For the government-sympathizing judges justice is synonymous with conviction of every suspect, passing down the severest penalty on convicts and gratifying the actual and imagined wishes of the government. Some of the judges are not government agents, but they may have a slave morality and they tend to think themselves as guardians of the government’s interests. These are people lacking in a reasonable measure of one of the most important human attributes, namely courage. Some judges have willfully and relentlessly served the interests of the government at least until the great factionalism whacked the EPRDF camp restoring some amount of sanity to many EPRDF fanatics.

But to characterize the court as a whole as a “kangaroo court” is out of touch with the nagging reality and leaves one with considerable unease. The court is perhaps the only ‘voice of conscience’ in the EPRDF-ruled government. On many occasions the court has stood up for what is true and just even inviting upon itself the fury and retribution that are typical of EPRDF. I can cite cases after cases of court decisions that slithered the EPRDF, but I prefer to mention just a few that stand out. I do this because I believe that the judiciary as an institution should not be disparaged as a whole.

The release on bail of Mr. Seye Abraha (though one may disagree with the way the case is handled) is unprecedented profile in bravery that the task demands. Mr. Seye did not miss the importance of the decision as he knows the nature of his adversaries; he lauded the court by saying that heroism is not only a battlefield lexicon, but it can equally be observed in courtrooms as well. The acquittal of many of the former government officials accused of all kinds of charges by the EPRDF, the acquittal of Abate Kisho and Bitew Belay by the Federal High Court and the habeas corpus release of Lidetu Ayalew and innumerable other “hard cases” show that the court is a voice of sanity in the midst of all the frenzy in the country. Did the government predetermine the outcome of these ‘hard cases’? No, because the government’s subsequent reactions showed that the outcomes were not welcome in the EPRDF camp.

It may be urged with equal reason that these are just exceptions. But I do not think that these are just isolated instances. Day in day out some judges battle for the cause of truth, freedom and justice. Whether or not these are exceptions, however, is not very important as Mr. Halefom’s article unqualifiedly accuses the court of partiality, which is not true. Particularly, the concept “Kangaroo court” except for its pompousness does not help in a serious discussion of the plight of Ethiopian judiciary. The court is a far cry from this, and any responsible writer would appreciate some of the efforts of at least some of the judges who have dearly paid in many terms. It is also morally unjust to label the judiciary “joke of the century” for the simple reason that it is not. Well the courts have to function within the framework of the existing constitution and laws; we cannot expect them to make laws and interpret them. So the various bad laws that are stripping the courts’ power can be criticized, but the courts cannot be labeled “kangaroo courts.” That would be punishing the victim.

Many laws in the U.S. are taking away the powers of the courts even if the Ethiopian judiciary does not in any way measure up against its American counterpart, which wields judicial discretion in its most virulent form. The untrammeled parliamentary sovereignty in the U.K. did not turn English courts into the “joke of the centuries.” I do not think a country is less democratic because its courts do have fewer powers. But Ethiopian courts still wield considerable dose of power in the interpretation of which they can serve as instruments of conscience and sanity. The parliament can be “joke of the century” for making stupid laws; however, if the MPs have the good faith the mistakes are theirs to make. That is what democracy is all about even if I do not mean to validate the rigged elections that for the most part characterized the polity.

It is robust public criticism that can bring the court in line with the ideals of justice, and not blanket ridicule. The court’s flaws are many: contempt of court sometimes takes the form of blasphemy for Ethiopian courts; they are close-minded to different opinions on legal issues; incompetence, bias, etc mar the image of the court. Many, many vices can be mentioned, but on balance it stands out among others as a symbol of virtue. I would say that the article represents a lack of civility towards the court even if Mr. Halefom has got all the right in the world to speak his mind.