(Befekadu Hailu)
[The original version of this piece is written in Amharic; please read the Amharic version for accuracy.]
The Ministry of Justice in Ethiopia introduced a draft revision of the Civil Society Organizations Proclamation, which was adopted in 2019. This law, which was enacted in the wake of Ethiopia’s political transition, replaced the previous “repressive” proclamation. However, the gradual erosion of the rights granted in the Proclamation of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and other proclamations issued during the transition period has raised serious concerns. In this brief article, I will provide an overview of the journey of regression in legal reforms that we once cherished a few years ago. I will also present a comparison of the revised draft with the current and the repealed proclamations, allowing readers to make their judgments.
The Advisory Council for Legal and Judiciary Reform, established in 2018, was tasked with reviewing dozens of repressive laws through a process that involved several task forces of experts, stakeholders’ consultations, and popular consent. The most significant achievement in the last political transition was the revision of these repressive laws. Among the laws reviewed by the council were the Proclamation on Civil Society Organizations, the Proclamation on Anti-Terrorism, the Proclamation on Media, and the Proclamation on Election and Political Parties. Indeed, the process was not without its flaws; the drafts prepared by the experts were first reviewed by the Attorney General, then by the Council of Ministers, with some of the original drafts of some provisions amended, and then by the House of People’s Representatives; on the other hand, drafts such as the “Freedom of Access to Information” bill were never approved at all. However, the laws that were drafted by the Council’s task forces and approved by the House had better public acceptance. It was believed that this period would replace the previous rule by law or legal repression with the rule of law.
Soon after (as the transitional government began to consolidate its power and engage in power struggles with its adversaries), it began to narrow the civil space that had started to improve under the law through illegal restrictions; we have seen the laws being violated on several occasions. For example, although the law specifies that the board members of the Ethiopian Media Authority should not be appointed from a political party, it was openly violated, and members of the Prosperity Party were appointed. Similarly, ACSO imposed a not-legally-sound suspension on five local CSOs. Now, the issue has further escalated, and the laws have been subjected to governmental scrutiny, without assessing their effectiveness on society and governance. The draft revision of the Media Law and the Civil Society Organizations Proclamation are examples of this regression. It has been previously reported that the revision of the Media Law extends the authority of the executive branch of the government and narrows the civic space.
The Repression of CSOs
The amendment of the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) law in 2019 was welcomed by almost all stakeholders. However, as conflicts proliferated across Ethiopia and as civil society members began to hold the government accountable, the government turned its back on them. Furthermore, CSOs were particularly targeted during the Tigray conflict. The crackdown on CSOs included international aid organizations. Three international organizations were suspended during the Tigray war, amid allegations of spreading disinformation. The local Peace and Development Center (PDC) was also suspended, and its leaders were briefly imprisoned.
Following the cessation of hostilities in the Tigray war through a peace agreement, and the subsequent escalation of the Amhara region conflict, ACSO suspended the registration of human rights organizations for several months without providing any specific reasons. In addition, existing organizations were subjected to bureaucratic pressure to change their objectives related to rights and democracy when they attempted to amend their bylaws. Individuals claiming to be members of the security forces have also begun to target and intimidate members and leaders of CSOs. As a result, many leaders and members of civil society organizations were forced into exile.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Abiy, in his July 2024 Q&A with the House of People’s Representatives, called for a review of the human rights proclamation, institutions, and practices. In his speech, he made a sweeping statement, saying, “I won’t tell you what will happen if we allow a force that we don’t pay salaries to, but other forces have, and that reports to other forces.” This speech sent a shock wave to CSO members. A few months after the Prime Minister made his allegation, the Authority of CSOs (ACSO) suspended five human rights organizations for about three to four months, citing political reasons. Although the suspension was lifted through the mediation of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, all CSOs have continued to experience the chilling effect and operate below their capacity.
Eventually, the Ministry of Justice has finalized its preparations for revising the CSOs Proclamation and is facilitating consultation forums among selected groups. The revised draft, in addition to narrowing the civic space, is similar to the repealed law due to its repressive provisions. To illustrate the stark contrast, I have picked four examples and presented them for comparison as follows.
Comparison of the Proclamations
1) Defining the CSOs
a) Proclamation 621/2009: It defines four types of civil society organizations (it refers to “charity organizations”). These are “Ethiopian Charitable Organizations” (organizations whose members are all Ethiopian citizens and whose income is 90 percent from domestic sources), “Ethiopian Residents Charitable Organizations” (organizations whose members are all Ethiopian residents and whose income is more than 10 percent from foreign sources), “Foreign Charitable Organizations” (organizations whose members are foreign citizens or established abroad or whose income is derived from foreign sources), and “Mass-Based Associations.” This definition was used to isolate and defund human rights organizations. The proclamation generally referred to CSOs as “charitable organizations.” This was used to limit the scope of their activities to human rights, democracy, conflict resolution, judicial advocacy, and other related areas of work. The proclamation prohibited organizations other than those designated as “Ethiopian Charities” from engaging in advocacy work (Article 14, Section 5). As a result, most human rights organizations were shut down, and those that remained were severely weakened.
b) Amended Proclamation 1331/2019: All organizations are correctly referred to as “Civil Society Organizations,” and the distinctions are “Local Organization” (an organization established in the country by Ethiopians or foreign nationals residing in Ethiopia), “Foreign Organization” (an organization based abroad and registered to operate in Ethiopia), “Charitable Organization” (an organization established to provide humanitarian assistance), “Professional Association” (an association based on a profession), and “Consortium” (a group of two or more organizations and a group of Consortia). All organizations may raise income from any legal source to achieve their goals (Article 63/1/c), and may engage in any legal field of activity to accomplish the legal purpose for which they were established (Article 62/1). This proclamation played a crucial role in the gradual emergence of human rights organizations.
c) The draft to repeal the amended proclamation: Article 62/5 of the amended proclamation is will be abolished, prohibiting “foreign organizations” or “local organizations” established by foreign citizen who are Ethiopian residents (formerly not distinct from the other local organizations) from providing financial or professional support to “local organizations” established by Ethiopian citizens for advocacy or election-related activities. Additionally, Article 62/6 will be repealed, prohibiting local organizations from receiving funds or resources from foreign financial sources for political advocacy or election-related activities. This draft does not change the definition of organizations, but it does appear to distinguish between organizations established by citizens and non-citizen residents, without stating them as different as in the repealed proclamation; Furthermore, the repealed Proclamation (621/2009) prohibits “Ethiopian charitable organizations” from raising funds from abroad for advocacy work, and this draft doubles down on the prohibition of foreign organizations and foreign citizens from providing funds to local and citizen-founded local organizations (and also prohibiting local organizations from receiving funds – both ways restriction), thus reinstating the provisions of the repealed Proclamation in a more severe form than before.
2) Authority of the Regulatory
a) Proclamation 621/2009: The regulatory body (Charitable Organizations and Associations Agency) is governed by a board of seven members appointed by the government (Article 8/1). This gave the executive branch of government absolute control over civil society organizations. As a result, the civic space was stifled, paving the way for corruption among the regulatory body’s staff.
b) Amended Proclamation 1113/2019: The regulatory body (ACSO) shall be governed by an 11-member board consisting of three representatives of government institutions nominated by the Attorney General, three representatives of CSOs, one expert nominated by the Attorney General, two representatives of CSOs working on Persons with Disabilities, and two representatives of women’s rights organizations (Article 8/1). This was believed to provide an opportunity for CSOs to regulate the sector and to protect themselves from government interference.
c) The draft law to repeal the amended proclamation: The regulatory body will consist of four representatives of government institutions, appointed by the Ministry of Justice, one expert appointed by the Ministry of Justice, and two representatives of CSOs. This revision restores the repressive nature of the repealed law.
3) Registration and Licensing
a) Proclamation 621/2009: In addition to submitting annual performance and financial statements, it requires organizations to renew their licenses every three years (Article 76/1). This not only placed unnecessary pressure on the organizations, but also gave the executive branch (through the regulatory body) the opportunity to not renew the licenses of organizations that scrutinized the government.
b) Amended Proclamation 1113/2019: The article on license renewal has been completely removed. This has reduced the challenge of executive power abuse to a certain extent.
c) The draft law to
repeal the amended proclamation (adding on Article 70/3’s existing
provision) requires organizations to renew their licenses every four years, in
addition to submitting annual performance and financial statements. This would restore the repressive practices
of the repealed law, paving the way for renewed abuse and corruption.
4) Suspension and Cancellation
A) Proclamation 621/2009: If any organization is found to have violated the provisions of the law (Article 74/2) and has failed to make corrections as ordered by the regulatory body (Article 92/1/a) and for other reasons, its license may be suspended until it corrects the deficiencies. An organization aggrieved by the agency’s decision may appeal to the Board (Article 104/2), and if aggrieved by the Board’s decision, it may appeal to the Federal High Court (Article 104/3). An organization that is not registered, suspended, or cancelled has the right to be considered as not having been suspended or cancelled until a decision is made on the appeal (Article 104, paragraph 4). Although this provision gives the agency the authority to suspend and revoke, placing unnecessary pressure on organizations, it may be a good idea to have an appeal system that can be filed every 15 days.
b) Amended Proclamation 1113/2019: The Director of the Authority may suspend an organization for a period not exceeding three months when the supervisory body “confirms, during its investigation, that a serious violation of the law has been committed and, as a result, finds it necessary to suspend the activities of the organization.” However, if the Board does not issue a decision within three months, the suspension shall be lifted (Article 77, paragraph 4). If the suspended organization is dissatisfied with the Board’s decision, it has the right to appeal to the Federal High Court. This procedure, although it has been violated in practice, provides sufficient safeguards for organizations to be regulated under the rule of law; however, the extended period for the Board to respond to places prolonged pressure on suspended organizations.
c) The draft to repeal the amended proclamation: The current proclamation replaces the word “confirmed” in Article 77/4 with “suspected”, and states that the Director General of the Authority “may issue a suspension order for up to three months and conduct an investigation; however, if the investigation is not completed within the three-month suspension period, it may extend the suspension for an additional three months.” Furthermore, in Article 77/5, the removes the previous provision and replaces it with that “the decision of the Board shall be final.” This is an even more oppressive practice than the repealed proclamation, as it allows the executive branch to suspend organizations for an extended period (and consequently dissolve them) without providing evidence to support the investigation. Additionally, it denies the fundamental right to appeal to the court.
As we have seen in the comparison above, the draft proclamation not only revives the spirit of the 2009 proclamation but also includes some articles that are even more repressive than those in the previous proclamation, which has been proven to be repressive by numerous studies.
Exit Note
Rule By Law Exacerbates the Culture of Violence!
Ethiopia has seen before that suppressing the civic space does not lead to political resolutions. On the contrary, it paves the way for a culture of violence to exacerbate. As can be recalled, one of the measures taken by the EPRDF after the 2005 elections was the narrowing of civic space through the use of legal instruments. By restricting the sources of income of rights-based civil society organizations and increasing the powers of the regulator, CSOs were prevented from serving as a watchdog of the government and advocating for a return to an authoritarian culture. Additionally, human rights defenders and journalists are left unprotected and targeted with the pretext of “countering terrorism.” This has led to widespread protests across the country, as civil society and the mass media have been unable to operate in a civil, organized, and accountable manner to demand policy changes that represent public interest; some of these protests have given rise to violent movements. The revision of the laws and procedures will continue to close all avenues of non-violent resistance, which will further fuel violence and prevent the resolution of the conflicts that have proliferated across Ethiopia.
Therefore, public democratic institutions and
other relevant stakeholders should exert public pressure to reject the draft
law that would lead to legal repression (rule by law). Instead, respecting and
upholding the constitutional right to associate and organize by drafting a law
that provides additional legal protection and safeguards for civil society and
human rights defenders is essential for respecting human rights, building a
democratic system, establishing good governance, and promoting peace and
stability.
No comments:
Post a Comment