Justice reform: Ethiopia's proposed laws aim to tackle past abuses with global collaboration

7 Mar 2025

To effectively deliver justice for international crimes, an independent international cooperation unit is needed. Such a unit, equipped with adequate resources, technical expertise, vetted experts and a strong institutional mandate, is essential for at least three reasons: the Eritrean dimension of transitional justice, Ethiopia’s history of dealing with fugitive offenders, and the Special Prosecutor’s Office’s independence.

Ethiopia is drafting transitional justice laws to address past and ongoing abuses through criminal accountability, truth-seeking, reparations and institutional reform.

One of the draft laws establishes a Special Prosecutor’s Office (or what might be called a Transitional Justice Prosecutor’s Office) to investigate and prosecute those most responsible for core international crimes and other grave offences such as rape. In Ethiopia’s draft law, international crimes include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and enforced disappearances.

The proposed Special Prosecutor’s Office will be required to search for, identify and prosecute alleged perpetrators outside Ethiopia’s jurisdiction, or foreign nationals implicated in crimes under its authority. Going after fugitive offenders is a complex task. Identifying their whereabouts may not always be possible using conventional means. In such cases, the draft law allows the Special Prosecutor’s Office to incentivise informants to provide crucial intelligence.

Equally challenging is securing extradition and accountability for these perpetrators. When extradition requests are denied — often due to the numerous legal grounds for refusal invoked by the requested state — the Special Prosecutor’s Office should try to persuade and support third-party states to prosecute offenders under universal jurisdiction or other applicable legal doctrines. This requires sustained collaboration with international stakeholders and foreign countries.

International cooperation treaty

Recognising these difficulties, states adopted an international cooperation treaty in 2024 — the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention. The treaty is designed to enhance cross-border collaboration in investigating and prosecuting crimes akin to those that Ethiopia’s Special Prosecutor’s Office will address.

Yet, while it is equipped with some specialised divisions, the proposed Special Prosecutor’s Office lacks a key department to effectively discharge its mandate: a dedicated international cooperation unit.

Such a unit, equipped with adequate resources, technical expertise, vetted experts and a strong institutional mandate, is essential for at least three reasons: the Eritrean dimension of transitional justice, Ethiopia’s history of dealing with fugitive offenders, and the Special Prosecutor’s Office’s independence.

First, unlike the post-1991 prosecutions of Dergue-era crimes, which targeted solely Ethiopian nationals, the new Special Prosecutor’s Office is expected to investigate non-Ethiopian perpetrators, particularly Eritreans accused of atrocities committed during the Tigray war.

Eritrea’s government has historically resisted cooperation in matters of accountability. During the post-1991 trials, it refused to share military communiqués and other evidence with Ethiopian prosecutors, even when requests did not involve prosecuting Eritrean nationals. This lack of cooperation, said the post-1991 Special Prosecutor’s Office report, hindered Ethiopia’s efforts to prosecute war crimes.

Given this precedent, having no dedicated international cooperation mechanism risks signalling a lack of commitment to holding Eritrean offenders accountable. An international cooperation unit could help facilitate diplomatic engagements, secure evidence, and advocate for Eritrean perpetrators to be prosecuted in Ethiopia, Eritrea, or a third-party jurisdiction.

Second, Ethiopia’s past challenges with extradition and transnational justice highlight the need for a dedicated international cooperation division in the new Special Prosecutor’s Office. The post-1991 Dergue trials led to many in absentia prosecutions due to the high number of fugitives. A total of 2,188 of 5,119 defendants were tried in absentia. Twenty of the 73 high-ranking Dergue officials prosecuted in “Mengistu et al” were absent from the proceedings, including Mengistu Haile Mariam himself.

In absentia prosecutions

The Dergue trials normalised in absentia prosecutions, not because Ethiopian law encouraged them, but because international cooperation failed. Ethiopian criminal law usually treats these as a measure of last resort. It imposes a duty on the prosecuting authority to search for fugitives and request extradition before prosecuting in their absence.

A former member of the post-1991 Special Prosecutor’s Office told ISS Today that the lack of a dedicated international cooperation unit meant prosecutors could not actively secure extradition for any high-profile fugitives. In the post-1991 Special Prosecutor’s Office’s history, only Melaku Teferra was handed over by Djibouti from its consulate in Ethiopia.

Moreover, the post-1991 Special Prosecutor’s Office failed to prosecute Ethiopian fugitives in other countries. America’s trials of former Dergue members like Kelbessa Negewo (under the Alien Tort Claims Act), and Mergia Negussie Habteyes and Mezemr Abebe Belayneh (for immigration fraud), were not thanks to Ethiopia’s efforts. Similarly, the war crimes conviction of Eshetu Alemu in The Netherlands occurred after the post-1991 Special Prosecutor’s Office closed down in 2010 on completion of its mandate.

Research revealed the ineffectiveness of the post-1991 Special Prosecutor’s Office process in tracking fugitives, even in Ethiopia. Some individuals convicted in absentia in the Dergue trials later resurfaced, claiming they had not been informed of the proceedings against them. Some died before their trials even began.

Experience with the Dergue trials also shows that Ethiopia’s limited extradition requests have been denied due to a lack of bilateral or multilateral treaties governing such cooperation. The Special Prosecutor’s Office at the time made no significant effort to address this deficiency.

Extradition treaties

Ethiopia still lacks extradition treaties with several key jurisdictions and has not signed the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention. An independent international cooperation unit could advocate for legal reforms and close these gaps.

Furthermore, compared with its predecessor, the new Special Prosecutor’s Office would likely face even more fugitive offenders. The protracted nature of the transitional justice process — already spanning over six years — might have given alleged perpetrators time to flee the country.

Given that the jurisdiction of the proposed new Special Prosecutor’s Office encompasses crimes committed over more than three decades — twice the temporal scope of the post-1991 Special Prosecutor’s Office — the number of implicated individuals living abroad is probably much higher.

Third, while Ethiopia’s Justice Ministry has an international cooperation unit, it isn’t structured to meet the new Special Prosecutor’s Office’s demands. The draft law makes the Special Prosecutor’s Office accountable to Parliament to ensure its independence. But the ministry’s regular international cooperation department lacks such independence, remaining accountable to the executive branch. If the regular cooperation unit handles Special Prosecutor’s Office matters, that would risk undermining the office’s independence.

Not having a dedicated international cooperation unit in the new Special Prosecutor’s Office represents a critical gap in Ethiopia’s proposed transitional justice framework, and could undermine its credibility.

Establishing an independent, specialised unit would improve the delivery of justice for international crime, and have a lasting impact on Ethiopia’s judicial system. It would transfer knowledge and expertise to the regular prosecution department, extending its benefits beyond its mandate and term. DM

Tadesse Simie Metekia is a Senior Researcher, Rule of Law, at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Addis Ababa.

First published by ISS Today.

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

Africa

International cooperation treaty

In absentia prosecutions

Extradition treaties