Tuesday, June 18, 2024
HomeOpinionThe Shenanigans of Small Town Justice in Ethiopia

The Shenanigans of Small Town Justice in Ethiopia

Small Town Justice in Ethiopia -
Image credit : Project Jurisprudence (file)

By Samuel Estefanous

I meant to write this piece under a benign title “The Beauty of Small Town Justice in Ethiopia” but I couldn’t dwell on the beauty for much long as it would over simplify an otherwise serious threat to the justice administration system of the country-hence the shenanigans!  

Ideally a case flow chart of any given judicial system is pyramidal with the assumption that original jurisdiction of courts is wider at the lower courts and narrows to a point of near nonexistence at the apex. Thus, the absence of any original jurisdiction (first instance) for Federal Supreme Courts isn’t implied but expressly noted had it not been for the illusive qualifier ‘provided by other laws’. Note also that the civil material jurisdiction of Federal Higher Courts is limited to amounts exceeding one million birr. 

1-First Instance Justice

I wonder if folks are aware of the fact that the Federal Supreme Court delivers or rather is expected to deliver the annual State of the Judiciary Report. 

Along with the accessibility of Cassation decisions establishing what the initiated call ‘ratio decidendi’; the State of the Judiciary Report is a commendable effort though I have zero clue if post 2022 report is released. There are attempts by Regional Courts to adopt the practice as well but I would rather the State of the Judiciary Report be released independently of the ‘Performance Report’.  

Never mind, that is beside the point, the thing is if you find yourself in any one of the first instance courts in the country chances are  you will be taught a lesson or two you will never forget. 

The beauty of it is the level of informality that makes one feel at ease if not at home.  You aren’t going to believe the significance of this welcoming gesture to a party seeking justice from the blindfolded ‘sword wielding and scale balancing’ courts of law. In a way the fundamental right to ‘access justice’ is better guaranteed at lower courts with closer affinity to the community than the ‘supercilious’ extremely dignified ‘higher courts’. 

That is in a way the beauty of first instance justice. The downside is in most instances rights and obligations defined by law and juridical acts take secondary importance. First and most important of all justice is rendered by a sense of empathy and on grounds of other less lofty causes. Once the verdict is thus framed, ‘pertinent law’ is sought to justify it. ‘You will always find one, if you seek it’, it is said.

The other painful downside is the inability to bridge the local language barrier.  If you don’t speak the local language you are made to feel guilty. Invariably and instinctively petitioners sometimes choose to hold their tongues perhaps fearing anything they would say would be held against them. 

Even in this regard that sense of familiarity occasionally comes to the rescue. I remember an incident where the lawyer of the other party protested the judge’s inadvertent slip into the local language after learning the representative of his adversary is tone deaf to the tongue.  

Thus, maximum resources should be allocated to lower first instance courts which are by far widely and more accessed by the multitude. Once you are denied justice at the first instance, your further journey to have the verdict quashed is costly both emotionally and financially. 

Do you know what I would like to find in the State of the Judiciary Reports more than the usual increased rates and reduced ratios (you know the customary reports of increased clearance rate, decreased congestion and backlog ratios)? A hands on findings on the questions of Credibility, Accessibility and Independence of the judiciary!   

2- Appeal is Preferred as a Matter of Standard Procedure

Until recently the Federal Supreme Court had resembled the notorious long distance transport hub in the heart of the city. The tendency to take a case from a Woreda first instance court all the way to the federal cassation bench must have ‘clogged’ the arteries of the higher courts. 

You see, the supposed pyramidal flow of cases has virtually become rectangular. It is nothing less than a miracle to survive this flush flood on a regular basis with a decreased number of judges at higher levels. I haven’t come across any systematically computed figures but as High Courts have concurrent first instance and appellate jurisdiction it is natural that they are overwhelmed by cases.

Here is a simple example; the number of judges at the Federal Supreme Court is originally set at eleven. These eleven justices are expected to shoulder cases originating in eleven Regions and two Chartered City administrations with a combined population of more than 120 million people.

 In the United States the ‘formidable and insufferable’ nine old men (Justices of the Federal Supreme Court) are public figures with a rock star notoriety among the American public and beyond. For obvious reasons to this day most African lawyers are awed and inspired by Justice Clarence Thomas-singled out and chosen by the color of his skin and his conservative demure.  I know the days of the nine old men are gone and the bench has gone a little politically correct since.

What I am trying to say is ,however, many judges are bereft of the power to write laws under the Continental system, yet justices of the Federal Supreme Court are the ultimate judicial voice of the land. As such we should be able to know them, their credentials and publications, their respective takes on definitive legal issues and questions.       

They mustn’t be primarily preoccupied by the routine task of handling and rectifying the shenanigans of lower first instance courts. 

3- Donations-Entailing the Foreign Agent Clause

By way of disclaimer, this is a reference neither to the laws pertaining to NGOs and the media made notorious in Russia and Georgia nor the government of EPRDF.

A couple of years ago the Federal Supreme Court’s Strategic Plan came out reading like any one of the corresponding plans of the line ministries. It was founded and aligned with the GTP adopted by the existing government of the FDRE. A few pages down it talked about the Independence of the Judiciary in the customary noble terms. It wasn’t a good read, nah, it wasn’t.

At any rate Judicial Independence shouldn’t be construed to imply independence from the executive branch of government alone. In equal measure independence from the invisible long arms of the benevolent ‘donor community’ should also be insured. I mean almost all judicial reform programs are sponsored by donor agencies that make no pretense of their ulterior motives. 

In almost all small town justice halls, one comes across a freshly whitewashed adjacent building bearing the logos and colors of the USAID or the Open Society Foundation or the Bill & Melinda Foundation. Their declared purpose? Sponsoring and running pro bono legal aid clinics.  I have no problem with that though I didn’t know ‘pro bono’ could be financially sponsored as such.

What makes one uneasy is the tendency of the donor agencies becoming sine qua non to undertake any kind of justice administration reform. I wouldn’t feel the judiciary is indeed independent if more than 20% of its budget or programs are underwritten by donor agencies. 

God Bless.     

The writer could be reached at :  estefanoussamuel@yahoo.com 

Editor’s note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com


To Publish an Article On borkena , please send submission to info@borkena.com for consideration.

Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena

Like borkena on Facebook

Add your business to Borkena Business Listing/Business Directory  Jobs 

Join the conversation. Follow us on X (formerly Twitter ) @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian news updates regularly. Ethiopia  To share information or for  submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com 



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here