective activities in their society, and not to fear and avoid civic engagement. Draconian regulatory constraints such as the ones in the Proclamation should only be used preventively if there is a history of criminality, fraud, waste and abuse in civil society organizations. Government should encourage and support citizens who seek to exercise their constitutional rights through organized and active civil society institutions. It is unnecessary and harmful to legislatively presume that ordinary citizens who seek to establish and participate in civil society organizations are criminals intent on defrauding the public. Rather, the presumption should be well-intentioned ordinary citizens who seek to help themselves and others deserve the benefit of the doubt and governmental cooperation through a simple and easy to follow regulatory regime.
There is a viable alternative to the current Proclamation which facilitates “self-organized citizens” to be involved in “development and democracy”. It is a proposal that harmonizes constitutional and human rights with the need for accountability and transparency in the operation and management of civil society organizations. This proposal was advanced by the young and dynamic anti-poverty civil society activist Daniel Bekele (who is currently in Kality prison despite a court order to release him and his colleague Netsanet Demessie), and his NGO/CSO Legal Framework Consultative Task Force. A careful analysis of this Proposal shows that it is possible to achieve both civic engagement and effective regulatory regime of civil society organizations in a framework of partnership.
The Bekele Proposal offers numerous advantages over the Proclamation. It provides for a simple registration process unencumbered by bureaucratic red tape. There is no charge for registration, and once registration is obtained it will remain valid for an indefinite time unless good cause exists for revocation. This Proposal does not allow for excessive official interference in the daily management and operation of civil society organizations. It relies on existing Civil Code provisions for reporting and supervision. Civil society organizations will be required to file annual reports, and external audits will be ordered only if there is evidence or good cause to suspect criminal wrongdoing.
Under the Bekele Proposal, if civil society organization are to be suspended or dissolved, such actions will be taken in accordance with the bylaws of the organization, or by court order after a full hearing on the merits. Foreign civil society organizations and expatriates who seek to work in Ethiopia will not be discriminated. Rather, they will be treated equally with domestic groups with respect to rights and obligations. The Bekele proposal also provides for changes in the organization of civil society institution, allowing for expedited mergers, splits and changes from foreign to domestic groups. There are no draconian penalties for violation of the regulations. Any penalties under the Proposal are to be imposed in the sound discretion of independent judges, not political appointees who have an axe to grind. Most importantly, the Bekele Proposal provides for full administrative and judicial appellate review. (The reader can make an independent comparative analysis of the Proclamation and the Bekele Proposal here, supra.)
In studying the Proclamation one is reminded of Mr. Bumble, the parish beadle in charge of charity, the workhouse and orphanage in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. Informed that “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”, Mr. Bumble replied, “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot.” Even Mr. Bumble knows a rotten law when he sees one.
These camels no doubt were stolen from Ogaden and Afar regions.
———————- Ethiopia to export 20,000 camels to Egypt
(ENA) SAAFI Trading and Agro Industry PLC [a well-known Woyanne affiliated company], Ethiopia’s second largest live animal exporting company, envisages to export 20,000 camels valued at six million USD abroad this year. It also called the government to strengthen control on boarder livestock contraband trade, which it said, disabling exporter’s competitive capacity in the global market.
In an exclusive interview with ENA on Saturday, Company General Manger Mohammed Mohamud said his company would export the stated number of camels to Egypt.
Mohammed said both the quality and quality of camels the company exports and the amount of export revenue the country obtains from the organization’s export has been growing steadily.
He said the country is expected to earn about three million USD additional revenue from the company’s camel export this year that is likely to show a 50 percent growth when compared to that of the amount it secures last year.
The GM said the company, a three-time award winner for its outstanding export performance, exports camels valued at 2.5-3 million USD to Egypt annually on average.
Concerning the support of the government provides to the sector, Mohammed pointed out that the government has been giving the necessary support and incentives to exporters engaged in the sector, which he described as “motivating”.
Referring to illegal trade, Mohammed pointed out that contraband trade in livestock animal, which he said has been growing from time to time, is dwarfing local exporters capacity on the one hand while preventing the nation to get the expected hard currency from the sector.
He further said contraband traders from neighboring countries have been smuggling cattle and camels out of the country that has resulted in the increase of prices locally at an alarming rate while reducing legal exporter’s market competitiveness globally.
“Some times contraband traders from neighboring countries are more powerful than us (legal local exporters) in local market forcing us to seem an onlookers rather than buyers”, Mohammed indicated.
The GM urged the government to tighten its control mechanisms against boarder domestic animal contraband trade in order to boost the capacity of local exporters thereby enable the nation to enjoy the benefits it deserves.
He also said lack of plots of land that are required to keep cattle temporarily or until they are exported and shortage of animal fodder are some of the other problems that have to be addressed.
The company also received a bronze medal from Prime MinisterVampire Meles Zenawi this year for being the second biggest live animal exporting company in terms of generating hard currency for the nation.
