DNA testing has become a dominant tool in modern forensic science, immigration verification, and family law, particularly for paternity identification. However, its application in Ethiopia raises complex issues involving scientific reliability, legal admissibility, national sovereignty, and the fundamental rights of children. This article examines the multifaceted dimensions of DNA testing in paternity cases, particularly within the Ethiopian legal framework, with comparative insights from American and European practices.
In Ethiopia, the Revised Family Code provides that scientific evidence may be used in determining paternity. However, the law does not explicitly state that DNA is to be used, nor does it establish a minimum probability threshold to accept such evidence. This ambiguity leaves a significant legal gap, particularly as courts increasingly rely on DNA test results-often conducted abroad-for deciding paternity. The lack of a legal framework setting out standards for sample collection, chain of custody, laboratory accreditation, interpretation, and admissibility, presents challenges for justice and consistency.
In contrast, the United States and many EU countries maintain comprehensive legal and technical standards for DNA testing. For example, in the U.S., DNA testing is governed by guidelines from the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), which accredits laboratories and ensures that tests are performed under strict protocols [1]. Courts typically require a probability of paternity of 99% or greater for the result to be considered conclusive. Similar frameworks exist in Europe, where laboratories are accredited by organizations such as the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) or equivalent national bodies.
A critical distinction must be made between DNA testing used in criminal investigations and in paternity or immigration matters. In criminal cases, the DNA found at a crime scene is often directly compared with a suspect’s profile. The relationship is typically one-to-one, with the question being whether the suspect’s DNA matches the evidence. This creates a relatively straightforward probability calculation. However, in paternity testing, the analysis is not limited to a direct one-to-one match. It involves evaluating a range of potential matches and statistical probabilities based on allele frequencies in different populations. The result is not binary but a complex probability matrix influenced by genetic similarities within populations. This makes paternity tests more susceptible to interpretive ambiguity, especially in the absence of a national DNA database or well-regulated testing procedures.
The situation in Ethiopia is further complicated by the absence of local, government-accredited laboratories for civil DNA testing. While the Ethiopian Federal Police recently announced the establishment of a DNA laboratory, it is primarily intended for criminal investigations [4]. There is no official communication from the Ministry of Health allowing or regulating DNA laboratories for family law purposes. Moreover, Ethiopian courts often accept DNA results from foreign laboratories, such as those in South Africa, India, or Europe, without clear oversight or bilateral agreements to ensure the integrity of the process. Some local laboratories claim partnerships with foreign labs, but there is no supervision from the Ministry of Health regarding sampling methods, transport protocols, or result interpretation. This regulatory vacuum opens the door for potential rights violations and undermines the reliability of evidence in sensitive family matters.
From a scientific standpoint, the reliability of DNA test results depends heavily on multiple quality factors. These include the quality and expiration of reagents, calibration and maintenance of laboratory equipment, competency of laboratory technicians, and expertise of the interpreting doctor. If any of these elements are deficient, the result may be scientifically compromised. Without a robust framework for quality assurance and accreditation, there is a real risk of erroneous or manipulated outcomes.
Beyond science and law, the question of national sovereignty must be addressed. The routine export of biological samples for testing abroad raises critical concerns. Ethiopia currently lacks formal diplomatic agreements governing the use and handling of its citizens’ genetic material. This creates a legal vacuum that risks the exploitation or misuse of sensitive data. Without clear legislation, Ethiopia cannot protect its citizens’ rights, nor can it hold foreign laboratories accountable for errors, breaches of confidentiality, or fraudulent results.
In immigration cases, DNA testing is often used to verify biological relationships in family reunification claims. Here too, the test serves a quasi-criminal role in validating or disproving declarations made to authorities. However, in paternity and inheritance disputes, the legal and emotional stakes differ. The law must balance scientific evidence with social, cultural, and ethical considerations, such as the child’s best interests and existing presumptions under family law.
Ethiopia’s current reliance on legal presumptions in paternity-such as legitimacy through marriage or cohabitation-has strong cultural roots and legal coherence. This position is reinforced by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution, particularly Article 36(1)(c), which affirms that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents or legal guardians. This constitutional provision has clear implications for paternity testing, as the process directly affects a child’s identity, legal status, and emotional well-being. Therefore, courts and policymakers must ensure that DNA testing practices serve-not undermine-the best interests of the child. This includes regulating how tests are administered, how results are interpreted, and how decisions are made in family disputes involving children.
In conclusion, DNA testing is a powerful tool, but its application in paternity cases in Ethiopia must be approached with legal rigor, scientific understanding, and cultural sensitivity. The judiciary, legal professionals, and policymakers must work together to establish a legal framework that defines probability thresholds, accredits laboratories, regulates sample handling, and respects Ethiopia’s sovereignty. Until such laws are enacted, the presumptions of the Family Code should remain the primary basis for paternity decisions, and DNA results should be treated as supplementary, not decisive evidence.
Editor’s Note: The author holds a BSc in Civil Engineering, an MSc in Geotechnical (Civil) Engineering, and an LLB in Law, combining technical expertise with legal acumen to address complex challenges in engineering and construction law-Associate Member of Nemad Consulting Architects and Engineers Plc.
BY MEKONNEN TSEGAW (ENGR.)
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD WEDNESDAY 18 JUNE 2025
