Taking the FDRE constitution and its human rights provisions seriously

Writing at a time when there was a lot of confusion about the health of PM Meles, I wrote the following:  -What I found really depressing about our reaction to the situation is to know that how little trust we have in our Constitution and in the system it created. A parliament of more than five hundred representatives feels helpless when the Prime Minister is sick. People make little reference for the Constitutional provisions which might have implication in these circumstances. People don’t talk about the fact that our Constitution is surprisingly silent as to what should happen when the PM gets sick. Even lawyers don’t talk about what it means when the Constitution says the Dupty Prime Minister acts on behalf of the Prime Minister in his absence. 

I generally like arguments based on (un)constitutionality. In a blog post I never posted which I wrote approximately four months ago, I argued that taking our constitution and its human rights provisions seriously might be a very good solution for most of our problems. My argument goes like this: The Ethiopian constitution has a very long list of human rights which in principle should be interpreted based on international standards. Parliamentarians, judges, prosecutors, teachers, journalists, and any person who has some kind of responsibility in the country should take the Constitution very seriously. We should keep thinking, talking, teaching and writing about it. We should keep supporting our arguments based on its provisions. The more we do these things in a convincing manner, the lesser the chance will be for the government to rely on unconvincing arguments and silly legal manipulations to justify its acts.

Let me mention some examples which I then called “encouraging signs at depressing times”. (Though they are my own words, I will put them in quotation.)  

"Few months ago, there was a lot of talk about forced displacement of some Ethiopian citizens from one part of the country to another part of the country. It was depressing news for many people. However, there were some encouraging signs at the same time. The discussion basically revolved around the rights of those citizens to reside in any part of the country. The advantage with these kinds of arguments which are based on human rights is that they will substantially limit the possible arguments of the other party, in this case, the government. At least the government didn’t and couldn’t dare to say it is ok to displace people. It at least contested the numbers and tried to justify its action.

Another example was the discussion that followed after the Prime Minister(Meles) was challenged in the Parliament on the basis that some programmes which were being transmitted on ETV were against presumption of innocence of the accused persons. The Prime Minister wrongly answered the question claiming “presumption of innocence of the government”. Given the public discussion that followed, perhaps the legal advisors of the PM might have told him that, because of the Constitution the arguments he can make are not unlimited.”(NB: this was drafted before the death of Meles)

I can also mention more examples. When the news about Andualem Arage being attacked in prison by a convicted prisoner came out, the right of accused persons not to be imprisoned together with convicted prisoners was found to be a very important argument against which the government could not bring a legally acceptable counter argument.   I found the role such arguments/possible arguments based on the Constitution and human rights in shaping public discussions and limiting possible arguments very encouraging.

Despite the encouraging efforts in using constitutional rights and provisions to support arguments in our discussions, what is still a problem is the fact that the Courts(especially those entertaining anti-terrorism charges)  do not seem to be much influenced by such kinds of arguments. We recently heard that the advocates for the Muslim leaders who are accused of terrorism raised a challenge of constitutionality in the High court. That is encouraging too.(at this point some people will laugh at me saying it is the task of the HoF to interpret the Constitution. ) But I still think people should keep making well-articulated arguments based on the human rights provisions of the Constitution in Ethiopian courts to the extent that it would be impossible to ignore them.

I am not claiming that talking about them will go a long way in ensuring their enforcement. However, we should also understand the power legal, constitutional and human rights arguments have in shaping discussions and ultimately affecting behaviour.  After all, nobody is looking for a flawless system. We are rather looking for a system which can correct its mistakes, a system which can respond fast when problems occur and a system which can properly work. I believe the government, the opposition, and the general public should give attention to the constitutional provisions and their enforcement. 

What generally frustrates me the most is not the fact that we are not currently doing well in terms of human rights and in terms of building a more democratic system. What frustrates me the most is to know that we have uncertain future. What frustrates me the most is to know that our fate as a country is more dependent on a party called EPRDF than a constitution which we have lived with for about 17 years. Don’t think that the uncertainty is in my imagination. I think in the few months following the sickness and the death of PM Meles, that uncertainty was also clear to those who are now in power.  Some people might think this frustration is a result of a hidden desire to impose my own image of what Ethiopia should be like on others. No! It is not. That is exactly why I like arguments based on the FDRE Constitution. That is a document which was written and introduced by the current government. The government has the duty to adhere to it. The commitment of the government to defend the Constitution should not be limited to those parts of the Constitution which the government found favorable to its own agenda. Can we please keep talking about the Constitution with a hope that those discussions will affect the actions of the government in the future? You think that is not worth talking? You might be right. But, as you know, most of us are silent any way. And something is better than nothing.