.png)
By Seble Teweldebirhan
Addis Ababa, May 14, 2012 (Ezega.com) - There is no proclamation in Ethiopia as much controversial and famous as the anti-terrorism law. The law proclaimed in 2009 with an objective of fighting terrorism in the country has remained to be divisive and a topic of political and social debates. Many oppositions members claim that the law is unconstitutional and politically motivated. International human rights institutions keep condemning it saying the government is using it to put down the opposition and intimidate citizens. Especially, the accusation goes to the violation of freedom of expression that went under a serious scrutiny by the proclamation.
The government has a completely different position on this issue. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi repeatedly tried to justify the law saying it is a direct replica of the western act on terrorism. In particular, those of Germany, USA, and British laws on the matter are not only a reference but also as a direct guideline, according to the PM. That means the law has used unswervingly what the ‘international’ community deems to be appropriate to fight terrorism.
The argument forwarded by the PM might be exposed for an obvious fallacy. However, if indeed the law is what the rest of the world considers acceptable, the question should be why Ethiopia’s case is treated differently in the eyes of international human rights organizations. If the same standards are used in the western world to identify terrorists and their acts, why institutions based in the western world found Ethiopia’s identification as a violation of fundamental human rights and consider the nation as violator of press freedom.
Indeed, the September 9/11 attack in the US and the anti-terrorism movement that followed it changed the face of human rights considerably. The counter-terrorism laws issued by many countries clearly compromised fundamental human rights principles that were considered essential prior to the attack. In order to fight terrorism, states opted for aggressive measures that contradict the principles set under international human rights and criminal laws. Long before Ethiopia issued its anti-terrorism law, terrorism acts has been a cause of controversy among governments and human rights activists. UK, Germany, Canada, India, Australia, USA and many other countries who claim to lead the anti-terrorism front, faced a serious challenges for their counter-terrorism laws.
International human rights organizations, human rights activists, and citizens opposed their governments for the extreme counter-terrorism laws. Especially, the broad and vague definition of terrorism acts, the infinite discretions by the police, court, and the compromise of international criminal law principles, the notable limitations on the rights to expression, speech, opinions and the press have led to a series of condemnation on several countries.
In fact, the laws evidently jeopardize internationally recognized human rights. When it comes to counter-terrorism acts, individual liberty, privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right to association and due process of law, including presumption of innocence, are all likely at risk of obvious violation. Even the most naturally protected rights, the right to thoughts and hold opinions freely are insecure based on counter-terrorism acts. The broad definition that criminalizes some behavioral acts that might be illegal under certain circumstances, but cannot be regarded as terrorism acts by nature.
This risk is not a secret to the legislatures as well. However, it seems, considering the evils of terrorism, states are submissive to potential human rights violation, probably justifying it with protecting peace, security and public interest.
Terrorism and terrorists greatly endangers the public in many ways. Terrorism jeopardizes basic human rights like the right to life, liberty, and physical integrity. Certainly, states have a responsibility to ensure the enjoyment of these rights and protect their citizens. Therefore, countries who have adopted various counter-terrorism laws have a well-founded motive to take strong stands to fight terrorism. However, the problem appears to be that their measures are counter-productive and violate the very rights they tend to protect. In this case, as some suggest, human rights have become collateral damage.
For the last decade, many states remain unable to find a middle ground between the protection of individual human rights and the fight against terrorism in their respective countries. Thus, if given a choice they seem to stick to the latter. Therefore, the human right of the suspects of terrorism is under compromise and mostly subject to obvious violations. In addition to that, the public faces unjust intimidations to exercise several fundamental rights guaranteed by international human rights institutions and national constitutions.
The broad definition of terrorism and the laws that are full of legal loopholes and unnecessary discretion for the law enforcement bodies make the matter worse than it is. Some developing democracies, including Ethiopia, are facing accusations that they are employing this gap to suppress their oppositions, refute freedom of expressions, and intimidate citizens.
This is because, based on the definition of counter-terrorism laws, it is possible to interpret many actions and incidents as terrorism. For example, under the anti terrorism proclamation of Ethiopia, the provision directly copied from the western nations of counter-terrorism act, especially that of Germany, is article 6. This article states as follows: “whosoever publishes or causes the publication of a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission or preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism is punishable”.
This provision embraces enormous discretion. What will likely encourage or induce terrorism is open to the opinions of the court. Any statement published, might have the potential to fall in such category. Therefore, the fate of the accused is fully on the view of the justice system and not in any defense he or she might present to the court. In this case, the anti terrorism law of Ethiopia provides that the punishment can be as high as 20 years.
In short, to fight the evils of terrorism and cope with the counter laws, it is necessary to have a trustworthy judiciary system that is free of bias, corruption, and political interferences. To acknowledge the wide ranging discretion given to the system, citizens need to feel their judges would not abuse the trust and only use it to protect the interest of the public. Probably, the reason there is no much oppositions to these laws in western countries is that they managed to build public trust in their justice system.
In Ethiopia, there is a suspicious outlook by the society towards the justice system. The judiciary has a long sore history filled with corruption, and political interference. Historically, the last two rulers of Ethiopia, Emperor Haile Selassie and Mengistu Hailemariam took justice in their own hands, used the justice system for their personal and political agenda, and destroyed the faith of the public to depend on the system for fair trial.
In general, Ethiopians for the most part believe the judiciary is not on their side. Studies like Global Corruption Barometer by Transparency International indicates that the judiciary in Ethiopia is one of the most mistrusted and corrupt pillars of government. Unlike other states, from which Ethiopia copied its counter-terrorism laws, whose judiciary has public trust to a large degree, the system in Ethiopia is subject to denigration.
In these circumstances, the discretions under anti-terrorism law are open to abuse. Since the attitude is fairness and justice is not the guiding principles of the justice system, the public tends to view their interpretation as favoring whatever unjust intentions is behind the cases. The international human rights institutions, that claim to stand for the recognition of fundamental human rights, share this point of view.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), all have openly criticized Ethiopia for adopting the anti-terrorism proclamation. The identity of those suspected for terrorism and arrested based on the law also gave this institutions a reason to take Ethiopia a regular destination for their condemnations.
Therefore, though the laws are a direct copy of the western countries, as the PM always says, the issue differs for Ethiopia. The suspicious relationship between the public and the judiciary system sets a series of questions on whatever measures taken by the system can be fair based on the anti-terrorism law. This outlook is strengthened by the fact that a major thrust of the anti-terrorism law has been on public figures, opposition leaders, and journalists. From the public point of view, it appears bizarre to picture these people as terrorists, and thus sustaining the old mistrust between the judiciary and the society. For these reasons, the anti-terrorism proclamation is viewed by many in the country as politically-motivated, and those arrested as prisoners of politics and consciousness.
_______________________________________
Seble Teweldebirhan is Addis Ababa based Reporter for Ezega.com. She can be reached by sending email through this form.
No comments:
Post a Comment