Ethiopia’s transitional justice policy, formulated in 2022, seeks to address grievances and human rights abuses that have occurred in the country since 1995. The policy aims to foster national reconciliation and healing by acknowledging past wrongs and providing mechanisms for accountability and redress.
The policy is also designed to address the needs of victims and survivors of violence, promote healing and reconciliation, and strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law to steer the country toward lasting peace and democracy.
Although the Pretoria Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (CoHA) brought an end to active fighting in Tigray, escalating violence in other regions—particularly Amhara and Oromia—has raised concerns about the viability of Ethiopia’s transitional justice process.
On January 30, 2025, KAS Office Ethiopia, a civil society organization, hosted a conference at the Best Western Plus Hotel under the theme ‘Key Considerations for Ethiopia’s Transitional Justice Legal Framework Development.’ The event focused on discussions surrounding the policy paper guiding the transitional justice process.
The conference brought together key figures, including KAS Country Director Lukas Kupfernagel, Dr. Tadesse Simie, a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), and a representative from the Ministry of Justice—Awel Sultan, head of Human Rights Monitoring at the Ministry.
Awel earned his second degree in International Human Rights Law from Addis Ababa University in 2018 and currently leads the Transitional Justice Secretariat, overseeing the coordination and implementation of the process.
The Reporter’s Abraham Tekle caught up with him for an update on the Transitional Justice process. Awel spoke about the challenges posed by ongoing conflicts in the Amhara and Oromia regions, the kinds of human rights violations the transitional justice process is hoped to address, ongoing efforts to secure funding for what promises to be a costly endeavor, and other topics. EXCERPTS:
The Reporter: How is the Ethiopian Transitional Justice Policy process designed to address human rights violations committed since 1995, and what criteria were used to define this temporal scope?
Awel Sultan: Although it was not fully implemented, the first criterion for the transitional justice (TJ) process in Ethiopia was the earlier phase that aimed to address human rights violations committed before 1995. While these efforts did not achieve full reconciliation, accountability was pursued through the prosecution of over 5,000 individuals in trials that spanned more than 18 years. Expanding the scope further back in time would risk redundancy by revisiting the same historical issues.
The second criterion recognizes that transitional justice is distinct from a regular prosecution process. It is intended to facilitate a broader transition rather than solely focusing on prosecuting past violations. Expanding the scope to include a larger number of perpetrators and victims would impose significant financial and time constraints on the country, potentially diverting the process from its intended purpose.
Since Ethiopia has not undertaken a similar process in the past, it is crucial that the transitional justice framework avoids triggering further divisions and conflicts. For this reason, the process should be guided by well-structured TJ policies and mechanisms designed to provide lasting solutions to past grievances. Since, the TJ policy serves as the primary tool to ensure accountability, reconciliation, and the prevention of future disputes, there should be a well-designed adaptation of TJ tools and systems that allows and brings a lasting solution to the past grievances. So, the right tool is the TJ policy process.
Unlike a conventional judicial process, transitional justice does not focus solely on prosecuting individuals in a court of law. Instead, it prioritizes truth-seeking, public disclosure of findings, and national reconciliation. In addition to ensuring accountability, Ethiopia’s TJ framework includes provisions for conditional amnesty, allowing for the possibility of forgiveness under specific conditions.
Furthermore, reparation is a fundamental element of the TJ policy, ensuring that victims receive compensation and acknowledgment for their suffering. Since victims are central to the TJ process, the absence of reparation would undermine its implementation. It was important to accommodate the above pillars that the Ethiopian TJ policy adopted when designed. Achieving a lasting resolution to past injustices also requires institutional reforms and the appointment of qualified professionals to oversee the process. These considerations shaped the design of Ethiopia’s TJ policy, which focuses on addressing violations committed after 1995 while ensuring accountability for those responsible.
However, beyond these justifications, five policy options of recommendations were developed to guide the design of the TJ policy framework. The policy options document outlines various implementation strategies, each offering different approaches to take place.
For instance, the recommendation document provides options regarding who should ensure accountability, conduct investigations, initiate prosecutions, and oversee the justice process. It also addresses questions such as who should be held accountable and from which historical period the process should begin. After careful consideration, the policy framework focuses on addressing grievances that occurred after 1995, in line with the preferences expressed by the public. Holding those most responsible for widespread human rights violations accountable is part of the process. This includes both high-ranking officials and lower-level perpetrators breaching international human rights protocols. This is because participation matters the most.
Does the TJ policy recommendation specify the types of human rights violations it will address?
Yes. Serious human rights violations include breaches of Article 28 of the Constitution, which aligns with international human rights laws, as well as crimes against humanity under international customary law. This encompasses genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and gender-based violence (GBV), all of which are considered within the TJ process to ensure accountability. However, while human rights violations may not be the sole focus in the context of truth-seeking, serious violations are always taken into account.
Does the policy framework ensure victim inclusivity and address past grievances effectively?
Transitional justice is all about addressing human rights violations. When discussing these violations, it is essential to recognize that victims whose rights have been violated by perpetrators must undergo a reparation process. A TJ process that is not victim-centered—one that does not provide space for victims to express their grievances, ensure their cases are heard, and acknowledge their experiences—is not an effective TJ process. Victim participation is a crucial component of any process dealing with human rights violations. Our policy follows a victim-centered approach, ensuring meaningful participation, continuous engagement, and support for victims, including compensation and measures to prevent the recurrence of such violations.
Additionally, our policy includes six different reparation mechanisms designed to support victims through sectoral participation. We are working on drafting regulations and laws that will enable victims to participate in the process. We hope these regulations will be effectively implemented in the future. However, it is important to note that the Ministry serves as an intermediary rather than directly executing the five pillars of the transitional justice process. Our intermediary role ensures strong victim participation throughout the process. To achieve this, we are working closely with civil society organizations (CSOs) and UN agencies, consulting them at every stage of the process.
Do you believe the process can achieve the anticipated outcomes while conflicts persist, and crimes and human rights violations continue in the country? Does it include mechanisms to address past violations, such as those committed in Tigray, as well as ongoing violations in Amhara, Oromia, and other regions?
These are crucial questions that we have previously attempted to address in the process. It is important to emphasize that peace is essential for the effective implementation of the transitional justice process. Without peace, it is difficult to achieve justice and other intended outcomes. Additionally, processes such as TJ and National Dialogue require active community participation. Without establishing the right conditions and ensuring stability in the country, executing these processes becomes challenging.
We acknowledge that conducting TJ amid ongoing conflicts is difficult, but it is not impossible. Ethiopia is not the first country to implement a TJ process while experiencing conflict. For instance, Colombia conducted its TJ process while still in the midst of conflict. Similarly, some governments manage conflicts while simultaneously advancing their TJ processes, and the Ethiopian government is taking a similar approach. If we delay the TJ process until conflicts completely end, it will be even more difficult to resolve the challenges the country currently faces.
The underlying assumption is that TJ not only addresses past violations but also helps prevent future conflicts and fosters reconciliation within communities. This is why we are committed to moving forward with TJ despite ongoing conflicts—fully aware of the challenges ahead and determined to overcome them to achieve our goals.
Considering that reconciliation has been an undervalued element in Ethiopia’s TJ process, what specific measures are being implemented to promote genuine process and healing?
Reconciliation is one of our primary objectives, as outlined in the TJ policy, which emphasizes truth-seeking, truth-telling, and reconciliation. It is important to recognize that if accountability is ensured and reparations are provided, yet the public remains in the same state of division as before, then the process has failed in its purpose. Therefore, the first priority must be reconciliation—creating conditions where affected communities can heal, move forward, and coexist peacefully. Every action within the TJ process should actively promote and ensure reconciliation, making it a tangible outcome. Without this, there is a risk of reverting to past divisions and conflicts. Reconciliation is the primary target of our TJ policy process.
What are the obstacles that could possibly hinder the TJ process? How does the Ministry plan to overcome them?
One of the primary obstacles is the lack of sufficient funding. As is well known, implementing a TJ process is a resource-intensive effort that requires substantial financial investment. Unlike national dialogue and similar initiatives that operate under a single institution, TJ requires the establishment and functioning of three separate institutions. In particular, the Truth-Seeking and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is a major institution currently in the process of being established. It will operate independently and report directly to Parliament. Given the scale of its mandate, the TRC, along with the other two institutions, requires significant financial resources.
To address this, we are actively working to secure a larger budget by mobilizing international support in addition to government funding. In the near future, we plan to launch a resource mobilization campaign and establish a dedicated funding mechanism to facilitate participation in the process. So far, we have identified 39 local and international organizations, including civil society organizations (CSOs), to collaborate with us in advancing TJ efforts in Ethiopia.
The second major challenge is ongoing conflict. While conflict poses difficulties, it does not make the process impossible. Peace is a fundamental requirement for any national initiative of this scale, and the government must take all necessary measures—through negotiations or other strategic approaches—to ensure stability. Securing peace is essential to halting ongoing conflicts and creating a conducive environment for TJ to be effective. At the same time, the process must be inclusive, ensuring that communities across all regions of the country are engaged and represented.
A third challenge is the shortage of specialized expertise in the TJ sector. However, we have been able to mitigate this by engaging a diverse group of professionals, including local, international, and voluntary experts who have played a crucial role in facilitating the process. Their contributions have been instrumental in bringing us to this stage. Furthermore, during a recent international conference, the global community demonstrated strong support, providing valuable insights and input. Moving forward, we plan to strengthen our collaboration with international partners to further address capacity gaps. While expertise remains a challenge, we are confident that with continued international cooperation, we can overcome this hurdle.
How is the Ministry collaborating with international human rights organizations and the AU to align Ethiopia’s TJ efforts with broader standards?
Given that many countries have undergone the TJ process before, we have studied their systems and modalities, adapted relevant approaches while ensuring they are contextualized to align with Ethiopia’s cultural and social realities. Additionally, our TJ policy is not only based on constitutionally accredited international laws but also considers international customary laws. This is because Ethiopia is bound by international legal frameworks, which provide clear guidelines. While international customary laws may not always be formally ratified as agreements, our policy largely recognizes them as guiding principles.
In formulating Ethiopia’s TJ policy, we have also integrated key recommendations from the African Union Transitional Justice Policy. For instance, the AU policy identifies reconciliation as a core principle, which we have adopted, along with ensuring accountability and reparation as fundamental components. There are significant areas where the AU TJ policy and Ethiopia’s TJ framework align. However, some elements have not been included—not as a rejection, but rather because they do not fit within Ethiopia’s specific context. For example, implementing TJ in a country of 120 million people presents different challenges compared to a country with a population of just three million. Thus, while Ethiopia’s approach reflects international best practices, it is tailored to its unique societal and demographic realities.
Do you have any additional recommendations for improving the implementation of TJ in Ethiopia and achieving a lasting solution for the country?
The first key factor is ensuring that the TJ policy is widely accepted by society. As mentioned earlier, Ethiopia’s TJ framework is designed to align with its unique societal and demographic realities. A TJ process that fails to reflect these realities risks becoming ineffective. At the same time, the public must actively contribute to shaping and supporting the policy’s implementation. By embracing a TJ framework that reflects Ethiopia’s distinct context, society can help lay the foundation for a peaceful and prosperous future.
The government also has a crucial role to play in demonstrating political commitment to the effective implementation of TJ. However, the most significant role should be played by the media. The media has the capacity to inform millions of Ethiopians about the essence and objectives of the TJ process through its broadcasts and publications. By raising awareness and fostering informed discussions, the media can help build public understanding and support for the process, ensuring broader engagement in Ethiopia’s path toward lasting peace and justice.
