A Commentary on the ‘Call for Peace’

By Zekarias

Feb 02, 2007

I just finished reading the ‘Call for Peace’ plea written in Amharic by Ato Girma Kassa. I must admit it is a well written plea albeit it falls short of digging deep to base it on the root causes of all this mess.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Call for Peace. What better thing is there than true peace? But, as a pragmatist, I think Ato Girma’s call for peace has serious shortcomings at least on two major areas.

1. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of the government and see whether we would accept such a plea as is. What does the acceptance of such a plea mean? It simply means admitting with no reservation that all the charges small and big brought against the accused were indeed bogus as claimed by many including the writer of the call for peace. So, let us ask ourselves again another question. Would any self respecting government do this without any political fallout? Take a shot and answer it for yourself.  As for me, I have doubts as to the acceptance by the government of such a plea in toto because it has bigger political ramifications.

2. The writer argued that the release of the prisoners can be secured without circumventing the law.  To advance this thesis, he offered two seemingly plausible routes.

First, the writer argues that the Prime Minister can give instruction to the Prosecutor to drop the charges via the Minister of Justice. What is Ato Girma saying here although implicitly? Obviously, he is implying the Prime Minister wields enormous power bordering a dictator so much so that he can instruct on a whim that bogus criminal charges be brought against his political opponents or that these charges be dropped. Wouldn’t this be a clear example of interference by the government in a judicial proceeding? Let me clarify myself here. It is one thing to claim and argue that the Prime Minister does in fact have such power that he can instruct the release of the prisoners. And, on that acknowledgement appeal to him to use his power and do release the prisoners. No ifs and buts. It is, however, quite another thing to seem to suggest that there indeed is a rule of law and that the Prime Minister does not have such power but to nonetheless argue he could instruct the prisoners’ release. You see in both ways there has to occur a detour or a putting-aside of the law.

Second, the writer argues that the prosecutor can employ a plea bargain to cause the release of the prisoners. But, Plea bargain presupposes an admission of guilt by the defendant albeit to a lesser charge.  Do you see where I am going with this? Unless Ato Girma has insider knowledge which we in the public do not have, the last time I check the prisoners have never admitted to any guilt nor do they should if they believe they have never committed any. Plea bargain seems a non starter under these conditions.

3. How about Amnesty? Again, it depends on how we would like to see the entire political landscape of Ethiopia. If we accept the claim that there is a rule of law in Ethiopia, a claim forcefully argued by the government and its supporters, then whether Amnesty can be granted to the prisoners depends on the nature of the charges. Some charges, for example, crimes against humanity, are beyond the reach of Amnesty. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the President and not the Prime Minister to grant Amnesty. Now, if we, on the other hand, do not accept the claim there is a rule of law in Ethiopia, then we can argue all day that the Prime Minister can instruct, informally, the President to grant Amnesty to the prisoners. Go figure out if this position can fly with the government, which I seriously doubt.

Then, how are we going to get out of this mess, you ask? I submit the following might be an acceptable way to move forward.

1. To let the legal process complete its course with the hope that the rule of law prevails in the end. What do I mean by this? Many of us who closely followed the proceedings including those impartial foreign observers know full well the serious charges such as genocide, treason and the like brought against the prisoners are not at all well founded and thus any impartial tribunal would but strike them down. So, I do expect the Ethiopian court to strike them down. And, this proves, regardless of what the nay Sayers would later say, a rule of law do exist in Ethiopia and this would help vindicate even the government and it also bolster confidence in the general public.

2. As for the lesser charges such as committing outrage against the constitution, let the prosecutor show whether the evidences he has submitted pass the beyond reasonable test, which I personally doubt it would. And, if the court arrives at the same conclusion most of us argued it should, then these charges would also be dropped and dropped in accordance with the rule of law, which again emboldens the public trust in the system and really a positive entry in the government’s political credit ledger.

3. If this hope dashed and the court passes a guilty verdict, I believe it would be in the interest of the advancement of peace and democracy in Ethiopia to urge the President to exercise his presidential power and grant Amnesty to the prisoners.