Comment: Court’s Reluctance to Safeguard Rights of the Accused in the Ethiopian Counter-terrorism Prosecutions and its Broader Implication

Abstract

Ethiopia’s former and current anti-terrorism laws recognize information obtained through court authorized interception as evidence in counterterrorism prosecutions. This comment briefly examines Federal High Court rulings in two counterterrorism prosecutions where the accused challenged the admissibility of intercepted materials into evidence for not being obtained with court warrant. Though the objections in both cases could have been easily addressed by verifying whether a court warrant was in fact issued prior to intercepting the material in question, the court did not take this course of action. In one of the cases, the court presumed that a court warrant was issued; in the other it ignored the objection altogether and admitted the contested material into evidence. The comment can serve as a basis to undertake further research on whether the courts are doing justice in enforcing rights of the accused the safeguarding of which do not require constitutional interpretation. It might also invite investigation into its broader implication on whether the courts have the readiness to meet public and legal professionals’ expectation in safeguarding human rights were they empowered in the realm of constitutional interpretation.