Ethiopia: the 'war on terror' and the trial of 28 community leaders
<
http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/awol-allo> Awol Allo
4 March 2013
The lies that creep out of the state's mouth are justified as the protection
of order, even when they are against the law, but a citizen's lawful attempt
to counter their lies is terrorism.
As long as enough people can be frightened, then all people can be ruled.
-James Bovard
With the convergence of the 'war on terror' with the war on political
adversaries, draconian justice has returned with a vengeance in Ethiopia.
Just as authoritarian and racist regimes during the Cold War used the fight
against communism or imperialism for the repression of political dissent;
the regime in <
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2013_web.pdf>
Ethiopia is using the 'fight against terrorism' as a framework for
justifying the liquidation of democratic mobilization, and political
dissent.
Just as Stalinist USSR, Apartheid South Africa, and other authoritarian
systems have deployed the entire sovereignty of the state, including their
constitutions and court systems, to suppress basic freedoms, and eliminate
political adversaries, the Ethiopian government is aiming for total power
and total control of its population. To curtail the activities of
<
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/13/us-ethiopia-media-trial-idUSBRE86
C0OA20120713> opposition politicians, <
http://www.cpj.org/africa/ethiopia/>
journalists, <
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30350> activists, and
dissenting forces, the regime has adopted an Anti-terrorism Proclamation
widely criticized for its vague and broad formulations. The trajectory of
the Ethiopian legal system and its systematic mobilization against political
foes of the regime points to an emerging parallel between Ethiopia's
political trials, and Stalinist show trials. Interesting parallels between
Apartheid South Africa's deployment of the Suppression of Communism Acts,
and Ethiopia's turn to anti-terrorism legislation can also be seen in the
current ongoing trials of
<
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/15/ethiopia-prominent-muslims-detained-crac
kdown> 28 community leaders in Ethiopia.
Nelson Mandela is one of the many victims of political justice who, at the
end of his 'long walk to freedom', secured his voice, and visibility in the
world. But the victims of these aberrations of justice are countless. In
fact, repression of political dissent and activism is not something
exclusively reserved for authoritarian states. Liberal democracies such as
the United States have frequently turned to the legal system for the same
purpose. At the height of the Cold War, the United States used the Smith Act
and other laws to
<
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1PdfqnLSA2MC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=the+s
mith+act+was+directed+against&source=bl&ots=jefkABqk-w&sig=PFpkqVh6VYnst9LmH
1dj20JuCyY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JxwlUYD8EujL0QXR44CQDw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=
the%20smith%20act%20was%20directed%20against&f=false> suppress communists,
Black and Indian
<
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/COINTELPRO_Untold_Story.html>
liberationist movements and other dissenting voices.
In the post 9/11 order, the new security constellation is encoding
overarching security discourses into virtually all spheres of life,
subverting fundamental freedoms of expression, and dissent. The law is now
expressly conceived as a tactical deployment. But this is not to suggest
that the function of law in authoritarian systems and democratic societies
is comparable. In fact, aberrations in liberal democracies are frequently
held up as justifications for authoritarianism in authoritarian systems.
In Ethiopia, despite a progressive constitution that accords due recognition
to the liberal ideals of the rule of law and human rights, despite a
government that never ceases to proclaim its democratic credentials, courts
operate as technologies of repression and centres of propaganda aimed at
something that transcends the individual on trial.
<
http://www.opendemocracy.net/C:/Users/Awol/Downloads/Ethiopia%207.doc#_ftn1
> [1]As in Stalin's Russia, the judicial machine is activated not to redress
past injustices ex post and deter future offenses ex ante, but to upset,
fray, or destroy existing force-relations within the body politic. In both
systems, the legal space is activated on the premise that the state does
what it has the power to do and the defendant accepts and confirms the
government's version of truth, reality, and history.
In both systems, confession is synthesized with bureaucracy and functions as
a key instrument of the enterprise of indoctrination, terror, and
repression. In Ethiopia, confession comes in different forms. There are
pretrial confessions of which the recent documentary film, "
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WchwQRvV2xg> Jihadawi Harekat" is a glaring
example. But there is also the now popular post-conviction confession called
'a pardon'.
In Ethiopia, a convicted political prisoner is presumed not to have been
rehabilitated unless he agrees to sign a 'pardon' document the terms of
which are determined by the state. This is irrespective of whether or not
the accused has served the term of sentence. Even if you have finished the
terms of your sentence, you must apologize to the state, and sign the pardon
document. If the term of your sentence runs out before you agree to the
terms of the pardon document, you will be released and rearrested on another
charge. If you let that happen, it means that you would have to go through
the entire process, and get convicted again, only to face the same dilemma
again.
This is precisely the story of the two civil society activists who were
tried and convicted during the post 2005 election:
<
http://www.idhae.org/uk-page4.1.afri.ethio7.htm> Daniel Bekele and Netsanet
Demissie. Through intermediaries that came to be known as '
<
http://nazret.com/blog/index.php/2007/07/30/ethiopia_open_letter_to_profess
or_ephrem?blog=15> shimagiles', Amharic for elders, the duo were told that
their freedom depends not on the completion of the terms of their sentence
but their consent to the pardon document. This is the reality of justice and
the rule of law in today's Ethiopia. And it is precisely the same logic and
rationality that explains the ongoing trial of the Committee of 17 and the
attendant propaganda campaign.
The trial of the 28 community leaders
This is a trial against leaders of a Muslim
<
http://www.opendemocracy.net/awol-allo-abadir-m-ibrahim/redefining-protest-
in-ethiopia-what-happens-to-terror-narrative-when-musl> protest movement
that has been negotiating with the government to seek a resolution for the
grievances of the Muslim community in Ethiopia. The conflict began when the
government embarked on an audacious act of re-indoctrination through
coercive introduction of the teachings of an alien sect, the Ahbash, into
mosques and schools. The same government that recognized the Committee as
representatives of the people and negotiated with this body turned around
and labelled them self-appointed terrorists, and arrested them under charges
of terrorism when negotiations failed.
From its very inception, the trial was marred by allegations of procedural
irregularities and heavy handed government intervention. The
<
http://www.gulelepost.com/2012/11/12/the-comical-charges-against-ethiopian-
muslim-leaders-amharic/> indictment is a chilling assemblage of fabricated
allegations aimed at legitimizing the violence of the state, and
preemptively eliminating any meaningful fight back against state control of
the formation and circulation of religious discourses. It is so bizarre that
even this court has to throw out the allegation of conspiracy "to establish
an Islamic state" because it was not even convincing on the grounds of
'political expedience'. From arrest to the preliminary hearing, and
throughout the pretrial detention, those arrested were mistreated and
tortured. The government's unrelenting propaganda campaign against the
defendants created an environment in which their right to presumption of
innocence is no longer tenable.
During the preliminary hearing, lawyers contested the constitutionality of
the anti-terrorism law, and asked the court to refer the matter to the
Council of Constitution Inquiry, and the House of Federation, bodies charged
with the authority to interpret the constitution. The lawyers argued that
the law is essentially without force, that it is illegal, since its
provisions, in significant part, fly in the face of the very constitution
and constitutional order from which it derives its validity.
The right to a fair and public trial
The right to a fair and public trial is recognized by the Ethiopian
<
http://www.eueom.eu/files/dmfile/ethiopian-constitution-1994_en.pdf>
constitution and other international human rights instruments accepted by
Ethiopia. Without providing sufficient reasons that warrant the limitation
of this fundamental right, the government asked the court to hear the case
'in closed session'. To prevent a repeat of a few embarrassing scandals in
past political trials - there is indeed a much higher risk of embarrassment
in a nation-shaking trial such as this - the court accepted the government's
decision. According to the constitution, the limitation of the right to a
public trial is justified only if the limitation is due to the "privacy of
the parties concerned, public morals, and national security." The government
argued that since the names of prosecution witnesses were released on social
media sites such as Facebook, a public trial endangered the safety of the
witnesses.
But nowhere in Article 20 of the Constitution does it say or imply that the
safety of witnesses constituted the basis for limiting the defendant's right
to a public trial. This not only deprives the defendants of the right to be
tried before an open and public court but also violates the fundamental
presuppositions of the criminal law. Nevertheless, the court accepted the
government's decision without asking how the latter's explanation squares
with the expressly enumerated exceptions in the Constitution.
The 'presumption of innocence' and the film - Jihdawi Harekat
The government made its most audacious move so far when it announced that it
would broadcast a propaganda film titled "
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WchwQRvV2xg> Jihadawi Harekat: Boko Haram in
Ethiopia?" in blatant disregard of the defendant's right to presumption of
innocence. The government announced its intention to broadcast the
documentary film during prime-time television on 5 February 2013. In the one
minute trailer, the film shows the chairman of the committee saying: "the
ultimate goal was to establish an Islamic state"-one of the most bizarre
accusations that this court itself decided to throw out.
Prompted by the trailer, the lawyers for defence petitioned the court and
obtained an injunction against the TV station on 5 February 2012. Shortly
afterwards, it was reported that the President of the High Court nullified a
ruling of the three judge panel through an administrative act and the TV
station broadcast the film. As a matter of law, a judicial decision can only
be annulled through another judicial decision at an appellate level. In this
case, the President nullified the court's decision in a blatant violation of
the Constitution and other laws of the country. This is precisely what
happens in a system where 'political expedience' trumps the rule of law and
legality.
Defending the government's decision to go ahead and broadcast a documentary
against a court order, Shimelis Kemal, Ethiopia's own Andrey Vyshinsky, came
up with multiple justifications that simply do not hang together. One of
these mutually contradictory justifications is the idea that the subject
matter of the documentary is a new terrorist conspiracy that is under
investigation and not yet the object of judicial determination. He said,
<
http://ethiochannelnewspaper.com/blog/item/214?fb_action_ids=4045205343140&
fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%224
045205343140%22%3A494402843956865%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224045205343140%22%
3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_r> "this is a new crime" that is "
<
http://ethiochannelnewspaper.com/blog/item/214?fb_action_ids=4045205343140&
fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%224
045205343140%22%3A494402843956865%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224045205343140%22%
3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_r> not yet presented to the court". But the fact
remains that the <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WchwQRvV2xg> documentary
is primarily about leaders of a movement who are on trial, and
unquestionably affects their right to be presumed innocent before the law.
When the court that is considering the matter issued an injunction against
the documentary, the court is saying two basic things. First, that the
documentary will affect its ability to give a fair trial to the defendants.
Second, that the rights of the defendants to be seen as defendants, not
convicted criminals, both by the court and the general public, will be
endangered. So this threatens not only their right to be presumed innocent
before the court, but also before the body politic which has an interest in
the maintenance of law and order. Furthermore, once the documentary was in
the public domain, what public safety or national security reasons justified
the closure of the hearing from the public?
Hurling terrorism at defense lawyers
The government in the wake of the documentary scandal has resorted to
<
http://ethiochannelnewspaper.com/blog/item/214?fb_action_ids=4045205343140&
fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%224
045205343140%22%3A494402843956865%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224045205343140%22%
3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_r> accusing the defense lawyers of trying to
protect their clients. Shimelis Kemal, former judge and prosecutor, now
State Minister for communications, accused the lead defense lawyer, Tamam
Ababulgu, of aiding and abetting terrorism. Referring to statements by Mr.
Tamam to a few media outlets about the injunction, and acts of torture used
against his clients to extort confessions, the Minister called the lawyer's
statements on behalf of his clients "white lies". Tamam Ababulgu was
summoned to a court to answer questions.
Nietzsche brilliantly encapsulates this logic in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:
"State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and
this lie creeps from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people'." The lies
that creep out of the state's mouth are justified as the protection of
order, even when they are against the law, but a citizen's lawful attempt to
counter their lies is terrorism. If Tamam Ababulgu can be accused of
terrorism by the State Minister, that is impeccable evidence of the distance
the state is willing to go to mute and paralyze dissident narratives in the
country. It also tells us that there is no room for cause lawyering in
Ethiopia let alone imagining becoming a radical lawyer of the calibre of a
<
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/darrow.htm> Clarence Darrow,
or a <
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/chicago7/KunstlerW.htm>
William Kunstler.
Conclusion
Although the deployment of the law as a tactic is not reserved for
authoritarian systems, there is no symmetry between the role of law in
democratic societies and non-democratic societies. In democratic societies,
where a series of accountability mechanisms operate, the law cannot be used
arbitrarily as an instrument of control, and terror. However, in
authoritarian systems, the law is constantly invoked by a regime that does
not respect its reciprocal obligation on which its legal authority to accuse
and jail rests. In Ethiopia, the rhetoric of law and order is itself a form
of ideological consciousness that makes a vigorous strategic use of the
legal system, including the sovereignty of the state, to produce political
and moral panic. This panic and generalized fear is used to coerce the
"silent majority" into embracing oppressive measures as necessary and
proportional to the threat facing the unity and stability of the nation.
Muslim protestors waving a warning card to the government.
ethiopiaforums.com/Some rights reserved.
<
http://ethiopiaforums.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ethiopian-muslims-prot
est-oct-5.jpg>
Muslims protesting against the government at Grand Anwar Mosque.
<
http://www.awrambatimes.com/wp-content/uploads/anwar1.jpg> Awramba
Times/Some rights reserved.
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Mon Mar 04 2013 - 17:53:28 EST
