Transitional justice in Ethiopia: Tensions over role of international experts must be resolved urgently

The transitional justice process in Ethiopia has faced the issue of international involvement from the outset.

The country’s Green Book on Policy Options for Transitional Justice, published in January 2023, rejected international or hybrid tribunals.

This, coupled with the government’s resistance to the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, has contributed to the perception within the global community that the Ethiopian process is one of quasi-conformity, with external involvement excluded to avoid accountability under the guise of national ownership.

However, following national consultations on the Green Paper, the Transitional Justice Working Group of Experts revised its position and called for “meaningful” participation by international experts. Some said this included roles such as co-prosecutors and co-judges in a proposed special court and prosecution service. But the final policy limited international experts to advisory and training roles, reportedly to affirm national ownership of the process.

In government post-policy communications, slogans such as ‘Ethiopian transitional justice for Ethiopians by Ethiopians’ are increasingly used. The implementation roadmap drawn up in July recommends using the slogan ‘Ethiopian transitional justice will be realised through the leadership and ownership of its people and nation’ in all related communications.

Opportunities for strong international involvement were further weakened in the implementation roadmap, where the term ‘international experts’ was replaced by ‘experts with international experience’. This subtle change indicates a preference for relying on Ethiopians who have studied or worked abroad, rather than relying on external figures.

Emphasizing national ownership in transitional justice is not problematic in itself; in fact, it is consistent with broader continental principles. The African Union’s Transitional Justice Policy states that ownership and responsibility for transitional justice lies primarily with African governments, and calls on other stakeholders to respect and support their leadership. But maintaining ownership does not preclude drawing on international expertise, which can add value.

First, the presence of international experts can give victims a sense of impartiality, especially in a context like Ethiopia, where trust in the domestic system is low. This does not mean that international experts are more capable than their Ethiopian colleagues. Nor should their involvement be based on the assumption that knowledge flows in one direction (from global to local).

Second, the international community has a responsibility to combat impunity for international crimes, wherever they occur and whoever the victims are. Where the territorial state is seen as unwilling or unable – historically or currently – to address international crimes according to international standards, the international community must intervene and guide the process. Ethiopia could be such a case.

Historically, Ethiopia’s transitional justice efforts have been exercises in victor’s justice, which did not guarantee non-recurrence. Several current challenges, such as ongoing conflict, rising transnational organized crime, and the presence of alleged perpetrators in regional and federal offices, may result in an unwillingness or inability to address past atrocities.

Third, Ethiopia’s transitional justice process extends beyond national borders; the country’s peace and stability have significant regional implications. And some violations in Ethiopia have involved regional actors, such as Eritrea. Implementing transitional justice requires the coordinated efforts of various international organizations.

The donor community appears to have become reluctant to support Ethiopia’s transitional justice process due to the country’s declining openness to international involvement. Restricting access to essential international cooperation, resources and expertise could delay or even derail successful implementation.

Sources close to the process say the country’s reservations stem from a belief that international stakeholders are focusing too much on the situation in Tigray and want to dictate terms for how Ethiopia should conduct its transitional justice process. Justice Minister Gedion Timothewos reiterated this at the launch of the transitional justice. “(We) welcome partners, we welcome more support and advice, not prescriptions,” he said.

However, the Ethiopian process should remain faithful to the policy that allows for the involvement of international experts as advisors and capacity builders. While studies show limited support for international experts serving as judges and prosecutors, there is no technical justification for their exclusion.

While Ethiopia should open its doors to international involvement, the global community must recognize that the country’s unique situation requires a context-specific strategy rather than a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach.

Mutual understanding can be achieved through principled diplomacy. Ethiopia and the international community can use diplomatic missions and multilateral forums to strategically reassess the country’s process and the way it works together.

The global community can also support Ethiopia by strengthening the capacity and independence of local civil society organisations (CSOs). Their presence on the ground and nuanced understanding of the context make them invaluable.

While Ethiopia’s civic space needs improvement, progress has been made in the formation of transitional justice-focused CSOs and consortia. Further opening of the civic space would allow international CSOs to engage more directly, beyond their reliance on remote or consultancy-based approaches.

The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission is another important avenue. It has recently adopted a more critical approach to addressing past and ongoing violence in the country. International support could help the commission better fulfill its role in monitoring the transitional justice process.

In addition to engagement through United Nations offices and agencies, the international community could focus on cooperation with the African Union (AU). After brokering the Pretoria Peace Agreement and facilitating consultations on transitional justice, the AU has become Ethiopia’s trusted partner in this process. The African Union’s Transitional Justice Policy, now available in Amharic, has become the basis for Ethiopia’s policy.

Through respectful, collaborative engagement, Ethiopia and the international community can jointly advance justice, reconciliation and lasting peace. However, resolving the tension between national ownership and international ownership must be done in a timely manner to avoid missing crucial opportunities for impactful collaboration.

The transitional justice process in Ethiopia is moving fast. In less than 18 months, a comprehensive policy and implementation plan have been drafted and legislation is already in preparation. An approach that combines international involvement with national ownership can ensure its success. (This article originally appeared on the ISS)

(Tadesse Simie Metekia is a Senior Researcher, Rule of Law, ISS Addis Ababa​. Beza Dessalegn is a university lecturer at the Institute for Peace and Security Studies.)