Request for Clarification on Inaccuracies in Reporting on Ethiopia’s Transitional Justice Process
I am writing about the article ‘Policy Paper Sheds Light on Fundamental Gaps in Transitional Justice Initiative’ published by The Reporter on February 1, 2025.
I appreciate Mr. Abraham Tekle’s and The Reporter’s engagement with the discussion on Ethiopia’s Transitional Justice (TJ) process and your efforts to inform the public on this critical issue. However, I would like to clarify several inaccuracies in your reporting, both in terms of its framing and the content attributed to me.
The article refers to a “policy paper” that was presented during the discussion. However, I would like to clarify that no policy brief was prepared. The presentation was a research-based discussion, not an official policy document or institutional position. Characterizing the presentation as a policy paper creates the incorrect impression that formal recommendations were issued, which was not the case.
The introduction of the article states that the presentation was given by “researchers at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS),” which is incorrect. The presentation was delivered by an individual senior researcher at ISS, not as an institutional position of ISS as an organization. ISS does not engage in transitional justice processes by issuing institutional positions. It is essential to make this distinction clear, as framing it as the collective view of ISS misrepresents both the nature of the presentation and ISS’s approach to its work.
The report incorrectly suggests that I portrayed the TJ process as fundamentally flawed or as a failed initiative. While I did highlight areas where improvements are needed, my discussion focused on key aspects—particularly victim participation—rather than identifying “fundamental gaps,” as stated in the article’s title. It is misleading to suggest that I characterized the process as fundamentally defective. In fact, I explicitly stated that the TJ process remains the best available framework for addressing past violations and that stakeholders should work to refine and enhance its effectiveness.
In particular, my discussion on gaps focused on the categorization of perpetrators and how different categories of actors involved in violations should be addressed; the scope of crimes covered by the TJ process; and victim participation, particularly the urgent need for psychosocial support and a structured framework to ensure meaningful engagement.
These points were raised to enhance the effectiveness of the TJ framework, not to suggest that the entire initiative is failing.
The article suggests that I claimed the government has rejected the TJ process outright. I did not say this. Instead, I described the different phases the process has undergone—from an initial period of rejection to acceptance, uncertainty, and now the pre-implementation stage. My remarks were aimed at illustrating the complexity of the process rather than implying that the government has categorically rejected transitional justice.
Dr. Tadesse Simie Metekia
Senior Researcher: Rule of Law
Special Projects
Institute for Security Studies, Addis Ababa