Federal Ministry Seizes Billions in “Illicit Assets” Under Asset Recovery Proclamation

This has to be TPLF hidden assets. I wonder why Abiy did not or is not confiscating TPLF-stolen money while tackling other corruption. The reason TPLF is waging this war is because Abiy failed to strip them of all of their stolen wealth and gave time to recoup and collect or funnel this money to offshore accounts, including the UAE.

Good job and about time!!!

2 million square meters of prime real estate is almost 2 square miles highly valued plot. This must be the tip of the iceberg. One of my relatives once told me you have to butter the palms of the official nearby even to inhale and exhale. So he told me he had a plan. When it is time to pay his taxes and renew his business permit he does not go to the office alone. He had befriended a civilian who was ethnically related to the folks in the regime and goes to the office with him. Then it was smooth sailing. But when he went alone they give him nothing but headaches delaying everything on him. He knew about the culture of bribes in that department but he refused to do so and that was why he came up with a working plan. Imagine yourself going to the regime department to pay your taxes honestly and on timely fashion and be told to come back the next day or next week. The excuse they give you is they are so behind processing/receiving taxes and renewing business permits.

Recovering Illicit Wealth Without Losing the Rule of Law
Ethiopia’s Asset Recovery Proclamation and the Constitutional Boundaries of State Power
By Fikeru Zewdie
A law designed to recover illegitimate wealth must not be implemented in a manner that produces illegitimate government power.
A government has both the right and the responsibility to recover wealth obtained through corruption, fraud, human trafficking, tax evasion, and other crimes. Public resources acquired through criminal conduct should not be protected as private wealth.
But government has another responsibility: protecting citizens from arbitrary seizure, selective prosecution, and punishment without due process.
Ethiopia’s Asset Recovery Proclamation No. 1364/2025 therefore presents a constitutional test. Can the state recover illicit wealth without weakening the protections that distinguish justice from confiscation?
Recent reports indicate that federal authorities have frozen billions of birr in bank deposits, corporate shares, land, buildings, vehicles, and industrial machinery allegedly connected to economic crimes. Hundreds of legal files are reportedly under investigation or awaiting forfeiture proceedings.
These figures may demonstrate enforcement capacity. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate justice.
Justice requires additional questions: What evidence supported each freezing order? Did an independent court review it? Were property owners given a meaningful opportunity to challenge the action? Were innocent employees, shareholders, creditors, and family members protected? Most importantly, are the same standards applied to government officials, political allies, political opponents, and independent business owners?
A Legitimate Purpose Requires Legitimate Procedures
The proclamation’s stated objective is defensible. It creates a framework for identifying, tracing, freezing, seizing, confiscating, and managing assets connected to illegal activity. Such authority may be necessary because suspected assets can otherwise be transferred, concealed, depleted, or moved beyond the country’s jurisdiction.
The danger begins when temporary freezing becomes punishment before judgment, suspicion replaces evidence, or political influence determines whose wealth must be explained.
A powerful law does not become legitimate merely because it is used against people accused of wrongdoing. Its legitimacy depends on the evidence required, the procedures followed, the independence of the courts, and the consistency of enforcement.
Ethiopia’s Constitution provides the standards by which this authority should be evaluated:
Article 12 requires transparency and accountability in the conduct of government.
Article 20(3) protects the presumption of innocence.
Article 25 guarantees equality before the law, including regardless of political opinion or property.
Article 26 protects privacy and guards against unjustified searches and seizures.
Article 40 recognizes the right to private property.
These protections do not prevent the government from investigating corruption or recovering criminal proceeds. They establish the constitutional boundaries within which that power must operate.
When the Burden Shifts to the Citizen
One of the most consequential features of the asset-recovery framework is its treatment of unexplained wealth. When a person’s assets appear substantially greater than his or her declared lawful income, that person may be required to demonstrate where the wealth originated.
Such a requirement may be justified in carefully controlled circumstances. But the state must first establish an objective and legally sufficient basis for its suspicion. It should identify the disputed assets, the apparent financial discrepancy, and the evidence connecting the individual to the property.
Only after the government meets a clearly defined initial evidentiary burden should the property holder be required to provide an explanation.
Without this safeguard, the presumption of innocence could be replaced by a presumption of illegitimacy. A citizen could effectively be required to prove that he or she is not a criminal simply because the government has labeled the property “unexplained.”
This danger is especially serious in an economy where informal transactions are common, financial records may be incomplete, families combine resources, and property may have been accumulated over many years.
The question is not whether extraordinary discrepancies between income and wealth should ever be investigated. The question is what the government must establish before shifting the burden to the citizen.
Freezing Property Can Become Punishment
Freezing an asset is legally different from permanently confiscating it. In practice, however, a freezing order can inflict severe damage before a court reaches a final decision.
A business deprived of access to its accounts may be unable to pay employees, suppliers, taxes, or creditors. Machinery may deteriorate. Construction may stop. Customers and investors may withdraw. Even if the property is eventually returned, the business and its reputation may already have been destroyed.
Temporary freezing authority must therefore be accompanied by prompt judicial review, clear time limits, access to the evidence supporting the order, and procedures allowing legitimate business expenses to be paid when appropriate.
The government must preserve suspected assets without unnecessarily destroying their economic value. Otherwise, an interim measure intended to protect future justice may become punishment imposed before guilt or liability has been established.
The Risk of Selective Enforcement
The deepest concern is not simply that the proclamation gives the state extensive authority. Effective asset recovery requires meaningful investigative power. The decisive question is whether that power is applied equally.
Selective enforcement occurs when a law is strictly applied to political opponents, former officials, disfavored business owners, or unprotected citizens while comparable conduct by politically connected individuals receives little scrutiny.
Even when a targeted individual may have committed wrongdoing, the broader enforcement system can still be selective. Equality before the law must therefore be evaluated not only through individual cases but also through patterns of institutional behavior.
Are serving officials required to explain unexplained wealth? Are businesses connected to political power investigated under the same standards as independent enterprises? Are case-selection standards transparent? Are courts free to reject unsupported government claims? Does the public learn how many frozen assets are ultimately confiscated—and how many are returned?
The rule of law is not measured only by how much property the government recovers. It is measured by whether the same law, evidence, and safeguards apply to political allies, political opponents, public officials, and private citizens.
Protecting Both Justice and Economic Confidence
Unpredictable enforcement also creates economic consequences. Investors and entrepreneurs consider whether contracts are respected, courts are independent, regulations are predictable, and property rights are secure.
If legitimate business success can suddenly be treated as evidence of criminality, entrepreneurs may avoid expansion, transfer capital abroad, or remain in the informal economy. A government may recover billions of birr in the short term while discouraging far greater investment in the future.
This does not mean wealthy individuals should be immune from scrutiny. It means scrutiny must be based on evidence and governed by transparent procedures.
The most effective anti-corruption system is not one that frightens every property owner. It is one that makes criminal enrichment dangerous while making legitimate investment secure.
Ethiopia can strengthen asset recovery by requiring:
A documented initial evidentiary burden on the government.
Prompt and independent judicial review of freezing orders.
Transparent standards for selecting cases.
Protection for innocent employees, shareholders, creditors, and family members.
Procedures allowing legitimate businesses to continue essential operations.
Public reporting of final outcomes, not merely the value of assets initially frozen.
Effective remedies when property is wrongfully frozen or improperly managed.
Equal scrutiny of government officials, political allies, opponents, and private citizens.
Recovering Wealth While Preserving Legitimacy
Corruption weakens institutions, diverts resources from citizens, damages markets, and destroys public trust. Ethiopia should recover wealth proved to have been obtained through criminal activity.
But the legitimacy of asset recovery depends on the legitimacy of the methods used to conduct it.
When property is frozen without sufficient evidence, temporary restrictions become indefinite punishment, citizens must prove innocence before the state establishes adequate grounds for suspicion, or political relationships determine who is investigated, asset recovery ceases to strengthen the rule of law. It begins to weaken it.
The success of Proclamation No. 1364/2025 should therefore be measured not only by the value of assets placed under government control. It should be measured by the independence of the courts, the transparency of enforcement, the protection of innocent parties, and the equal treatment of those inside and outside political power.
A law designed to recover illegitimate wealth must not be implemented in a manner that produces illegitimate government power.
Ethiopia must recover stolen wealth without sacrificing constitutional government. The ultimate measure of success is not only what the state takes back, but also what the country preserves: justice, equality, economic confidence, institutional legitimacy, and the rule of law.