Will the “inquiry commission” really inquire?

By Daniel Assefa

April 28, 2006

On April 26, nearly four months after it started its work The “Independent, Enquiry commission” which was set up following proclamation 478/98 called upon the public to come forward and provide information surrounding the event of June 8th and Nov 1-10, 14-17. In his statement chairperson Frew Samuel reemphasized that their mandate restricts them to the events on those fateful days of June and November and is mainly limited to the assessment of the results of the “violence” and does not include the investigation of its cause. It seems as if the chairperson is trying to set up a cushion anticipating the public out cry that will result from the probably lame report that the commission may release.

A significant omission in the task of the commission is its inability to investigate the causes of the unrest (massacre). The intention behind the call for the enquiry by international bodies and opposition groups was to identify the root problem and ascribe culpability to the guilty party (do not mean political party), as a step towards the reconciliation and normalization of the political process. However, against all civil intention the parliament has reduced the function of the commission to that of an insurance assessor. It is incomprehensible how one expects to have a full understanding of the events with out investigating the immediate causes of the tragedy and events and that immediately preceded it. It is quite likely that the report will be an echo of an earlier report of the Addis Ababa police commission to the parliament in that it may focus on the lose of “public property”, broken windows, damaged buses, time off work and will try to hammer on the economic effects. By this what the parliament is trying to achieve is to collect evidence from the public that can be used against the imprisoned leaders of CUD and free media.

The acceptance by the members of the commission of a “partial” mandate in the investigation of the tragic events casts doubt over their integrity. Their lack of willingness to get information from opposition parties as well as the imprisoned leaders and the “free” media members may be a reflection of where their loyalty may rest. Taking these into account it is easy to lose faith in the commission’s work and even be tempted to speculate on the contents of the report before it is written.

I hope the release of the report will not be intentionally synchronized with the prosecution of the opposition leaders so that it can be used in “court”. I hope that the report does not dwell on the economic ripple effects and minimize the loss of life. I hope it does not give the same excuse that the prime minister gave in April 2001 and say “the police were not adequately trained and they lack resources for proper crowd control”. I hope the report does not justify the killings by finding that the security who could not even properly communicate with the mass were defending their own lives and thus remove the responsibility from the prime minister who had personally taken control of the police and security forces of Addis at the time. I hope the report does not attempt to lower the figure for dead and contradict both the Ethiopian human rights commission and Amnesty international. I hope the commission disregarding its mandate does not go out of its way to associate the imprisoned leaders of CUD and the free press with the tragedy in order to implicate them. I hope the commission does not pull out the customary “joker” and tell us that a demonstration by peaceful persons was hijacked by an armed clandestine group. I do sincerely hope that for once the “independent enquiry commission” break tradition from other “independent commissions” of the EPRDF, get some spine and call a spade a spade.