በኖርዌ የወያኔን የስለላ መረብ በመቃወም ታላቅ ሰላማዊ ሰልፍ ተደረገ!

በ11-4-2014 በኖርዌ ያሉ ኢትዮዽያውያን የወያኔን የስለላ መረብና ኖርዌ በስደተኛው ላይ ያላትን 
ፖሊሲ በመቃወም የተቃውሞ ሰልፍ አረጉ። 23 ዓመት እራሱ መራጭ እራሱ ተመራጭ ሆኖ በጠመንጃ 
አፈሙዝ ህዝቡን እያንቀጠቀጠ የኖረው ወያኔ አንድ ቀን ሕዝብ በቃኝ ብሎ አንቅሮ እንደሚተፋውና ንብ 
ሆኖ ለነፃነቱ እንደሚነሳ ማወቅ ነበረበት። 

ግን አልሆነም ዜጎች እንደዜጋ በሐገራቸው መኖር ቀርቶ በስደትም ሰላማቸውን ማግኘት አልቻሉም። 

 እስርና እንግልት፣ረሐብና ሰቆቃ፣ስደት የእያንዳንዱ እጣ ፋንታ ሆነ፤በወያኔ ዘመን ሰው ብቻ አይደለም 
መሬትም መሰደድ ጀምሮ የግል ጥቅሙን ለማስጠበቅ ሲል የኢትዮዽያን ለም መሬት ለሱዳን በመሸጥ ላይ 
ይገኛል ኢትዮዽያንና ኢትዽያዊነትን ያሉ ሁሉ አሸባሪ እየተባሉ በየእስርቤቱ ታጉረው እጣ ፈንታቸው 
እስርና እንግልት ሆነ ሐገራቸውን ጥለው በባሕርና በየብስ አቆራርጠው የሞተው ሞቶ የተረፈው በአለም 
ዙሪያ ተበትኖ ጥገኝነት በመጠየቅ ይኖራል:: 

 በዚሕም የተሳካላቸው ጥቂቶች ሲሆኑ ባብዛኛው ወያኔ ለውጩ አለማት በሚያሳየው ሁለተኛው ፊቱ 
ምክንያትና ምእራባውያን ከሐገሪቱ ከሚያገኙት ጥቅም የተነሳ ሐገርህ ዲምክራሲ ነው እየተባለ ፍትሀዊ 
ያልሆነ መልስ እየተሰጠው በመጉላላት ላይ ይገኛል። 

ያም ሆኖ የሐገሩ ጉዳይ በደም ስሩ ሰርጎ የገባው ኢትዮዽያዊ ሁሉ ጠዋት ማታ ኢትዮዽያዬ እያለ ይጮሀል።

ይህ የህዝብ ቁጣ ያስፈራው ወያኔ ያለ የሌለ የሐገሪቱን ኢኮኖሚ እየመዘበረ ዜጎችን ይሰልላል ያሰልላል፣

አልፎ ተርፎም ዜጎችን ከመሰሎቹ ጎረቤት ሐገሮች ድረስ በመሄድ ጎትተው እስርቤት ያስገባሉ። 

 ይህንን ለመቃወምና ለማውገዝ ነበር የኢትዮዽያ ስደትኞች ማህበር በኖርዌ ሰላማዊ ሰልፍ አዘጋጅቶ 

ኢትዮዽያውይኑ ዛሬም ስለ ሐገራቸው ሊጮሁ የወጡት፤ ሰልፈኞቹ ድምፃቸውን እንዲህ በማለት ነበር 

ድምፃቸውን ያሰሙት እኛ ስደተኞች እንጅ ወንጀለኛ አይደለንም፣ኖርዌ ለማፊያው ወያኔ የምታደርጊውን 

እርዳታ አቁመሽ ከኢትዮዽያ ሕዝብ ጋር ቁሚ፣ወያኔ የሚያደርገውን ተግባር እናወግዛለን፣ሼም ኦን ዩ ሳውዝ 

ሱዳን ኦኬሎን አሳልፈሽ የሰጠሽ፣ወያኔ አሸባሪ ነው፣ለውጥ እንፈልጋለን፣ኖርዌ የዩኤንን ህግ ታክብር 

የሚሉትን የመሳሰሉ ሲሆን በሰልፉ ላይ የተለያዩ የፖለቲካ ድርጅት ተወካዮች መልክታቸውን ያስተላለፉ 

ሲሆን የኢትዮዽያ ዲሞክራሲያዊ ለውጥ ድጋፍ ድርጅት ኖርዌ ተወካይ አቶ ዳንኤል የወያኔን ጀሌዎች 

የማጋለጡ ስራ በሚገባ እየተሰራበት መሆኑን ሲገልጡ ሰልፈኛው በጭብጨባ የተቀበላቸው ሲሆን የስደተኛ 

ማህበሩም ተወካይ ኖርዌ ነፃ እንድታወጣን ሳይሆን ለወያኔ የምትሰጠውን እርዳታ አቁማ ድጋፍ 

እንድትሰጠን ነው፤ በተጨማሪም ኖርዌ አቶ ኦኬሎን ታስለቅቅ በማለት ተጠይቃለች። በሰልፉ ላይ 

የኖርዌ ሊብራል ፓርቲ ተወካይ ከሰልፈኛው ደብዳቤ ተቀብለው መልክታቸውን ያስተላለፉ ሲሆን 

የኖዋስ ፣አንቲረሲስት ተወካዮችም እንዲሁ ይዘውት የመጡትን መልክት ለሰልፈኛው አስተላልፈዋል። 

 ከዚያ በቀጥታ ወደሶፊን በርግ ሎካል አዳራሽ ሰልፈኛው አምርቶ ምሳ ከተበላ በሁዋላ ኮሚቴው ካባላቱ 

ጋር ሰፊ ዉይይት ያደረገ ሲሆን የ፫ወር የስራ ሪፖርትም አቅርቦአል። 

 የኢትዮዽያ ስደትኞች ማህበር በኖርዌ 

Read more

Ethiopia detains ARTICLE 19 staff

Ethiopian immigration officials detained a member of staff from ARTICLE 19’s East Africa office on 3 April for 29 hours without any access to legal advice or consular support. Fortunately, Patrick Mutahi, a trainer in protection, reacted according to strict ARTICLE 19 security protocols, notifying Ethiopian contacts of his detainment before his mobile phone was confiscated.

Following a rapid campaign for his release, Mutahi was deported back to Kenya on 4 April, and was warned that he would face jail if he returned.

ARTICLE 19 is one of the last remaining international human rights organisations working in Ethiopia and providing independent information to the UN Human Rights Council, and we are therefore concerned that the situation will only deteriorate further.

We urge the government to publicly withdraw their threat to jail Patrick Mutahi, and to respect fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of expression.

We also call upon the UN to address increasing threats towards human rights defenders who provide a source of independent information without which the UN cannot fulfil their mandate, specifically by urgently establishing the mechanism agreed in Human Rights Council Resolution 24/24.

“Patrick’s detention is a chilling indictment of the state of freedom of expression in Ethiopia. Over the past five years we’ve witnessed growing hostility towards journalists, civil society groups and political opposition. That hostility is now being extended to those that support these groups’ exercise of their right to freedom of expression,” said Henry Maina, Director of ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa.

“We have worked in Ethiopia to provide support to journalists, so that that they can continue to professionally conduct their important work to keep people informed and facilitate open debate about matters of public importance. Restricting our work shows the utter contempt the Ethiopian authorities hold for free speech, press freedom and fundamental human rights.”

DENIAL OF ENTRY, DETENTION AND DEPORTATION

On 3 April 2014, Patrick Mutahi flew from Nairobi, Kenya to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where he was due to deliver a security and safety training for journalists and media workers. Upon landing in Addis Ababa’s Bole International Airport at 12pm, he was detained by immigration officials, who confiscated his passport and mobile telephone and told him that he would not be permitted to enter the country. Security officials stated that ARTICLE 19 had not sought permission from the Ethiopian government to conduct trainings of journalists.

Officials told Patrick that he was not allowed to speak to anyone and was refused legal advice. Mutahi had however already anticipated the potential risk and following ARTICLE 19 security protocol, had notified Ethiopian contacts that he was being held.

During the period of detention, it became apparent that the authorities were familiar with Patrick’s movements during previous trips to the country. Security officials made clear they knew details about who he had met with, as well as where and when those meetings had taken place.

At approximately 2pm on 4 April, 26 hours after being detained and as a result of a global reaction for his release, Patrick was told he would be deported and warned that he would face jail if he returned. At 5pm the same day, Patrick’s passport was stamped “deported” and he was placed on a flight back to Kenya.

AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE UNITED NATIONS

We are also concerned that this response by the Ethiopian government is an attempt to stop ARTICLE 19 from continuing to provide an independent source of information about human rights violations in Ethiopia to the United Nations.

As well as training journalists, Patrick was due to work with Ethiopian civil society to provide information to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review, a four-yearly assessment of the human rights situation in every country, conducted in front of all UN member states in Geneva.

ARTICLE 19 routinely works with civil society in countries worldwide to give detailed and independent information and recommendations about the state of freedom of expression in countries under review.

Unfortunately, there is a growing trend for governments to harass civil society to stop them passing information to the UN and its various mechanisms. The UN’s Human Rights Council adopted a resolution recently in September 2013, committing states to prevent “intimidation or reprisals against individuals and groups who cooperate or have cooperated with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.” The resolution calls upon the UN Secretary General to create a senior focal point within the UN to coordinate an international response on the issues of reprisals, to increase protections for human rights defenders, and to ensure perpetrators of attacks against defenders are held accountable.

Ethiopia, a member of the Council, abstained in the resolution’s September vote and in December, the African Group of States at the UN General Assembly voted to delay the appointment of the senior focal point on reprisals.

“Detaining Patrick, a human rights defender, obstructs civil society’s ability to communicate human rights abuses to the UN and other international bodies responsible for holding states accountable for their human rights violations, such as the Universal Periodic Review,” added Maina.

- See more at: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37517/en/ethiopia-detains-article-19-staff#sthash.w1dQGaUe.dpuf

Read more

የአንድነት ለዲሞክራሲና ለፍትህ ፓርቲ የእሪታ ቀን ሰልፉን ከሶስት ሳምንታት በኋላ ለማድረግ ወሰነ !

መጋቢት 28 ቀን ይደረጋል ተብሎ የተጠበቀዉ የአንድነት የእሪታ ቀን ሰልፉ ፣ «ሰልፍ እንዲደረግ በታሰበበት ቀን፣ ሌሎች ዝግጅቶች ስላሉ በቂ ጥበቃ ልናሰማራ አንችልም» በሚል እውቅና ባለመስጠቱ ለሚያዚያ 5 ቀን መተላለፉ ይታወቃል።

የሚያዚያ አምስቱን ሰልፍ በተመለከተ ምላሽ የሰጠው የአዲስ አበባ አስተዳደር፣ በሚያዚያ 5 ቀን ፣ ሩጫ ስለሚኖር ሰልፉ ለቅዳሜ ሚያዚይ 4 ቀን እንዲደረግ የሚጠይቅ ደብዳቤ ለአንድነት ፓርቲ የላከ ሲሆን፣ የሚያዚያ አራቱን ቀን ፣ ቅዳሜ በመሆኑና ግማሽ ቀን ሥራ የሚኖራቸው በርካታ ዜጎችን ስለሚኖሩ፣ አስተዳደሩ በጠየቀው ቀን ሰልፉን ለማድረግ ፍቃደኛ እንዳልሆነም የደረሰን ዘገባ ያመለክታል።
የአንድነት ከፍተኛ አመራሮች በጉዳዩ ላይ መክረዉበት ፣ የሚቀጥሉት ሁለት እሁዶች የባህል ቀናት እንደመሆናቸው፣ ከሶስት ሳምንታት በኋላ ሰልፉን ለማድረግ ማሰባቸውን ያነጋገርናቸው ከፍተኛ የአንድነት አመራር አባል ገልጸዉልናል።

ያንን በተመለከተ አስፈላጊዉን የማሳወቅ ደብዳቤ ለአስተዳደሩ የሚያስገቡ ሲሆን፣ በዚህ ሂደት፣ የተለያዩ ሩጫዎችን ለማስተናገድ ሲባል፣ መንገዶች ሲዘጉ፣ የትራፊክ መጨናነቅና የልማት ሥራ መደናቀፍ ሲፈጠር፣ ያላሳሰበው፣ የአዲስ አበባ አስተዳደሩ፣ ሕዝቡ ሕግ መንግስታዊ መብቱን ተጠቅሞ ድምጹን ለማሰማት ሲዘጋጅ ይጨናነቃል፣ «የልማቱ ሥራ ይደናቀፋል፣ የትራፊክ መጨናነቅ ይኖራል» እያለ እውቅና አለመስጠቱ አሳዛኝ እንደሆነ የሚናገሩት የአመራር አባሉ ፣ «የኛን ሞራል ሞራል ለማዳከም የሚያደርጉት አሳዛኝ እንቅስቃሴ፣ ዉጤት እንዳመጣላቸው፣ ይልቅስ የበለጠ በቁርጠኝነት እንድንነሳ የሚያደርግ መሆኑን አውቀው፣ ከሶስት ሳምንት በኋላ አስፈላጊዉን ትብብር ያደርጋሉ የሚል ተስፋ አለኝ» ሲሉ በፓርቲያቸው ዘንድ ያለውን ቁርጠኝነት አሳይተዋል።

የአንድነት ፓርቲ መጋቢት 28 ቀን በደሴ ከተማ እጅግ ታልቅ ሰላማዊ ሰልፍ ማድረጉ ይታወቃል። ፓርቲዉ ከደሴና ከአዲስ አበባ በተጨማሪ በአዋሳ፣ ድረዳዋ፣ አዳማ በመሳሰሉት ወደ 14 በሚጠጉ ከተሞች ሕዝባዊ እንቅስቃሴዎች ለማድረግ እየተዘጋጀ እንደሆነም በስፋት ተዘግቧል።

አቡጊዳ 

Read more

Why Europeans should care about Ethiopia’s repression of journalists

by Alison Bethel McKenzie

Alison Bethel McKenzie is executive director of the International Press Institute in Vienna.

With European elections looming and a host of crises here at home dominating the political debate, there is the risk that challenges abroad – including Ethiopia’s disturbing treatment of journalists – will be swept under the carpet. It is vitally important that the current Parliament and Commission not let that happen as their mandates wind down, writes Alison Bethel McKenzie.

When nominations for the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought were announced last autumn, it was heartening to see that two imprisoned journalists in one of Africa’s most oppressed countries had made the list with the support of more than 40 lawmakers.

Although the award ultimately went to the Pakistani education activist Malala Yousafzai, the nomination of Ethiopian journalists Reeyot Alemu and Eskinder Nega marked important recognition of the appalling conditions that these brave people have faced since they were convicted on terrorism charges in 2011.

Yet today, there seems to be no end to the Ethiopian government’s assault on independent journalism. In February, an Addis Ababa court sentenced Somali journalist Mohamed Aweys Mudey to 27 years in prison for allegedly having information about a Somali al-Shabab terrorist cell operating inside Ethiopia. Several colleagues of Alemu and Nega are already serving sentences under anti-terror law.

Two Swedish journalists know all too well the consequences of being a journalist in Ethiopia, Africa’s second largest country and a leading recipient of EU aid. In December 2011, reporter Martin Schibbye and photographer Johan Persson were sentenced to 11 years in prison for “rendering support to terrorism” by interviewing people in the conflict-prone Ogaden region. Luckily for them, concerted international campaigns and diplomatic pressure helped win their freedom a year later.

The ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, or EPRDF, has always maintained a tight grip on the news media since taking power in 1991. Yet it strengthened its hand in 2009 by adopting the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation that gives virtually unchecked powers to the authorities to arrest and prosecute those they deem fall under an overly broad definition of terrorism.

Under the law, a journalist who interviews and reports on a suspected terrorist could be accused of distributing anti-government information. Eskinder Nega was convicted for allegedly supporting an “Arab Spring” in Ethiopia by writing about those who were inspired by democratic movements in North Africa. Reeyot Alemu, a school teacher by profession who spent her free time writing for a newspaper, was convicted for publishing a photo bearing the Amharic word bäqa (enough!) – a slogan for opposition groups.

The EPRDF has tried to weaken civil society groups as well. The Proclamation to Provide for the Registration and Regulation of Charities and Societies (CSP), also adopted in 2009, restricts the operations and financing of independent human rights and civil society organisations. Together, the anti-terror and CSP laws have a profound effect on the ability of watchdogs to monitor and critique government policies, as well as provide early warnings of troubles in this disaster-prone Horn of Africa nation.

The government has not shied from using the laws to bludgeon opposition figures and journalists. Dozens of journalists have fled the country, including Abiye Teklemariam and Mesfin Negash, two newspaper editors who were charged with plotting anti-government activities and sentenced in absentia. Wubset Taye, Yusuf Getachew and Solomon Kebede, the latter two who ran the Ye Muslimach Guday (Muslim Affairs) magazine that reported on Ethiopia’s large Islamic community, are serving sentences along with Alemu and Nega under the anti-terror law.

My colleagues and I at the International Press Institute (IPI) in Vienna and from the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) in Paris were barred from seeing these journalists at the Kaliti prison – a notoriously crowded detention facility that has housed many prisoners of conscience – when we visited Addis Ababa in early November. Colleagues and lawyers for the families told us that the state prison administration routinely deny visitors the right to see prisoners. In the case of Reeyot Alemu, who has been treated for breast cancer, this has restricted her access to outside medical help.

Why should Europeans care – and why should European leaders do more than propose prizes for Ethiopia’s terrified journalists, no matter how well meaning these honours?

Because Europe has a major investment in the wellbeing of Ethiopia and its people. The country is the fifth largest recipient of development aid from EU donors, amounting to a record 690 million euros in 2011 and 557 million euros in 2012, figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show. Ethiopia is also one of the main recipients of EU humanitarian aid, with the European Commission alone providing 130 million euros over the past three years to help support millions of Ethiopians and refugees from regional conflict areas in need of basic food, water and health assistance.

It would be foolish to suggest that Ethiopia’s needy should be denied aid because of the notorious policies of their rulers. But that does not absolve the EU from using its influence to pressure the EPRDF élite, which has traditionally enjoyed a chummy relationship with western leaders.

The EU is committed through its three-year-old Agenda for Change development policy to foster democratic governance in Ethiopia and other aid recipients. The 2013 “Joint Co-operation Strategy” aimed at fostering a stable and democratic Ethiopia acknowledges that “fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of association and expression, face increasing restrictions”, but those who dole out money in Brussels and the 28 EU capitals have shown little outward sign of pressuring the prime minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, to reform laws that inhibit fundamental rights.

With European elections looming and a host of crises here at home dominating the political debate, there is the risk that challenges abroad – including Ethiopia’s disturbing treatment of journalists – will be swept under the carpet. It is vitally important that the current Parliament and Commission not let that happen as their mandates wind down.

Their successors, moreover, will need to insist that the EPRDF reform if it is to be a worthy partner of Europe. The EU should be prepared to get tough, through travel and economic sanctions on senior party officials if they fail to pardon the journalists and other prisoners of conscience – and begin the process of revamping their anti-terror and civil society laws to allow for legitimate dissent and independent news reporting.

European citizens who every year provide millions of euros in aid and support to Ethiopia deserve no less. So do the imprisoned journalists, and their many colleagues who live in fear of ending up like Reeyot Alemu and Eskinder Nega.

Read more

ቤተ-መንግስት ስር የሚኖሩ ቤት አልባዎች በጅብ መንጋ ልንበላ ነው አሉ

ቦታው ለልማት ይፈለጋል ተብሎ ቤት ሲፈርስ፣መጠለያ አጥተው ቤተ-መንግስት ስር መኖር የጀመሩት  48 ቤት አልባዎች፤ሰሞኑን “በጅብ መንጋ ልንበላ ነው” ሲሉ ምሬትና አቤቱታቸውን ገለፁ፡፡ ከጅቦቹ ይከላከሉናል ብለን የሰበሰብናቸው ውሾችም በወረዳው ባለስልጣናት በመርዝ ስለተገደሉብን ከፍተኛ ስጋት ላይ ነን ብለዋል – ቅሬታ አቅራቢዎቹ።

የወረዳ ስምንት ዋና ሥራ አስፈፃሚ አቶ ደሳለኝ ደበሌ ስለጉዳዩ ጠይቀናቸው ሲመልሱ፤በወረዳው ሸራተንና ፓርላማ በመባል የሚታወቁ ሁለት ፕሮጀክቶች እንዳሉ ገልፀው፤ በሸራተን ፕሮጀክት ለመልሶ ማልማት 1319 ቤቶች ሲፈርሱ፣ምትክና ካሳ እየሰጠን መመሪያው የሚፈቅድላቸውን አስተናግደናል ብለዋል፡፡ በወረዳው ረጅም ዓመት ለኖሩ ምንም መረጃ የሌላቸው ከ60 በላይ ሰዎችም አስተናግደናል ይላሉ- ሥራ አስፈፃሚው፡፡ በሸራተን ዙሪያ በጥገኝነትና በተከራይነት ከ15-23 ዓመት እንደኖሩና የቀበሌ መታወቂያ እንዳላቸው የነገሩን  ቤት አልባዎች የወረዳ ኃላፊዎቹን ይወቅሳሉ፡፡ “ከዛሬ ነገ ቤት ይሰራላችኋል፤መጠለያ ተፈልጎ ትገባላችሁ” ሲሉን ቢቆዩም እስካሁም መፍትሄ አላገኘንም ይላሉ፡፡ አሁን ከቤቱም በላይ ሃሳብ የሆነባቸው የጅቦቹ ጉዳይ ነው፡፡ ጅቦች ከነጋ በኋላም እየመጡብን ከፍተኛ ስጋት ፈጥረውብናል ብለዋል – ነዋሪዎቹ፡፡

“ወረዳው ቀደም ሲል በእኛው ጉዳይ ከአዲስ አድማስ ጥያቄ ቀርቦለት ‘ከክፍለ ከተማው ጋር ተመካክረን የመጠለያ ቦታ አፈላልገን አግኝተናል’ የሚል ምላሽ ቢሰጥም እኛ ግን እስካሁን መፍትሄ አላገኘንም” ያሉት ስማቸውን መግለፅ ያልፈለጉ የአምስት ልጆች አባት፤ በላስቲክ ቤት ውስጥ መኖራቸውን በመቀጠላቸው  ጅቦች ስጋት እንደፈጠሩባቸው ጠቁመው፣ “ዜጎች እንደመሆናችን መንግስት መፍትሄ ይፈልግልን” ሲሉ ተማፅነዋል፡፡

የወረዳ ስምንት ዋና ስራ አስፈፃሚ አቶ ደሳለኝ በበኩላቸው፣ “ከዚህ በፊት ጉዳዩን እየተመለከትን በወረዳው እንደመኖራቸው መንግስት የእነዚህን ዜጎች ችግር የመፍታት አቅም ይኖረዋል አይኖረውም የሚለውን ለክ/ከተማው አቅርበናል” ካሉ በኋላ በክፍለ ከተማው ወረዳ 14 ባለወልድ ጀርባ የቆርቆሮ መጠለያ እንደነበረና መጠለያው ከተቃጠለ በኋላ ቦታው ባዶ መሆኑን በማስረዳት፣ እዚያ ቦታ ላይ የቆርቆሮ መጠለያ እንዲሰራ አመልክተን ነበር ይላሉ፡፡  “በወቅቱ የነበሩት የክ/ከተማው ዋና ስራ አስፈፃሚ፣ ከካቢኔ አባላት ጋር ተመካክረው ምን ያህል በጀት እንደሚፈጅ ሰርተን እንድናቀርብ ገልፀው ነበር” ያሉት ስራ አስፈፃሚው፣ በዚህ መሰረት የወረዳው ኮንስትራክሽንና ቤቶች ልማት ባለሙያዎች ምን ምን እንደሚያስፈልግ ሰርተው፣ ለክ/ከተማው አቅርበው ነበር ይላሉ፡፡ ይሁን እንጂ በ2005 ዓ.ም በተካሄደው ምርጫ የመዋቅር ለውጥ በመደረጉና የቀድሞው የክ/ከተማው ስራ አስፈፃሚ ከቦታው በመነሳታቸው፣ የእነዚህ ዜጎች ጉዳይ ሊቀጥል እንዳልቻለ አቶ ደሳለኝ አስረድተዋል፡፡

“በሸራተን ፕሮጀክት ውስጥ ቤት የሚጠይቁት ቤት የማግኘት መብት ኖሯቸው ሳይሆን በወረዳው ብዙ ጊዜ ስለቆዩ የሚቻል ነገር ካለ ብለን የጀመርነው ነበር” ያሉት ዋና ስራ አስፈፃሚው፣ ነገር ግን ገና ለገና ቤት እናገኛለን በሚል ከጎዳና ላይ እየገቡ ላስቲክ ቤት እየሰሩ እንደሚቀመጡና ረጅም አመት የኖሩትን ለመለየት በተደረገው ማጣሪያ 31 አባወራዎች መኖራቸውን፣እነዚህንም ከነቤተሰቦቻቸው በፎቶ አስደግፈው መያዛቸውን ተናግረዋል፡፡ የጅቦቹን ጉዳይ በተመለከተ፣ ኮተቤና በአካባቢው ለመንገድ ስራ ጫካ ሲነካ እየሸሹ የሚመጡ መሆኑን ገልፀው፣ በሸራተን ፕሮጀክት ብቻ ሳይሆን በባለወልድ አካባቢ ለነዋሪዎች ስጋት በመሆናቸው ወረዳው ከደንና የዱር እንስሳት ልማትና ጥበቃ ጋር በመመካከር፣መፍትሄ በመፈለግ ላይ እንደሆኑ ሥራ አስፈፃሚው ተናግረዋል፡፡
“ወደፊት በወረዳው ኮንዶሚኒየም ቤት ደርሷቸው የሚለቀቁ ቤቶች ሲኖሩ ቅድሚያ ይሰጣቸዋል” ያሉት ስራ አስፈፃሚው፤ በዚህ ጊዜ እንዲህ እናደርግላቸዋለን ለማለት እንደሚቸገሩና ለክ/ከተማው ሲወስን ጉዳያቸው እንደሚታይ ተናገረዋል፡፡

ሐምሌ 27 ቀን 2005 ዓ.ም ለንባብ በበቃው አዲስ አድማስ ጋዜጣ “ትራሳቸውን ቤተ-መንግስት ግርጌያቸውን ሸራተን ያደረጉ ቤት አልባዎች” በሚል ርዕስ ስለእነዚሁ 48 ቤት አልባ አባወራዎች መዘገባችን የሚታወስ ሲሆን በወቅቱ የወረዳ ስምንት ዋና ስራ አስፈፃሚ ከክ/ከተማው ጋር በመነጋገር፤ ለቤት አልባዎች የቆርቆሮ መጠለያ ለመስራት ቦታ በመፈለግ ላይ እንደሆኑ ገልፀውልን ነበር፡፡

Addisadmassnews.com

Read more

የግብጹ እጩ ፕሬዘዳንት ከኢትዮጵያ ጋር ጦርነት የማይቀር መሆኑን አሳወቁ!

በግብፅ በቅርቡ ይካሄዳል ተብሎ ለሚጠበቀው ፕሬዚዳንታዊ ምርጫ ራሳቸውን በዕጩነት ያቀረቡት የሕግ ባለሙያው ሞርታዳ ማንሱር፣ ‹‹ኢትዮጵያ የህዳሴውን ግድብ ግንባታ ካላቆመች ወታደራዊ ኃይል እጠቀማለሁ፤›› በማለት አስጠነቀቁ፡፡

አወዛጋቢና ስሜታዊ እንደሆኑ በይፋ የሚታወቁት የሕግ ባለሙያና ከሳምንት በፊት ደግም ዛማሌክ ለተባለው ታዋቂ የግብፅ እግር ኳስ ቡድን ሊቀመንበር ሆነው የተመረጡት ማንሱር፣ ማስጠንቀቂያውን ያስተላለፉት ባለፈው እሑድ ፕሬዚዳንታዊ ውድድርን አስመልክቶ በሰጡት ማብራሪያ ነው፡፡ በኢትዮጵያ ላይ ጦነርት በመክፈት የግብፅ ሕዝብን ጥቅም እንደሚያስከብሩም ተናግረዋል፡፡ የዓባይ ወንዝን በተመለከተ እ.ኤ.አ. በ1929 እና በ1959 የተፈረሙ ዓለም አቀፍ ስምምነቶች መኖራቸውን ያስታወሱት ማንሱር፣ ኢትዮጵያ ይህንን ስምምነት ወደጎን ብላ ግንባታውን መቀጠሏን ተቃውመዋል፡፡

‹‹ኢትዮጵያና ግብፅን ከማግባባት የተቆጠቡ ዓለም አቀፍ ተቋማት አሉ፡፡ በዚህም ምክንያት ኢትዮጵያ በአቋሟ ፀንታ ግድቡን መገንባት ቀጥላለች፡፡ ኢትዮጵያ ወታደራዊ አቅም እንዳላት በመግለጽ ግብፅን እያስፈራራች ነው፡፡ ነገር ግን ግብፅም ወታደራዊ አቅም አላት፤›› ብለዋል፡፡

Mortada Mansour

ከኢትዮጵያ ጀርባ እስራኤል እንዳለች የተናገሩት ማንሱር፣ ይህ ቢሆንም የግብፅን የውኃ ድርሻ ለመገደብ የሚደረግ ጥረት ለግብፃውያን የሞትና ሽረት ጉዳይ ነው ሲሉ አስታውቀዋል፡፡

‹‹ወደ ግድቡ የጦር ጄኔራሎቻቸውን ወስደው እየፎከሩ ግብፅ ከመጣች የሚሉ ከሆነ ግብፅም ጄኔራሎችና ተዋጊ ጄቶች እንዳላት ይወቁ፡፡ ግብፅ ጠብታ ውኃ እንዲጎድልባት አትፈቅድም፡፡ በዚህ ጉዳይ አንደራደርም፡፡ ይህ ለግብፃውያን ሞትና ሽረት ነው፤›› ብለዋል፡፡ ለግብፅ ፕሬዚዳንትነት ራሳቸውን በዕጩነት ያቀረቡት ማንሱር ገና ወደ ውድድር ለመግባት የግብፅ ፕሬዚዳንታዊ ምርጫ ኮሚሽንን ይሁንታ ማግኘት እንደሚጠበቅባቸው የአገሪቱ ሚዲያዎች ዘግበዋል፡፡

የሕግ ባለሙያው ማንሱር የኮሚሽኑን ይሁንታ እንኳን ማግኘት ቢችሉ የሚወዳደሩት በቅርቡ ከግብፅ መከላከያ ሚኒስትርነትና ጠቅላይ ኤታ ማዦር ሹምነት ከለቀቁት ፊልድ ማርሻል አልሲሲ ጋር መሆኑን የጠቆሙት መገናኛ ብዙኃን፣ በፕሬዚዳንትነት የመመረጥ ተስፋ እንደሌላቸው የተለያዩ ምክንያቶችን አስቀምጠዋል፡፡

በግብፅ እ.ኤ.አ. በ2012 በተካሄደው ምርጫ ላይ ለመሳተፍ ማንሱር ራሳቸውን በዕጩነት አቅርበው የነበረ ቢሆንም፣ በፕሬዚዳንታዊ ምርጫ ኮሚሽኑ ተቀባይነት አለማግኘታቸው አንዱ ነው፡፡ እ.ኤ.አ. ከ1990 ጀምሮ አራት ጊዜ ለፓርላማ ቢወዳደሩም ማሸነፍ የቻሉት ግን አንድ ጊዜ መሆኑን፣ እንዲሁም ሰውየው በጣም ስሜታዊና ግልፍተኛ መሆናቸው በቴሌቪዥን ቃለ ምልልስ ጭምር መረጋገጡ በምክንያትነት የተጠቀሱት ናቸው፡፡

ማንሱር ግልፍተኛና ስሜታዊ ቢሆኑም፣ በርካቶች የግብፅ አመራሮች በግልጽ አያወጡትም እንጂ በዓባይ ጉዳይ ተመሳሳይ አቋም እንዳላቸው በተደጋጋሚ የሚነገር ከመሆኑም ባሻገር፣ ከዓመት በፊት የግብፅ ፕሬዚዳንት በነበሩት መሐመድ ሙርሲ ጊዜ በግብፅ በቀጥታ ቴሌቪዥን እንዲህ ዓይነቱ ማስጠንቀቂያ መተላለፉ ይታወሳል፡፡

የኢትዮጵያ መንግሥት ባለሥልጣናት ግን ከግብፅ በኩል በቀጥታ ጥቃት ይሰነዘራል ብለው አይገምቱም፡፡ የመከላከያ ሚኒስትሩ አቶ ሲራጅ ፈጌሳ ባለፈው ሳምንት በዚህ ጉዳይ ላይ በፓርላማው ተጠይቀው የሰጡት ምላሽ ተመሳሳይ ነው፡፡ ለዚህ የጠቀሷቸው ምክንያቶች ኢትዮጵያ የግድቡን ግንባታ እያካሄደች የምትገኘው ከዓለም ተደብቃ አለመሆኑንና የተለያዩ የአውሮፓ አገሮች ዜጎች በግድቡ ግንባታ ላይ እየተሳተፉ መሆናቸው ዋነኞቹ ናቸው፡፡ ይሁን እንጂ የኢትዮጵያ ሠራዊት ማንኛውንም ጥቃት የመመከት ዝግጁነት እንዳለው ግን አረጋግጠዋል፡፡

የማንሱርን ንግግር በተለያዩ ድረ ገጾች የተከታተሉ ግብፃውያንና ኢትዮጵያውያን ስሜቶቻቸውን በድረ ገጾቹ ላይ አስፍረዋል፡፡ ‹‹ጥሩ ፕሬዚዳንት የሚለካው በመደራደር አቅሙ፣ ትዕግሥቱና ዕውቀቱ ነው፡፡ ኃይል የመጨረሻ አማራጭ ነው፡፡ በአሁኑ ወቅት ከኢትዮጵያ ግድብ በላይ የሚያስጨንቀን የውስጥ ጉዳይ አለ፤›› የሚሉ የግብፃውያን አስተያየት አዘል ሙግቶች በግለሰቡ ላይ ተሰንዝረዋል፡፡

በኢትዮጵያውያን አንባቢያን በኩል እልህ የተጋቡ የሚመስሉ አስተያየቶች የተሰነዘሩ ቢሆንም፣ በሌላ በኩል ኢትዮጵያና ግብፅ ቢተባበሩ ሁለቱም ይጠቀማሉ፣ ነገር ግን ግብፅ እንደ ማንሱር ከወሰነች ሁሉቱ አገሮች ይጎዳሉ ብለዋል፡፡ ግብፅ በግድቡ ምክንያት የውኃ አቅርቦት እንደማይስተጓጐልባት ይልቁንም ከዚህ ግድብ በሚመነጭ የኤሌክትሪክ ኃይል ተጠቃሚ እንደምትሆን የገለጹ አሉ፡፡

የግብፅ ባለሥልጣናት፣ ፖለቲከኞችና ሚዲያዎች ተለዋዋጭ አቋም በየጊዜው እየተንፀባረቀ ሲሆን፣ ባለፈው ሳምንት የውጭ ጉዳይ ሚኒስትሩ ከግድቡ ቦንድ በመግዛት የግድቡ ግንባታ ማኔጅመንት ላይ ለመሳተፍ ጥያቄ አቅርበው ነበር፡፡ በኢትዮጵያ መንግሥት በኩል የተሰጠው ምላሽ የግድቡ ባለቤት ኢትዮጵያ ስለሆነች ይልቁንም ግብፅ ወደ ድርድሩ መመለስ ይሻላታል ነበር የተባለው፡፡

ምንጭ፡ ethioforum

Read more

Saving the ICC: A Proposal for a Witness Protection Program

 Justice delayed, again?

In late January of this year, I wrote a commentary entitled, “Kenyatta at the ICC: Is Justice Deferred, Justice Denied?” In that commentary I openly expressed my angst over the endless delays, postponements and backpedalling talk about “false evidence” and “lying witnesses” surrounding the Uhuru Kenyatta trial at The Hague. I felt  there was perhaps some monkey business going on.  “I don’t want to say I smell a rat but I feel like I am getting a whiff. Is the stage being set to let Kenyatta off the ICC hook?”, I rhetorically asked. I am even more jittery now that Kenyatta’s trial is postponed once again.

Last week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) postponed the trial of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta to October 7.  According to a  Statement of the ICC Trial Chamber, “The purpose of the adjournment is to provide the Government of Kenya with a further, time-limited opportunity to provide certain records, which the Prosecution had previously requested on the basis that the records are relevant to a central allegation to the case.” Kenyatta, along with other co-defendants including his deputy president William Ruto, faces multiple charges of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in masterminding the post-election violence in Kenya in late 2007 and early 2008. Over 1,100 people are believed to have died in that violence and 600 thousand displaced. In January, the ICC Prosecutor was given a three-month postponement to reassess evidence against Kenyatta after “a witness withdrew and another admitted giving false evidence.”

Is the case against Kenyatta going anywhere? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, folks. It is time for all of us justice junkies to face facts. It’s all over, baby! Uhuru Kenyatta will never see the inside of the ICC courtroom in The Hague. It’s a done deal. He’s gotten away with murder and a medley of other crimes against humanity. Forget about it! Let’s move on…

Deny, delay, defend and disappear the case

I am throwing in the towel in the fight to bring Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta to trial at The Hague. I sympathize with the ICC Prosecutor and the ICC itself. They have been feeling a lot of heat from the powers that be behind the scenes. After all, Kenyatta is a “sitting president” (which in Africa means “above the laws of man and God). He is untouchable. The ICC, the ICC Prosecutor, the U.N. Security Council and the West in general have received  second degree burns from the backdraft of the bogus but inflammatory “race hunting” charges leveled against them by some African “leaders”. Since the middle of 2013, a number of African “leaders” have been beating the drums of racism to divert attention from Kenyatta’s crimes against humanity. Hailemariam Desalegn, the ceremonial prime minister of Ethiopia and rotational chairman of the African Union, went on the warpath scandalizing the ICC and the ICC Prosecutor for organizing an African safari to “race hunt” black African leaders. Hailemariam and his “foreign minister” even tried to orchestrate a mass walkout on the Rome Statute at a special summit of the African Union in October 2013 by sticking the race card in ICC’s face. It was an iconic moment of shame for Africa. The African Union “leaders” gathered in Addis Ababa in a pathetic spectacle like panicked prey fleeing a stalking predator (race hunter) seeking safety in numbers. They huffed and puffed, ranted and raved against the ICC’s racism, but the threatened “mass treaty-cide” brinksmanship flopped in the end. The Sturm und Drang of a mass walkout on the Rome Statute proved to be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.

Kenyatta is a “playa” in the global anti-terrorism campaign in the Horn of Africa. Kenya has been victimized by cold-blooded and barbarous terrorists on numerous occasions. The law of unintended consequences has come to the aid of Kenyatta. The powers that be will not allow one of their “partners” in the “war on terrorism”  (I did not say partner in crimes against humanity) to be brought to justice for crimes against humanity while he is fighting terrorists who are committing crimes against humanity. To paraphrase President Franklin Roosevelt, there are all sorts of criminals against humanity who are S.O.B.s but Uhuru is our S.O.B. Kenyatta’s ICC trial begs unsettling questions: Who could be next? Omar al Bashir of Sudan? (Al-Bashir sneered at the ICC indictment in 2009: “Tell them all, the ICC prosecutor, the members of the court and everyone who supports this court that they are under my shoes.” He did not say that to mean, “put yourself in my shoes”.) Yoweri Museveni of Uganda? Paul Kagame of Rwanda? Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe? Paul Biya of the Cameroons? Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea? How about THE SYNDICATE running Ethiopia (into the ground)?

Things would have been different if Kenyatta had been an ex-president like Charles Taylor of Liberia, Laurent Gbagbo of Cote d’Ivoire or Hissien Habre of Chad. These ex-presidents-cum-criminals against humanity are fair game. They are washed out. They serve no useful purpose like Kenyatta.  They are cooling their heels in ICC jails now.

So the “Lady Justice of the ICC” with a scale in one hand and sword in the other blindly walks around Africa asking, “How does one prosecute ‘sitting African presidents and prime ministers’ suspected of crimes against humanity? (BTW: Is Lady Justice actually blind or just blindfolded?) My answer is simple. Prosecute sitting African presidents sitting in their palaces the same way you prosecute ex-African presidents sitting in ICC jail cells  today. Take off your blindfold and behold, Lady Justice of the ICC. The office of president is being worn by African criminal thugs who come to power by stealing elections or shooting their way into office like ballistic armor of prosecutorial immunity. To be an African “president or prime minister” today is to be licensed to kill, torture, jail and commit crimes against humanity with impunity. If Kenyatta could be brought to trial at the ICC by some miraculous act (even if there is no conviction), that would set the greatest precedent for the principle of the rule of law in the modern history of Africa. Every African dictator alive today and dictator-to-be in the future would think twice, thrice before he sending out his goons to kill, torture and jail his opponents and innocent citizens.

In passing, let me note that the ongoing ICC trial of Kenyatta’s deputy, William Ruto, is becoming a judicial circus of sorts. Ruto is supposedly in trial, but he rarely attends or shows up in court. He must think it is a big joke. His absence makes a mockery of the ICC. As of last week, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has not been able to compel his regular attendance. Ruto seems confident his case is not going anywhere because if he goes down, he is going to take a whole lot of people with him including Kenyatta. The trial is a waste of time for Ruto. For him the International Criminal Court is the International Criminal Circus. 

I complement and congratulate Uhuru’s defense team out of professional courtesy. They have done a hell of a job stonewalling and sandbagging the ICC Prosecutor. In fact, they have updated the age-old proverbial “Handbook of Criminal Defense” which prescribes three rules for the criminal defense lawyer: 1) deny (the charges), 2) delay (the trial) and defend (by hiding the evidence and paying off witnesses). Kenyatta’s defense lawyers have added a fourth rule: Disappear the case into thin air by applying rules 1-3. They have played their discovery games (hiding the ball) well making it extraordinarily difficult for the ICC Prosecutor to obtain invaluable documentary evidence. Kenyatta’s lawyers and Kenya's Attorney General, Githu Muigai, have successfully fought to prevent disclosure of Kenyatta’s financial transaction and bank records which are necessary for the ICC Prosecutor to prove whether Kenyata directly or through intermediaries paid or offered to pay hush money to potential witnesses in exchange for their recantation or “loss of memory”.

I want to be the first to “congratulate” Kenyatta and Ruto for walking over (I meant out of) the ICC scot-free and making a travesty of the Rome Statute. They managed to do what the lame leadership of the entire African Union was unable to do. They managed to slip away as the “ICC Lady Justice” stood blindfolded and handcuffed.

Cheating justice is by no means unique to Kenyatta and Ruto. It happens in the U.S. For instance, the famous American mobster John Gotti, in a little over a year, was prosecuted on multiple counts of racketeering, murder, obstruction of justice, hijacking, loan sharking, gambling, extortion, jury tampering and witness intimidation. He beat the rap three times.  He once paid a juror $60,000 to produce a “hung jury” (deadlocked jury). Gotti's defense attorneys consistently denied the existence of a Gambino Crime Family and caricatured the government’s case as a personal vendetta. Gotti was finally convicted with the testimony of the his underboss Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano, who broke the Omerta, or the gangsters’ code of silence, and testified resulting in Gotti’s conviction on multiple felony counts. That brings me to the crux of my commentary this week…

The need for an integrated ICC Witness Protection Program

In light of Kenyatta’s case, the need for an integrated ICC witness protection program is immediate and compelling. Kenyatta is alleged to have conspired with the Munguki  (“Kenya’s mafia”), which like the infamous Mafia, is a racketeering organization with a record of extreme criminality. Kenyatta denied having any connection to the Munguki  (if such an organization in fact existed). He and his African Union brethren claimed the whole ICC prosecution was a racial vendetta of sorts.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the Munguki “may be the biggest and most dangerous gang in the world, a thuggish army terrorizing Kenya with extortion rackets and gruesome punishments.” The ICC Prosecutor alleged that “Kenyatta met Mungiki leaders multiple times, sometimes at State House, Kenya’s White House, to plan the attacks in the Rift Valley towns. At one meeting, Kenyatta distributed 3.3 million Kenyan shillings -- about $36,000 -- to people he charged with carrying out the attacks.”

There is substantial evidence to believe that there has been significant witness tampering  and intimidation in the Kenyatta case.  On December 19, 2013, ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda publicly stated, “On December 4, a key second witness in the case confessed to giving false evidence regarding a critical event in the Prosecution’s case. This witness has now been withdrawn from the Prosecution witness list… Having carefully considered my evidence and the impact of the two withdrawals, I have come to the conclusion that currently the case against Mr Kenyatta does not satisfy the high evidentiary standards required at trial… I therefore need time to complete efforts to obtain additional evidence and to consider whether such evidence will enable my office to fully meet the evidentiary threshold required at trial.” It is not at all clear from Bensouda’s statement why the two witnesses gave false testimony in the first place and how the ICC Prosecutor’s office failed to vet them or further corroborate their testimony before filing charges.

It is, however, an undeniable fact that witnesses against Kenyatta have been threatened and bribed. In February 2013, Prosecutor Bensouda asserted that persons associated with Kenyatta had bribed and/or attempted to pay off a witness to withdraw his testimony and not to testify in the case. Bensouda stated,  “Witness 4 revealed in May 2012 interview that he had been offered, and accepted, money from individuals holding themselves out as representatives of the accused to withdraw his testimony against Uhuru… The witness provided emails and bank records that confirmed the bribery scheme. In light of these cumulative revelations, the prosecution considers it is not useful to call him as a witness.”  In a brazen act of witness intimidation, Kenyatta’s defense team demanded the ICC turn over to Kenyan authorities witnesses who had given evidence so that the “self-confessed criminals so they can face the full force of the law.” Prosecutor Bensouda was so concerned about witness intimidation and tampering, she asked the Court to grant witnesses courtroom protective measures, including voice and image distortion, use of pseudonyms and in camera sessions for identifying evidence.

The apparent recantation of the Kenyatta witnesses raises unsettling and puzzling questions. It seems they withdrew their testimonies not because they actually gave “false testimony” but because they feared certain and swift retaliation if they appeared at trial and testified. Their recantations should not be taken as genuine but as the product of reasonable fear of imminent persecution and prosecution by Kenyan authorities. Should it come as a surprise to anyone that witnesses who face massive retaliatory actions by the Kenyan Government suddenly declare they have given false testimony to save their lives?

Last July, the International Bar Association International Criminal Court Programme (IBA) issued a report entitled, “Witnesses before the International Criminal Court”,  documenting the  challenges facing the ICC in “protecting, supporting and ensuring the rights of witnesses” before that tribunal. The report pointed out significant deficiencies in the ICC’s witness protection efforts and services. These included deficiencies in “obtaining state cooperation, supporting witnesses’ practical and psychosocial needs, organising logistics, securing their safe passage to The Hague, and protecting persons from potential threats or interference during investigations and trials.” The report specifically found

the legal status of ICC witnesses  who have already testified is unclear and should be clarified. While the ICC’s legal texts provide for witness protection measures throughout the proceedings, little attention has been given to the question of what should happen to these individuals once their testimonies are complete. The same can be said for acquitted persons, even those who testify as ‘witnesses’ on their own behalf. The IBA considers that the detention of ICC witnesses for several years after they have finished testifying pending the final resolution of protracted legal arguments to determine their status, is not the model the ICC or the Netherlands should follow in future cases. Likewise the status of acquitted persons (whether they were witnesses or not) who cannot return to their country for security reasons must be clarified. The IBA recommends that the ICC, States Parties and the Host State work together and develop a joint policy on the eventual placement for witnesses and acquitted persons with asylum claims, based on their respective human rights obligations.

Some witness have  faced jurisdictional nightmares when they sought asylum following their testimonies in the ICC. According to the IBA report, in 2011, defense witnesses in the Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui cases “applied for asylum in the Netherlands, raising difficult questions about the legal status of witnesses who testify before the ICC.” The report concluded: “These [asylum] claims have proven to be a litigious conundrum in terms of the overlapping jurisdictions of domestic, regional and international courts, and raise questions about who owes human rights obligations to these witnesses and the scope of these obligations.” 

The ICC maintains a Registry for the protection of witnesses. However, that program also suffers from significant deficiencies. According to the IBA report, the “operational structure of the Victims and Witnesses Unit needs to be reinforced. The Registry is not providing sufficient operational support for the protection of defence witnesses… [and there is a need to]… increase capacity for witness relocation…” The IBA report recommends, “The Registry should explore opportunities with non-States Parties to increase capacity for witness relocation. Many non-States Parties with effective national protection programmes would be keen to cooperate with the ICC on witness relocation matters. The IBA encourages the Registry to continue pursuing ways to engage with these non-States Parties, which could be done through ad hoc agreements as provided in the Rome Statute’s cooperation provisions.” 

A Proposal for “International Criminal Court Witness Protection Program” (ICC-WITSEC) 

The principal problem in prosecuting incumbent African leaders suspected of crimes against humanity is ( and will be) finding and securing the cooperation of credible witnesses inside the countries of the accused African leaders. As the Kenyatta case has shown, it may be easier to find a snowball in hell than finding credible witnesses willing to come forward to testify against “sitting African presidents, prime misters” and the like suspected of crimes against humanity. The absence of an effective and robust witness protection program is and will continue to be the Achilles heel of the ICC. The ICC Prosecutor and the Court itself must find effective ways of preventing witness intimidation, witness tampering, witness payoffs and subornation of perjury if the Rome Statute is to remain a credible deterrent to crimes against humanity for African leaders-cum-thugs and others.

Here is where the John Gotti and Uhuru Kenyatta cases intersect. The U.S. Government was able to convict Gotti (despite three spectacular prior failures) because Sammy (“the Bull”)  Gravano, Gotti’s underboss, testified against him.  In return for a reduced sentence and placement into the Witness Protection Program, Gravano sang like a canary.  Since Gravano’s testimony, dozens of notorious mobsters have cut deals with the U.S. Government and  testified against their mob bosses, resulting in dozens of convictions and hundreds of arrests of the most notorious mobsters.

The allegations and the proffered evidence in the Kenyatta case shows that the co-conspirators involved include not only other high level Kenyan officials but also low levels ones and members of the criminal underground. Compelling and convincing testimony is likely to come from the underbosses who often do the dirty work for their African "leaders" (capos/ capodecina/caporegime) in committing crimes against humanity. If there are to be successful prosecutions of incumbent high level African “leaders”, the most compelling testimony and evidence is likely to come from their disgruntled lieutenants and underbosses and those paid off to do their dirty work, including police and security thugs and other criminals preying on the community. The ICC Prosecutor should target not only the capo di tutti capi (boss of all bosses) of the African leadership but also the street enforcers and foot soldiers.

I believe the ICC Prosecutor should initiate its own “International Criminal Court Witness Protection Program” for deserving and carefully vetted witnesses patterned after the U.S. witness protection program (WITSEC). WITSEC  provides effective protection to threatened and vulnerable witnesses against organized criminals before, during, and after a trial. In the program, witnesses and their families are provided new identities and documentation and relocated. Since the program was launched in 1971, nearly ten thousand witnesses and family members have been placed in the WITSEC program. Incredibly, “95% of the witnesses in the program are criminals.” The WITSEC program was established under Title V of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, which enumerates the terms and conditions for the United States Attorney General to provide for the relocation and protection of a witness or potential witness in cases involving organized crime or other serious offenses.  

Just as the U.S. Government offered Mafia underbosses, capos, consiglieres and soldiers prosecutorial leniency and the chance to join WITSEC, the ICC Prosecutor should be prepared to offer full protection to those credible witnesses against the African bigwigs accused of crimes against humanity, including the chance for relocation to another country with their families. Without an ICC witness protection program, the chances of securing the cooperation of credible witnesses could be extremely limited. When WITSEC was first launched, many people expressed moral outrage in “coddling” smaller criminals to catch the big ones. They criticized Congress for following the “end justifies the means” policy. Though the Mafia is not out of business, racketeering laws and the WITSEC program have made a significant dent in all forms of organized crime in the U.S. and rendered organized criminals weak and vulnerable.

One of the issues noted in the IBA report is the adverse impact of witness protection and services on the ICC budget. That is an important consideration. However, things must be seen in perspective. The long ICC trial of ex-Liberian President Charles Taylor cost a quarter of a billion U.S. dollars. “Taylor received legal assistance of $100,000 per month, which together with the location of the forum and the five-star calibre of the legal representation of both sides made the process an enormously costly affair, estimated at some $35-$40 million per year. By its conclusion, it may end up having  cost the international taxpayer close to $250 million, and probably much more than that, if and when the verdict leads to an appeal.” While justice is priceless, the ICC should not be turned into the International Cash Cow for lawyers. There are some three dozen indictees in some pre-trial stage at the ICC. Even at a fraction of the cost of the Taylor trial, the total cost to prosecute these suspects could run into several billions of dollars. There is no reason why judicious cost savings in legal fees and expenses could not be used for an integrated witness protection program.

The ICC should also work with its biggest contributors, including Germany, the UK, Italy, France and Spain to support a witness protection program including grants of asylum and relocation support services to deserving witnesses.  Participating witnesses and their families should be provided new identities and essential support,  including job training, employment assistance, housing and medical care.  

A robust witness protection program is perhaps the best that could be realistically expected today in the effort to bring African leaders-cum-thugs to the bar of international justice.  If the ICC as an institution could strike a tiny tintinnabulation of fear of prosecution and accountability in the stone cold hearts of African “leaders”, their capacity and wanton desire to commit crimes against humanity could be significantly mitigated.

Few witnesses in Africa would be brave enough to pay the cost in their lives to bring the truth to light in crimes against humanity committed by African "presidents, prime ministers" and the like. If there are surviving victims, they are too traumatized to become witnesses. If they are the victimizers, they have no reason for coming forward. Yet, if there is a robust  ICC witness protection program, it is highly likely that victims and some disgruntled victimizers could come forward and testify against the mass and serial murderers and torturers occupying the highest public offices in Africa.

I believe many African criminals against humanity in power today feel confident that they will laugh their way out of the International Criminal Court certain in the knowledge that no one would dare testify against them and expect to live in their countries. The ICC should learn this fundamental lesson from the Kenyatta case. Justice is priceless but the small cost of delivering justice to the victims of injustice and crimes against humanity is an integrated witness protection program. The alternative is courtroom window dressing, playacting justice on a world stage and telling a courtroom tale of injustice “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

I have no doubts that African leaders-cum-thugs looking at their Kenyan brethren are heaving a big sigh of relief. They chuckle in the thought that the ICC for them is an International Criminal Court of Chumps. That’s why we must rally to save the ICC from International Criminals and Crooks in high offices in Africa. 

Crimes against humanity are organized crimes! 

Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.

Read more