Concerning the general and periodic election, Article 58/3 of the Ethiopian Constitution states, “The House of Peoples’ Representatives shall be elected for a term of five years. Elections for a new House shall be concluded one month prior to the expire of the House’s term.” Accordingly, the nation held five consecutive elections under the same constitution and has been preparing to hold its sixth general elections. However, trying to conduct this general election for the sixth time seems to be very difficult for the country due to the current global COVID-19 Pandemic.
Because of this global problem, the National Electoral Board announced that the general elections cannot be conducted per its schedule. In connection to this, besides looking at different legal options based on research, the government has been consulting with various experts, political parties, civic organizations and others with the view of saving the country and the people in this difficult time.
On the contrary, some political figures and parties argue that either the election must be conducted per its schedule or a transitional government must be established if the election is to be postponed.
We believe that superior to these seemingly conflicting interests, the nation and peoples’ well-being ought to get priority. Hence, seeking for legal and expert solutions, we have approached Dr. Gedion Timotheos, a lawyer and FDRE Deputy Attorney General. Experts:
Q: What are the conditions in which elections may not be held per its schedule? And what about the international experience of the countries that extended elections?
Dr. Gedion: Some conditions oblige a nation to postpone a general election. Among these conditions, security-related issues can be commendable reasons for a nation to extend the election period. For example, in Nigeria, due to security problem-related Boko Haram in 2015, the country could not conduct the then election. The New York City postponed the election as a result of the September 11 terrorist attack against the World Trade Center towers in 2001. The other condition that prevents elections from occurring is natural disasters, which can result in an earthquake-like event. And conditions of unexpected incidents like the current pandemic may disrupt the periodic election.
Q: Deciding not to conduct the election, Ethiopian Electoral Board announced that it had submitted its proposal to the House of Peoples’ Representatives recently. How did you, as a leader and lawyer, see the Board’s decision?
Dr. Gedion: I believe the decision and proposal of the Electoral Board is appropriate and helpful while the response of the House is just and right as well for several reasons. First, the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia is an independent constitutional institution authorized to operate independently. It is a constitutional institution established by the Constitution, not by a proclamation. Since it is accountable to the House of Peoples’ Representatives, it is therefore proper for it to propose its decision for the House of Peoples’ Representatives. Whenever it faces relatively difficult decisions like the Sixth General Election period, it needs to present its recommendation to the House.
Second, as the House of Peoples’ Representatives is the most authorized body of government, it has to know when such a national decision is made. Third, the House adopted and approved the evidence and research-based proposal of the Electoral Board. Since both constitutional institutions have followed a democratic approach, I believe both have accomplished responsible and useful decisions.
Q: According to the Constitution, elections must be held every five years. Nevertheless, because of the current situation, it is to be postponed. How should the consequences be held? Some argue that the issue should be resolved politically while others seek constitutional legal solutions. In your view, which case is appropriate: a political or constitutional solution? Why?
Dr. Gedion: A political solution, outside the legal framework, cannot be the solution. The idea of pursuing a political solution without giving consideration legal framework is not healthy. Seeking political solutions alone cannot solve our current challenges we are struggling with. Even such an approach violates and disregards the constitutional system in the country. It always makes us a country where we start from zero. It is a path that leads to chaos and confusion. Hence, a solution within the legal framework ought to be implemented in our current situation.
In legal frameworks, the decision-makers weigh and evaluate the political, legal issues at all levels. For example, if we look at the constitutional interpretation as a solution,
there is an independent constitutional congress that deals with the interpretation of the law. The framework of the constitution itself is capable of exploring legal and political solutions. Therefore, it is unwise to put the law on the one side, put the politics on the other, and leave the law and seek political solutions.
Q: It can be recalled that experts in the field have been asked to conduct a study to propose alternative suggestions, believing that the process should be constitutionally resolved. How much are these experts free from bias? To what extent their professional competence is trusted?
Dr. Gedion: These professionals are not public servants or government employees. Most are self-employed professionals or lawyers working in different organizations; they have served in different fields for several years.
And in terms of their neutrality, they received this big responsibility on their interest to contribute; they volunteered to serve the country and the people. Hence, their professional ethics guide them to remain neutral. Concerning their professional qualifications, most of them are highly educated, researchers, teachers and have published numerous legal research works along with extensive work experiences.
Thus, I can say that qualified, independent professionals have participated in this work. Making use of this advantage, I would like to thank these professionals for taking their time to do extensive and satisfying work in the short term.
Q: What are the possible suggestions presented by these experts after the study? How much are they based on the Constitution?
Dr. Gedion: They provided four options as possible solutions. The first is to dismantle the House of Representatives. The second is to declare the state of emergency for this purpose while the third option is amending the Constitution. And the fourth is requesting the interpretation of the Constitution. All these options are constitutional. They are solutions that can be implemented within the framework of the Constitution. However, each solution has its own limitations and strengths as there is no perfect solution. The important thing is to choose the best solution.
Q: Following the initial recommendations of the experts, different political parties, and civic organizations participated in the discussions. How much the inputs and feedback are helpful? What does this kind of dialogue show about engaging in national affairs on important national issues?
Dr. Gedion: Beginning with the second question, what this discussion shows and suggests is that we are in a better direction as we seek to build and develop a democratic system. Before such cases, the legislative branch of the government should consult and act on its own. But now that experts, political parties, and civil society representatives give their opinions; I think this is a good experience.
Moreover, well-enriching inputs were received. Almost all the parties agreed that the issue had to be settled in a legal framework. We have also come to understand that most people believe that asking for a constitutional interpretation is the best option.
Q: Among the four proposed options, the interpretation of the Constitution has been suggested to be better. What makes it a better option?
Dr. Gedion: First of all, it is an option that can be implemented cost-effectively and efficiently, without disrupting our focus from fighting the current pandemic. Second, within the framework of the Constitution, it is an approach to the constitutional interpretation that provides a feasible solution, per the principles of the Constitution. And adopting this option will enable our institutions, such as the Constitutional Convention, to be better known and empowered to deal with such issues in the future. In other countries, bodies like the Constitution and institutions that have the power to interpret the Constitution are the ones that can be resolved in such cases. In short, because of all these reasons, this option is the most preferable.
Q: How do you describe the international experience of such kind of constitutional interpretation? As the constitutional interpretation has been chosen among other options, how will it be implemented in Ethiopia?
Dr. Gedion: If the Constitutional Council receives a recommendation from the House of the Federation, that interpretation is mandatory. This is decreed by law. This works not only for the present but also for the future whenever enforcing situations occur. For the interpretation of the constitution based on the principles of that the constitution, it serves the supreme law of the country. Hence, it is impossible to reject the interpretation; disregarding it is dishonoring the Constitution itself.
And when we look at the countries where the interpretation of the constitution has been resolved, they became successful in handling the challenging circumstances they faced before or after the election. For instance, in Kenya, the Supreme Court implemented this option to solve the constitutional gap when they faced problems related to the election.
Q: During these crises, some people are heard saying that the election must be held before September, or the transitional government should be formed. What would your suggestions for these people?
Dr. Gedion: In the present situation, we have to use those options first, since the constitution itself provides options to resolve such issues. By doing so, the idea of disregarding the constitution and setting up an unconstitutional transitional government does not work to help us establish democracy and constitutionalism in Ethiopia. I believe we should pay attention to the biggest challenges we are facing this moment. The current challenges we are struggling with are rarely encountered. We must organize our resources and fight the COVID-19. When we are free from the impact of this pandemic, we can conduct a free, fair, inclusive and credible election.
The Ethiopian Herald May 12/2020
BY WENDWESON SHIMELIS
