Eskinder Nega: A Victim of Blatant Lies and Political Deceit

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

By Mekuria 

1. Who Is Eskinder Nega? A Brief Background

Eskinder Nega, a prominent Ethiopian journalist and political figure, has endured over two decades of persecution for his unwavering stance against authoritarianism and injustice. A consistent critic of the TPLF-led EPRDF regime, Eskinder was repeatedly imprisoned for his outspoken opposition to state corruption, repression, and the ethnic-based constitution that marginalized the Amhara community. His legacy is grounded in a steadfast commitment to democratic ideals and human rights.

In recognition of his courage and dedication to press freedom, Eskinder received the prestigious PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award, joining a distinguished global cohort of writers who have risked their lives to speak truth to power.

At a time when many Ethiopians were either indifferent or overly optimistic about the country’s political transition under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, Eskinder voiced early and sharp skepticism. It took him just two weeks to assess Abiy’s leadership and recognize the dangers of entrusting the transition to a figure lacking both a clear roadmap and meaningful public accountability. He strongly opposed the continuation of the EPRDF-OLF-imposed constitution and advocated instead for the immediate creation of a truth and reconciliation commission modeled after South Africa’s.

2. From Journalism to Politics: Eskinder Nega’s Unintended Yet Principled Journey

Eskinder Nega entered Ethiopian politics not out of personal ambition or a desire for power, but out of frustration with the lack of a credible and principled opposition capable of challenging the authoritarian grip of the ruling regime. With a distinguished background in journalism and human rights advocacy, his transition into political leadership was a natural extension of his lifelong commitment to democracy, justice, and civic engagement.

Disillusioned by the ineffectiveness of opposition parties such as Ezema and the opportunistic leadership of figures like Berhanu Nega, Eskinder made the deliberate decision to transform the Balderas civic movement into Balderas for True Democracy—a political party grounded in constitutionalism, civic rights, and national integrity.

Throughout his journey, Eskinder has consistently defended marginalized communities, opposed demographic manipulation, and resisted the destruction of Ethiopia’s cultural and historical heritage—particularly in Addis Ababa, where state-led actions have threatened Orthodox Christian properties and displaced Amhara residents, who make up over 50% of the city’s population. Eskinder traveled as far as New York to appeal to the United Nations to stop the looming genocide against Amharas, recognizing what is to come ahead of everybody. While many—especially within the Amhara community—continued to place hope in Abiy Ahmed’s leadership despite ongoing violence and displacement in Oromia, Eskinder chose a different path. Alongside independent media outlets such as Addis Dimts and Ethio 360, Reyot, and with the backing of intellectuals like Dr. Getachew Begashaw and his group,  and the group known as Triple A, Eskinder worked to reshape public perception. They warned that Abiy Ahmed was not the reformist savior many believed him to be, especially given the regime’s failure to protect vulnerable populations or deliver substantive democratic reforms.

Eskinder’s political vision has always emphasized equal rights for all Ethiopians, rejecting the ethnic supremacist ideologies that have long dominated the country’s political discourse. However, his moderate and inclusive stance has drawn criticism from multiple sides. Some have accused him of being an “Amhara nationalist disguised as an Ethiopianist,” while certain hardline diaspora Amhara critics—many of whom have avoided personal risk—portray him as indifferent to Amhara suffering simply because he refuses to prioritize ethnic identity in his politics. His rejection of ethno-nationalist populism, coupled with his unwavering support for Ethiopian unity, has made him a frequent target of misinformation, smear campaigns, and factional attacks.

In a political climate marked by passivity and silence in the face of growing repression and early signs of genocide against the Amhara, Eskinder took a stand. He acted—not just online, but on the ground. His leadership filled a void left by elite inaction, giving voice to a movement that others sought to co-opt or suppress. From defending the integrity of Addis Ababa to challenging the legitimacy of the Prosperity Party, Eskinder’s record stands as a rare example of principled, civilian-led resistance in an environment increasingly dominated by force, opportunism, and extremism.

Eskinder was imprisoned for a year and a half following the death of Hachalu Hundessa, accused of leading a youth movement that confronted Kero-affiliated mobs who had ransacked parts of Addis Ababa. His arrest stemmed from the youth’s effective resistance, under his informal leadership, to prevent further destruction.

Upon his release, Eskinder traveled to Gondar, where he met with prominent Fano leaders to express gratitude for their defense of the region during the TPLF invasion in 2021. This visit marked a turning point in his political path. He then returned to Addis Ababa before traveling to the United States for a series of consultations with his support network. After returning to Ethiopia, Eskinder formally resigned as chairperson of Balderas, submitting a resignation letter that signaled a new chapter in his political life.

Since then, his public presence has diminished, and his current whereabouts remained unknown. However, to those who know him well, this absence is not cause for alarm. It is understood that Eskinder has likely adopted a new strategy in response to the increasing repression under Abiy Ahmed’s regime, where even peaceful political meetings in hotel conference rooms are severely restricted.

Eskinder long recognized that effective political opposition requires the freedom to engage the public. This insight reflects his deep political understanding and pragmatic approach. One memorable instance that showcased his intellectual depth was an interview where he drew a historical parallel between the British expansion into South Africa and the 16th-century Oromo migration into the Amhara highlands of Ethiopia—a comparison that resonated with historically and politically informed audiences. His debate with Bekele Gerba of OFECO further highlighted his strengths, as he advocated for Addis Ababa to be granted sovereign city status equivalent to Ethiopia’s regional states. His arguments were marked by logical clarity, a firm grasp of constitutional principles, and a compelling vision for inclusive governance. Through both thought and action, Eskinder Nega has remained a steadfast advocate for Ethiopia’s democratic future.

3. The Smear Campaign Against Eskinder Nega: Coordinated Attacks from All Sides

Eskinder Nega has become the subject of a coordinated smear campaign that falsely portrays him as both anti-Amhara and a covert supporter of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. These baseless accusations are not rooted in fact but appear to stem from a deeper concern: that Eskinder’s principled stance and growing credibility threaten entrenched political narratives—particularly within segments of the diaspora.

This campaign of slander and defamation is driven by three main sources:

1. The so-called “Fano Gang of Eight” operating inside Ethiopia
2. Diaspora-based YouTubers and TikTok influencers
3. Print media articles that amplify misinformation to reach broader audiences

Together, these actors have sought to discredit a figure who has consistently defended Amhara rights while promoting a unified Ethiopian identity grounded in justice and constitutionalism. The coordination and repetition of these narratives suggest that the objective is not to foster informed debate, but to carry out political character assassination—an effort to undermine Eskinder’s influence at a critical juncture in Ethiopia’s fight for democracy and national integrity.

4. The Politics of the “Fano Gang of Eight”: Character Assassination at All Costs

The Fano movement initially emerged as a grassroots defense force to protect the Amhara people from Abiy Ahmed’s army. However, parts of it have since evolved into instruments for power consolidation and internal repression—particularly as the conflict intensified since April 2023. In today’s Fano discourse, especially online, disinformation is rampant. Baseless accusations and conspiracy theories have become tools not for confronting opposing ideas with reason, but for silencing dissent.

Eskinder Nega has become a prime target of such attacks. Unable to meaningfully challenge his principles or track record, his Fano critics instead resort to defamation—labeling him a “traitor,” “opportunist,” or “anti-Amhara.” This is despite the fact that Eskinder has been one of the most vocal defenders of Ethiopian unity and the rights of all marginalized citizens, including the Amhara. His unwavering commitment to civilian leadership, accountability, and inclusive identity poses a direct threat to those who depend on rigid ethno-nationalist extremism for influence.

Digital platforms—especially YouTube, Telegram, and Twitter—have become ideological battlegrounds for Fano, not of constructive dialogue, but of ego, ultranationalism politics, and vendetta. In these spaces, misinformation, selective outrage, and character assassination dominate, while reasoned political engagement is often replaced by village loyalty tests.

A troubling trend among certain Fano leaders is the effort to centralize authority and suppress dissent by defining “Amhara identity” in narrow, exclusionary terms. Any deviation—whether ideological, tactical, or cultural—is quickly branded as “traitorous” or “not Amhara enough.” This authoritarian impulse is embodied in what can be described as the “Fano Gang of Eight”—a faction of hard-line leaders from Gojjam, Wello, Gondar, and Shewa. These figures have sought not only to fight external enemies but also to control the internal narrative of what resistance should look like.

The term “Fano Gang of Eight,” as coined by the author, refers to a powerful group including Zemene Kassie, Asres Mare, Marshet Tsehaye, Mirie Wodajo, Abebe Fentaw, Baye Kenaw, Yohannes Negussu, and Abdella Idris. While influential in their respective zones, they have often rejected diplomacy and accountability in favor of dominance and, in some cases, violence—including reports of brutal force used against perceived internal dissenters. Their leadership model favors brute force over broad-based legitimacy, and fear over consensus. Narratives are often released to justify these actions.

Rather than cultivating a pluralistic, strategic movement, the Gang of Eight’s legacy risks replacing one form of oppression with another. The challenge moving forward is not only to resist Abiy Ahmed, but also to confront the rise of internal authoritarianism masked as revolutionary zeal.

5. Diaspora, Disinformation, and Digital Echo Chambers

Today, we are witnessing the revival of a familiar political culture within the diaspora—this time cloaked in the language of liberation, justice, and ethnic pride. This “New Gang of Eight” is not confined to a specific number of individuals or a single organization. Rather, it represents a networked personality cult: a toxic fusion of ideology, disinformation, and ego, disseminated through YouTube channels, Telegram groups, and diaspora websites.

This emerging force includes:

• Diaspora influencers who claim to represent “the people” but in practice serve as ideological echo chambers, enforcing conformity through public shaming and defamation.
• Activists-turned-inquisitors, who aggressively label any moderate, independent, or dissenting voice as “Amhara betrayers” or “collaborators.”
• Self-proclaimed revolutionaries whose political methods increasingly mirror the very authoritarianism they claim to oppose. Their goal is not dialogue but dominance, with their latest focus being the vilification of Eskinder Nega.

6. Coordinated Smear Campaigns on TikTok and YouTube: Targeting Eskinder Nega

In today’s volatile media environment, coordinated social media attacks targeting Eskinder Nega and his close allies have escalated—particularly on platforms like TikTok and YouTube. These campaigns are far from organic. Rather, they represent calculated, sustained efforts to discredit one of the most prominent figures within the Fano movement and to fracture its internal unity.

Among the most vocal participants is Girma Kassa, an amateur YouTuber of Oromo heritage based in the United States. Through his platform Wamera Radio and frequent appearances on Mereja TV, Girma has launched repeated attacks on Meketaw—a respected Fano fighter known for defending Ataye and Shewarobit during OLF incursions. These efforts appear aimed at delegitimizing Meketaw’s legacy and, by extension, undermining Eskinder’s leadership of his organization, Afhad. Such narratives do not occur in a vacuum—they serve to elevate figures like Zemene Kassie and his allies, revealing a broader agenda to reshape the internal power dynamics within Fano.

Similar narratives are promoted by Roha TV and Hibr Radio, operated by Meaza Mehamed and Habtamu Assefa, respectively. These platforms routinely echo the talking points of the so-called “Fano Gang of Eight”—a group of militia commanders who reject Eskinder’s approach and seek to consolidate control within the resistance. Among them, Abdella Idris has been particularly vocal, allegedly exerting influence over Shewa Fano factions through intermediaries like Desalegn Yismashewa. Notably, these media outlets routinely ignore well-documented abuses and strategic missteps by the Fano Gang of Eight, focusing instead on relentless attacks against Eskinder.

Another aggressive figure in this smear campaign is Asaye Derbie, a former YouTube activist who left Ethiopia under murky circumstances. Unlike Eskinder, who remains on the ground, Asaye now wages his campaign from abroad—levying baseless accusations, including that Eskinder received a government-funded mansion and security detail, now living in Sidist Kilo, and that he is involved in secret negotiations with the regime. None of these claims have been substantiated. Perhaps the most inflammatory of Asaye’s allegations is that Eskinder and Meketaw attended the wedding of General Shume Abdeta, and that Meketaw is a Tulema Oromo secretly leading the Amhara Fano in Shewa. These claims are not only unfounded—they are dangerously divisive. They echo the same tactics historically used by Ethiopia’s enemies to sow distrust and dismantle unity. Such logic is as irrational as it is offensive—akin to suggesting that, because Asaye “looks Arab,” his father must not be Ethiopian. It is a crude, unserious form of political discourse.

Ultimately, these coordinated attacks have a clear purpose: to erode public trust in Eskinder Nega and to fracture the cohesion of the Amhara resistance. By portraying a committed civilian leader—who has taken on real risks and made tangible sacrifices—as a traitor, these influencers are doing more than spreading misinformation. They are actively undermining the broader struggle for justice, dignity, and democratic reform in Ethiopia.

7. Assessing the Merits Behind the Criticism of Eskinder Nega in the Print Media

Recent commentaries—such as Abebe Tibebu’s article in Borkena, Habte H.’s inflammatory comparison of Eskinder Nega to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, and Agegnehu’s article appearance on zehabesha website—reveal a troubling pattern: character assassination disguised as political critique. Rather than engaging in evidence-based debate or presenting reasoned counterarguments, these writings rely heavily on insinuation, speculation, fabricated claims, and ad hominem attacks.

What emerges is not informed analysis, but a coordinated attempt to tarnish Eskinder’s public image. Particularly disturbing is that these narratives are being advanced by individuals with academic or professional credentials—people who should be committed to intellectual integrity and analytical rigor.

This trend degrades the quality of political discourse at a time when Ethiopia needs clarity, truth, and accountability. Instead of resorting to smear tactics, it is necessary to evaluate the actual substance of these critiques: Are their claims supported by verifiable evidence? Do they offer logical, coherent arguments? Or are they merely using suspicion and fear to discredit a dissenting voice?

7.1 Abebe Tibebu’s Mischaracterization of Eskinder Nega

In his article “The Paradox with Eskinder Nega and the Fano Struggle,” published on Borkena, Abebe Tibebu begins by acknowledging Eskinder’s courage, integrity, and historic contributions to Ethiopian politics. Yet he quickly pivots to a flawed critique, claiming Eskinder has “failed” because he has founded multiple organizations—an assertion that is both factually incorrect and conceptually misguided.

Eskinder’s political trajectory demonstrates strategic evolution, not failure. The Balderas movement began as a civic initiative defending the rights of Addis Ababa residents, and later transitioned—through public demand—into a political party. This progression reflects adaptive leadership. In politics, as in medicine, when one treatment proves ineffective, a competent practitioner adjusts course. To insist on a single, unchanging strategy is not strength—it’s stagnation.

Abebe also questions Eskinder’s pan-Ethiopian stance, suggesting it conflicts with Amhara advocacy. In reality, Eskinder is a deeply Amhara-conscious nationalist who has worked tirelessly to ensure Amhara rights are defended—consistently, vocally, and at personal risk. His decades-long activism overwhelmingly centers on causes critical to the Amhara community, while still advocating for unity and peaceful coexistence across ethnic lines.

The real difference between Eskinder and others is not in principle, but in approach: Eskinder applies moderation and civilian logic, whereas others rely on exclusionary strategies. When it comes to defending Amhara interests, Eskinder has remained firm and principled.

Abebe then veers into conspiracy, implying that Eskinder might be aligned with U.S. intelligence, even suggesting that both he and Abiy Ahmed are CIA assets. His “evidence”? That Eskinder used communication devices in remote areas—a flimsy and speculative argument with no basis in fact. Such claims do more to discredit the author than the subject.

What is evident, however, is that Eskinder has stood unwaveringly for Amhara rights while maintaining a vision of a democratic, unified Ethiopia. To twist that into suspicion is not critique—it’s character defamation wrapped in pseudo-analysis.

7.2 Habte H.: Misguided Criticism Rooted in Distance, Not Experience

The tone, logic, and underlying intent of Habte H.’s attack on Eskinder Nega are troubling. In his article “Abiy and Eskinder: Twin Threats to Ethiopia’s Survival and Democracy – Is There a Hidden Alliance?”, Habte goes so far as to suggest Eskinder—a dissident jailed under multiple regimes—is secretly aligned with the very regime he has openly opposed. Yet he provides no evidence for this sensational claim. Instead, Habte draws a hollow equivalence between Abiy and Eskinder, accusing both of betrayal and political mismanagement. But this caricature collapses under even the slightest scrutiny. One must ask: Would Habte himself abandon the safety of the diaspora, leave behind family, and enter the harsh realities of Menz—where death is an everyday risk—simply to please Abiy Ahmed? Because Eskinder did exactly that. He stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Fano fighters in ragged clothes, not for glory or position, but because he refused to watch his people be erased without resistance.

If Habte wishes to label Eskinder a “saboteur,” consider the following:

• What kind of saboteur refuses a government-provided V8 luxury car and mansion in exchange for political silence?
• What kind of saboteur chooses imprisonment over appeasing a repressive regime—again and again?
• What kind of saboteur stands with grassroots fighters not as a general issuing commands, but as a witness to their sacrifice?
• What kind of saboteur risks his life, not for fame, but in fidelity to a long-held commitment to justice?

These are not the actions of a collaborator. They are the marks of a man who saw through Abiy Ahmed’s façade when many diaspora elites still viewed him as a savior. Eskinder was among the first to publicly warn against Abiy’s authoritarian tendencies—long before it became politically convenient.

Habte is in full display misrepresenting Balderas and ignoring context. He criticizes Eskinder for Balderas’ poor performance in the 2020 elections, while ignoring key facts:

• Balderas won more votes in Addis Ababa than any other opposition party—beating out Ezema, Enat, Hibret, and others.
• The election was held under extreme repression: with state media, and security forces entirely aligned with the ruling party.
• The outcome wasn’t a reflection of Eskinder’s shortcomings, but of a society manipulated by regime-tilted propaganda and a regime that closed off legitimate political space.

Eskinder attempted peaceful, legal channels. When those were blocked through arrests and censorship, he didn’t retreat to social media or rhetoric. He went to the front lines ahead of any Fano. If Habte believes Eskinder Nega was “too confrontational with the police” but supports Fano—a movement that has taken up arms against the state—then he fundamentally misunderstands what nonviolent civilian resistance entails. Eskinder’s struggle has always been grounded in moral conviction. Given his deep connection to the people of Addis Ababa, what exactly is he expected to do when homes, built through decades of sacrifice, are demolished by force? How should he respond when a legally reserved hotel meeting hall is surrounded by security forces, and members of his party are repeatedly denied their constitutional rights? To remain silent or “less confrontational” in the face of such repression is not moderation—it is complicity. That would be a betrayal of the civic duty at the heart of the movement Eskinder leads. Balderas was never meant to be silent in the face of injustice.

What Habte also completely misses is that the Fano movement did not emerge out of thin air. It grew out of years of civic mobilization, media advocacy, and intellectual resistance—efforts that Eskinder and others helped lead. To now demonize the person who shaped the consciousness of that resistance is not only unjust—it’s politically incoherent. Habte H.’s accusation, built on innuendo and lacking historical awareness, tells us far more about the fragile ego of a distant critic than it does about Eskinder’s proven integrity. From the safety of his desk, Habte throws stones. Meanwhile, Eskinder walks barefoot into the fire.

7.3. Agenagn Kebede Dagnew’s Framing of Eskinder Nega

Agenagn Kebede Dagnew’s article, “Eskinder Nega and the Fano Movement,” published on the Zehabesha website, adopts a scholarly tone but ultimately fails in its core responsibility as political analysis: identifying and interrogating the root causes of fragmentation within the Amhara resistance. Rather than examining the leadership paralysis, infighting, and lack of strategic cohesion within the Fano command structure, Agenagn redirects blame toward Eskinder Nega—ironically, one of the few figures who has never attempted to control, discredit, or interfere with other Fano leaderships, even when he himself became a target of their hostility.

This framing reflects a broader and troubling pattern within diaspora commentary: scapegoating independent, principled voices like Eskinder who resist both authoritarianism and identity absolutism. Agenagn’s critique notably fails to ask the pressing questions: Why, after more than two years of open warfare and existential threats to Amhara communities, has the so-called “Fano Gang of Eight” failed to establish a unified command? Why is there still no coherent political vision beyond reactive engagement?

Instead of confronting these failures or holding the Fano Gang of Eight accountable, Agenagn directs his intellectual firepower at Eskinder—someone who has consistently called for coordination, dialogue, and a long-term, inclusive strategy. At the heart of this mischaracterization lies a deeper, often unspoken dynamic: a cultural and regional bias against Eskinder as a city-born intellectual.

Eskinder, with his civic nationalist language, his refusal to embrace narrow populism, and his background in Addis Ababa, was never fully accepted as “one of them.” This isn’t merely a political disagreement—it reflects a rural-versus-urban tension that manifests in coded ways. As someone with a small rural town background myself, I recognize the authenticity of this prejudice. There is a powerful, if unspoken, belief in some corners of the Fano movement that Eskinder is not “Amhara enough”—not due to his beliefs or actions, but because of where he comes from and how he expresses himself. This form of cultural gatekeeping fuels resentment more than any policy position or tactical decision.

By refusing to critically engage with the failures of militarized leadership while subtly marginalizing political voice committed to rule of law and pluralism, Agenagn’s piece does more than misrepresent Eskinder’s role—it contributes to the erosion of unity. It legitimizes a dangerous culture of internal exclusion that undermines any hope of building a cohesive national resistance.

In the end, the article doesn’t provoke necessary self-reflection or propose meaningful reform. It performs a kind of soft deflection—masking personal, regional, and ideological insecurities in the language of academic analysis. And in doing so, it reinforces the very divisions that have crippled the Amhara struggle from within.

8. Media Narratives Converge: The Coordinated Attempt to Exclude Eskinder Nega

Whether through Tik Tok commentaries, YouTube videos, or print articles, a coordinated narrative has emerged with remarkable consistency: Eskinder Nega is a divider, he is not one of us, and he must stay away from the Fano movement. These talking points—repeated across platforms—are less a reflection of Eskinder’s actual record than a revelation of the political insecurities of certain factions who fear his credibility, message, and national vision.

What this smear campaign deliberately erases is a key historical fact: the Amhara popular uprising reignited in April 2023, coinciding with Eskinder Nega’s sudden appearance in Gojjam. His arrival served as a political spark that reignited the will to resist, helped re-energize Fano units across the region, and restored a sense of strategic direction and civilian leadership. During this period, Eskinder successfully mobilized the diaspora, raising millions of dollars in support of the Fano cause. It was also during this time that fighters like Zinabu Lingerew rose to the forefront in Gojjam, partly catalyzed by the renewed morale Eskinder helped instill.

To now paint Eskinder as a “divider” or outsider is to willfully rewrite recent history. It is a calculated political move aimed at sidelining a leader who brings both legitimacy and inconvenient truths—truths that challenge personal agendas and regional power monopolies within the broader resistance. Critics of Eskinder seem to point to his visa entry as evidence that he resides in the West and serves as a diplomatic representative of Fano. However, they may not realize that immigration rules generally prohibit the entry of individuals engaged in armed combat—making such assumptions both misleading and uninformed.

9. Silencing Accountability: The Omission of the Fano Gang of Eight’s Failures

Another striking feature of the current disinformation effort by dispora disinformation campaigners is its selective silence. While Eskinder is relentlessly attacked for imagined faults, glaring errors and divisive rhetoric from the so-called Fano Gang of Eight are routinely ignored.

• Mirie Wodajo dismissed Eskinder’s leadership simply because he “didn’t pronounce Fano nicely.” He waged war against Colonel Fantahun’s army.
• Abebe Fentaw, his communications man, used religious imagery to delegitimize Eskinder—comparing him to Barabbas, the thief spared while Jesus was crucified.
• Zemene Kassie continues to portray himself as the sole guardian of Amhara safety, while his deputy Asres Mare has openly disparaged respected figures like Masresha Sete and Eskinder Nega as “bandits and political prostitutes”—a slander too crude. A recent leaked phone conversation reveals Asresi expressing intent to send reinforcements to support the Shewan army under Desalegn Yismashewa, signaling a potential confrontation with Meketaw. This development is deeply concerning.
• Zemene has also reignited historical regional tensions, recently asserting that Gojjam was “oppressed for 94 years”—a pointed reference to the perceived dominance of Shewan nobility, particularly during periods mirrored under the TPLF’s political framework.
• Marshet Tsehaye, just days ago, accused Eskinder of blocking efforts to advance toward Addis Ababa—an accusation that reflects the rising internal tensions and fractured command within Fano.

This dysfunction is further underscored by the reality on the ground: despite their fiery rhetoric, Gojjam-based Fano leaders have failed to control critical strategic areas like Mertolemaryam, Dejen, Burie, Chagni, Werota, Bahir Dar Airport—entry points regularly exploited by federal forces to penetrate the region but like to blame Eskinder as a hindrance to advancing to Addis Ababa.

What is increasingly clear is that many of the talking points used by the Fano Gang of Eight are not organic—they are borrowed wholesale from diaspora-based TikTok influencers, YouTubers, and partisan media outlets. These figures amplify one another’s narratives in a feedback loop that prioritizes vilification over truth. While Eskinder’s critics are quick to slander him without evidence, they never seem to hold themselves or their allies to the same moral or factual standards. In this climate, disinformation thrives, while truth becomes a casualty.

10. There is a solution?

I believe the Amhara people could benefit from ethnic federalism—if their traditional, resource-rich lands are rightfully restored. However, the immediate priority is confronting the existential threat posed by Abiy Ahmed’s war. Internal divisions over Amharanism or ethnic federalism versus Ethiopianism are counterproductive. Just as expectant parents must prepare and wait nine months for a child, national struggles require timing, unity, and strategic focus. Without these, even the most just causes can falter.

The ongoing internal conflict among the Fanos is a challenge that we can overcome. Fanos should avoid fighting amongst themselves. Internal disputes only weaken the cause they are fighting for. The current infighting, particularly the deliberate attacks by the Fano Gang of Eight on Eskinder Nega’s organization, is counterproductive and needs to stop. The Fano Gang of Eight announced today that they are in the process of forming a unified leadership—an encouraging development. In this respect, I urge media echo chambers to support and encourage the “Fano Gang of Eight” in building a cohesive organization with a shared strategic focus: directing their efforts against Abiy Ahmed, rather than blaming or blackmailing Afhad. Alignment with Afhad is not a necessity. Both groups can operate independently yet effectively toward the common goal of removing Abiy Ahmed from power—an objective that remains central to the Amhara resistance. Let wisdom triumph over ego.

Ethiopia stands at a critical juncture. The diaspora has the potential to be a unifying force for reconciliation, and reform. How? It must resist the temptation to replicate past authoritarianism. The Amhara diaspora faces a crucial decision: to lead constructively or perpetuate bitterness and defamation. It is essential to combat digital witch hunts and uphold the credibility of those advocating for inclusive and principled resistance. 

Eskinder Nega’s struggle is not just his own; it represents the fight of every Ethiopian who values a nation where truth prevails over tribalism and where political dissent does not lead to social or physical persecution. It is imperative to reject deceit, ideological coercion, and the revival of a culture rooted in fear and conformity. If voices like Eskinder’s are silenced not by imprisonment but through coordinated smear campaigns and witch hunts in the diaspora, what lessons have we truly learned? Let us not allow the shadows of the past to overshadow the present light. Say no to unfounded allegations!

11. Conclusion

Should we sit idle, watching an out-of-touch diaspora faction rise—risking a return to the same cycles of repression that once shattered Ethiopia’s democratic aspirations—or stand up and say no to bigotry and political exclusion?

The attacks on Eskinder Nega serve as a crucial test of our values. Will we allow his voice to be silenced by those who fear honest dissent, or will we uphold the democratic space necessary to foster a united and inclusive Ethiopia?

History will not only remember what was said but also what was defended. It will assess whether we stood for truth or perpetuated slander, whether we built bridges or incinerated them in the pursuit of ideological purity.

By standing up for Eskinder Nega, we are championing the potential for a more promising political future. The question that lingers is whether we will rise to this challenge or succumb to the errors of the past.

Amid deepening economic hardship in Ethiopia, people from all ethnic backgrounds are rallying around the Fano movement in pursuit of protection, dignity, and justice. However, a divisive debate has emerged over the slogan, “Our beginning is Amhara and our destination is Amhara.” In a country already grappling with instability and fragmentation, such rhetoric is not only exclusionary but dangerously untimely. Instead of building a united front around shared grievances, the slogan risks narrowing the movement’s appeal and alienating potential allies at a moment when broad-based solidarity is essential.

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

__

Subscribe  : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/ 

Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena

Like borkena on Facebook

Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory  Business Listing Toronto 

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