June 18, 2025
The Habesha
In Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed stirs up controversy with a new law that’s got everyone talking. This law reportedly consolidates his power, and what’s even more shocking—it legalizes torture. Yes, you heard it right! Imagine living in a country where torture until death is okay. While many raise their eyebrows, Abiy Ahmed’s supporters claim it’s all about combating corruption.
The House of Peoples’ Representatives has already passed it, prepping a storm of public outcry. People fear it might be misused against opposition, journalists, and regular citizens simply doing their jobs. Yet, those who crafted it argue it’s necessary for fighting crime. Stay tuned as this saga unfolds with heated discussions and widespread concern.
Legalization of Torture in Ethiopia under Abiy Ahmed
Ethiopia has found itself under global scrutiny as Abiy Ahmed’s new law has legalized torture, consolidating his power in a dramatic and alarming way. This policy has paved the way for gross human rights violations and sparked widespread fear and condemnation both domestically and internationally.
Implications for Human Rights
The new legislation has had far-reaching implications for human rights in Ethiopia, putting the spotlight on the nation’s shifting political landscape.
Impact on Human Rights Organizations
Human rights organizations operating in Ethiopia are grappling with unprecedented challenges. This law undermines their efforts to combat human rights violations, forcing them to navigate a murky legal environment where torture is now permissible. The legalization of torture has rendered the tireless work of these organizations more perilous than ever, as they must contend with possible repercussions for opposing government-sanctioned actions.
Reactions from International Bodies
International bodies have reacted with alarm to this development. Organizations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations have issued strong statements condemning the move, emphasizing that it contravenes international human rights conventions. This decision by Ethiopia threatens to strain diplomatic relations and cast doubt on the country’s commitment to upholding fundamental human rights principles on the global stage.
Provisions of the New Law
The focus of the legislation is not only on allowing torture but ensuring those who perform such acts on behalf of the state enjoy full protection.
Key Aspects of Legalized Torture
Central to the new law is its explicit permission of torture, with potential victims having no recourse for justice. The phrasing of the law is such that it opens up the possibility for abuse, where individuals may be detained and subjected to inhumane treatment without due process or accountability. The initiation and legitimization of such practices represent a critical turning point in Ethiopia’s legal framework.
Legal Immunity for Perpetrators
One of the most controversial elements is the provision of legal immunity to perpetrators. Those who carry out acts of torture in alignment with government policy are granted immunity from prosecution. This impunity essentially removes any checks on power, creating an environment where abuse is both sanctioned and systematically protected by law. The law’s allowance for perpetrators’ immunity is seen as an endorsement of gross violations, distancing Ethiopia from its obligations to its citizenry.
Controversial Laws Passed by the House of Peoples’ Representatives
The passage of controversial laws by the House of Peoples’ Representatives in Ethiopia has sparked nationwide debate. Among the most contentious provisions are those concerning the accountability of crime perpetrators and laws addressing property and corruption. Let’s delve into the specific elements that have captured public attention and concern.
Accountability for Crime Perpetrators
The recent legislation that aims to ensure accountability for crime perpetrators has not been without its share of controversy. Although intended to reinforce the legal framework against corruption and crime, these laws have inadvertently raised a myriad of issues concerning human rights and civil liberties.
Public Outcry and Concerns
The public outcry surrounding this legislation is palpable. Many citizens and activists express fears that such laws might be utilized as tools to silence dissent and target political adversaries. The language stipulating that accountability for perpetrators will be “preserved” is seen by some as ambiguous, potentially paving the way for abuse and selective justice. Concerns chiefly revolve around the potential misuse of legal statutes to unjustly detain journalists, opposition members, and human rights defenders.
Clarifications by Legislators
In response to the public concerns, legislators have sought to provide clarifications. They assert that the primary intent of these laws is to strengthen accountability measures and fortify the judicial process against corruption. By emphasizing the preservation of accountability, lawmakers claim they intend to ensure that offenders, once proven guilty, face due consequences. However, these assurances have done little to assuage the fears of watchdog groups, which remain skeptical regarding the laws’ true applications.
Laws on Property and Corruption
The laws concerning property and corruption are also under scrutiny. They purport to combat the illicit acquisition of property and bolster anti-corruption efforts by streamlining the investigative process.
Framework for Crime Investigation
A key feature of the new laws is the establishment of a framework for crime investigation. This framework is designed to enable more efficient probes into property acquired through illicit means, promising to enhance governmental capacity for monitoring and enforcement. The legislation claims to offer financial assistance geared toward preventing and controlling crime, thus aiming to create a deterrent against corruption.
Potential for Abuse of Power
Despite framework assurances, the potential for abuse of power remains a pivotal concern. Critics argue that the laws, under the guise of fighting corruption, could be weaponized to intimidate political opponents and suppress freedom of speech. The stipulation that a person will not be charged with a crime unless it is classified as “serious” raises alarm, as it extends discretionary power to those in authority who may exploit it to maintain control over political narratives and stifle opposition voices.
In essence, while the House of Peoples’ Representatives articulates these laws as a progressive step towards transparency and justice, the broader public remains divided. Ensuring that these laws are applied equitably and transparently will be crucial to alleviating tensions and restoring trust in the Ethiopian judicial system.
