UNHCHR grills Ethiopia on anti-terror law

| July 16, 2011

This week,
the Human Rights Committee of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
reviewed Ethiopia’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, including its press freedom record. Peppered with questions
about an indefensible record of abuse–jailing the second largest number of
journalists in Africa and leading the continent in Internet
censorship–representatives of the Ethiopian government responded with
cursory talking points and bold denials in contradiction of the facts.

Several
committee members raised concerns about Ethiopia’s detention of several
journalists on suspicion of terrorism, which is broadly defined in the
country’s far-reaching
antiterrorism law. (CPJ research shows a total of six journalists are being
held.) “When we get reports that journalists get themselves arrested on
grounds of violation of this particular proclamation, when seeking to enter the
Ogaden or, even perhaps more recently, when engaging
in Internet blogs purporting to criticize potential contributory responsibility
of the government to the current drought,” said Sir Niger Rodley, “there does seem to be real problems of sweep
and scope in that legislation.” Under the law, journalists risk lengthy
prison sentences if the government deems their work favorable to groups and
causes labeled as terrorists, including armed rebellions and banned opposition
party Ginbot 7.

The
government’s high-profile imprisonment of Johan Persson
and Martin Schibbye, two Swedish journalists arrested in eastern Ethiopia
while covering the activities of the separatist Ogaden
National Liberation Front, which the government designated as a terrorist
group, drew a lot of questions, particularly from committee member Krister Thelin. After being
repeatedly pressed about the fate of the journalists and details of the legal
procedures following their arrests, a flustered Ambassador Fisseha
Yimer Aboye, head of the
Ethiopian delegation, told the committee that no further information would be
provided. Rodley pressed the delegation to explain
the legal procedures surrounding the arrests of two other journalists, Woubshet Taye and Reeyot Alemu, on suspicions
of terrorism.

Christine Chanet, another committee member, told the Ethiopian
delegation: “It’s a very vague definition that you have of terrorism. It
seems the definition of terrorism is too vague, which allows the
criminalization of acts that are not really acts of terrorism.” Chanet described the Ethiopian anti-terrorism legislation
as “an issue of particular concern” because it “opened the
door” to potential violations of rights under the International Covenant.

Then came the Ethiopian response. “Now, the fact that we
have an anti-terrorist law, I can’t see how that could
have a chilling effect on the media because the United Kingdom has an
anti-terror law. I don’t think that has any chilling effect on the British
reporters,” said Genenew Assefa,
a senior political advisor with the Ethiopian Office of Government
Communication Affairs. “The mere fact that we have such laws does not
necessarily imply that it would somehow curtail our liberties that are
guaranteed under our constitution.”

Assefa added: “From the outset, my
government and I share the view that without an independent media, citizens
cannot make informed decisions.” In fact, the May 1991 words of Ethiopian
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi reflected this
thinking as Zenawi, then a victorious guerrilla
leader, chased from power the brutal Marxist Derg
junta. “Now is the beginning of a new chapter. It is an era of unfettered
freedom,” Zenawi promised Ethiopians. In 1992, a
new law allowed for
a free press for the first time in the nation’s history.

Then, Assefa lashed words of contempt at Ethiopia’s independent
private press. “Unfortunately, for a good 10 years, in our democratic
experience, the media did not, the private media that
is, did not play such a role. There were serious problems of inaccuracy,
irresponsibility, and shared naked political advocacy,” he said. “For
10 years, my government tolerated this because it was the beginning democracy.”

In fact it
was far from “tolerance.” In 1994, the Committee to Protect
Journalists reported that “for the second year running, Ethiopia held more
journalists in prison than any other country in Africa.” A March 1995 CPJ
report noted that while the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic
Front (EPRDF) had “substantially increased press freedom and improved the
human rights situation shortly after coming to power,” the government had
also “detained, imprisoned, and fined dozens of journalists” to silence critical
reporting.

Referring
to the more than 20 Amharic-language newspapers that authorities shut in 2005
for editorials criticizing the government’s brutal crackdown on post-election
protests, Assefa said he challenged the committee members review the papers’ headlines. “They would not
be tolerated to operate in any democratic country,” he asserted.
“Citizens were not being informed. They were being almost forced to rise
up and tear up the system.”

In fact,
during the protracted politicized trials of 15 editors of the Amharic press,
Ethiopian public prosecutors failedin their attempt to link
newspapers
headlines and editorials, strident as they were, to any violence, obtaining convictions only
after the journalists waived defense and pleaded guilty to anti-state charges in
anticipation of a conditional pardons.

With videos of the sessions
available on the Internet, Committee Vice Chairman Yuji Iwasawa
expressed concern about Ethiopia possibly preventing domestic Web users from
accessing the recordings. “We have allegations that the broadcasting of Voice
of America and Deutsche
Welle is jammed in Ethiopia. Let’s hope that our
webcast is available in Ethiopia to the viewers, not only the live webcast but
the video archives.”

—