Dejen Mezgebe (PhD) is the Chairman of the Tigray Independence Party (TIP), also known as the Tigrayan Nationalist Political Party in Ethiopia. He obtained his doctoral degree in Federalism and Governance from Addis Ababa University and has also served as a lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Mekelle University.
Dejen entered the political arena in 2020, the same year that TIP was established. After it held a general assembly in 2024, the party received full recognition from the National Election Board.
TIP is a vocal advocate for the independence of the Tigray region.
Dejen explains that his party has introduced a distinct approach by redefining the concept of the Ethiopian nation, with the ultimate goal of securing independence for the people of Tigray and establishing a sovereign state. He argues that successive governments have consistently undermined Tigrayan interests in the name of national unity and advocates for Tigray’s departure from the Ethiopian state with the goal of creating a peaceful, democratic, and friendly neighbor without resorting to violence or sacrificing human lives.
Dejen and his party contend the devastation inflicted upon Tigray during the two-year conflict has led many to believe that Ethiopia is no longer their nation. This sentiment is stronger than ever, with widespread support for independence, particularly among the Tigrayan youth and the diaspora. The Reporter’s Nardos Yoseph spoke with Dejen to get his view on recent developments surrounding politics in Tigray, as well as national and regional issues. EXCERPTS:
The Reporter: The legal basis for the Tigray Interim Administration (TIA) has been a topic for debate since it was founded by the signing of the Pretoria Agreement. The TPLF argues the TIA is solely grounded in the Pretoria Agreement, not the Constitution or other federal law. In contrast, the federal government refers first to the Constitution, followed by proclamations governing regional emergencies, the Pretoria Agreement itself, and the TIA’s founding proclamation issued by the Council of Ministers. What is your stance on this? Which legal basis do you consider legitimate?
Dejen Mezgebe (PhD): From the outset, I must emphasize that reducing this matter to legal technicalities or narrow legal interpretations fails to capture the complex reality we are facing. This conflict, which in the first place could have been resolved through dialogue, escalated into a devastating war that resulted in crimes against humanity. Ethiopia mobilized its full military capacity, and foreign forces were invited to wage war against Tigray, treating its people as outsiders. So, in this context, I don’t believe this is a purely legal issue. Once war was declared against us, and Tigray experienced such devastation, the matter transcended legality—it became inherently political. As for the Pretoria Agreement, I view it not as a binding legal framework, but rather as a political document.
What aspects of the Agreement lead you to view it as a political document rather than a legal one?
There are several issues embedded in the Agreement that make it fall short of being a legal instrument. For instance, while we assert that acts of genocide were committed against our people and demand justice and accountability, the Pretoria Agreement does not explicitly address this. It mentions transitional justice, but the party responsible for implementing it is the very government accused of committing war crimes. While we have reservations about these aspects, our party considers the agreement not as an ideal solution, but as a necessary step—one that halted the war as a ‘necessary evil’, an agreement that shifted the conflict from a military struggle to a political one, and created an opportunity for peaceful dialogue. Hence, we regard the Pretoria Agreement as a political rather than a strictly legal document.
You’ve made your party’s position on the Pretoria Agreement clear. How do you view its authority over Tigray’s interim administration, especially with the growing divergence between the federal government and the TPLF?
Both signatories are interpreting the Agreement to serve their own interests, twisting it to appear as if it validates their respective positions. The federal government’s primary goal was to hold the TPLF—or more specifically, certain individuals within it—accountable. However, this does not justify waging war against the people of Tigray. The real issue in Tigray is not just about the TPLF—it’s about the political demands of our people, which remain unmet. This is not what the federal government is addressing, nor is it our expectation that they will.
We believe that genuine justice will come from our ability to grow stronger, negotiate on our own terms, and advocate for ourselves. As for the TPLF, it treats the Agreement primarily as a means to restore its political power, not to address the needs and grievances of the people. This is a grave flaw, and it’s deeply disheartening. The broader demands of the people—justice, territorial integrity, property rights for the displaced, safety and security, and social reintegration—are being ignored. Instead, the Agreement is being manipulated to advance one side’s agenda at the expense of the people. This is why the people of Tigray continue to suffer. Both parties, while claiming to represent Tigray’s interests, are in fact misusing the Agreement for their own ends.
The Pretoria Agreement was meant to restore constitutional order, and it includes provisions for elections, territorial integrity, economic recovery, humanitarian aid, justice, and accountability. However, none of these priorities are being addressed. Both sides are cherry-picking parts of the Agreement to further their own goals, rather than focusing on the needs of the people.
Given the current state of implementation, how is it possible to identify the agendas that are distorting the intentions behind the Agreement. And what steps can be taken to ensure its full execution as originally envisioned?
The Agreement is being manipulated outside its intended framework. The negotiators and responsible bodies must urgently engage with this issue to ensure proper mechanisms are in place for its implementation. Only through this can we restore public confidence in Tigray and show the people that their demands will be met. An inclusive administration is the key.
What we had was a provisional administration, led by Getachew Reda, which was far from inclusive. The people of Tigray and political forces within the region were and are calling for a more representative and institutionally reformed administration—one that is genuinely capable of implementing the agreement. The previous interim administration was formed solely based on the TPLF’s majority, and now it’s time to transition into a new phase.
The term of the Tigray Interim Administration has been extended, and a new President was recently appointed. How do you assess the TIA’s performance since its inception?
The interim administration has strayed from a framework that could effectively address the people’s needs in Tigray. This has resulted in the crisis we see today. Despite the recent extension of the administration’s term, the federal government continues to act unilaterally—sometimes issuing instructions for the people to nominate candidates for the presidency via email, and then installing a leader who comes from a group that controlled the civil administration through military means. This had undermined and disgraced the legitimacy of both the people and the political forces that formed the council.
What Tigray truly needs is an inclusive civil administration—one that engages with the key political forces in the region. Institutions like the Interim Council, formed with public involvement, should be consulted to build public confidence and ensure that the people’s constitutional rights are upheld. What we’re seeing now, however, is a process that disregards these institutions, undermines their legitimacy, and imposes a president whose appointment is not rooted in legal frameworks but rather channeled through a coup d’etat it concluded unilaterally. The federal government has given recognition to this military group that ascended to power through its military strength. This recognition is a bad lesson both for the people of Tigray and the Horn region.
Even if we were to accept this process as legitimate, believe that any remaining political challenges must be addressed through dialogue, moving forward, the interim administration should be inclusive, representative, and cooperative with both the council and political actors. This is our position.
Lieutenant General Tadesse Werede was recently announced as the new President of the Tigray Interim Administration. He has signed a document outlining his commitment to leading the administration. One of the key points in this document involves creating enabling grounds for the people of Tigray, including political actors, to participate in the national dialogue. What is your party’s position on this?
I have reviewed the document, and the point about the National Dialogue caught my attention. Dialogue itself is not inherently problematic. But the question remains: have Tigray’s demands been addressed yet? The people of Tigray are still struggling with the aftermath of war, famine, and immense hardship. They have not returned to normalcy.
Meanwhile, in areas under federal control, the people face harassment and political narratives that deepen divisions rather than foster reconciliation. This is not a dialogue aimed at peace—it is perpetuating conflict. We are witnessing a situation where our people’s suffering is being used as a political tool. In addition, parts of our territory that we assert we must reclaim are being presented as though they’ve been officially transferred to another regional state.
In light of this, it is hard to take the national dialogue seriously. While the new president signed the document, no substantive steps have been taken to address the fundamental issues Tigray faces. We reject this approach.
We are also questioning what other agreements, if any, have been reached beyond this public document. This entire process is leading us to raise serious concerns. The new interim administration, while signing off on this national dialogue, fails to address accountability for war crimes, human rights abuses, territorial integrity, and the restoration of normalcy for our people. Instead, it risks undermining Tigray’s national interests, territorial rights, and even its very identity.
If the goal is political dialogue, we are open to peaceful struggle. But we will not passively accept Tigray being sidelined. We will not stand by while risks to its national interests, territorial integrity, and identity continue to grow. This is not a sustainable path to peace or stable governance. We do not believe that a stable Ethiopia or region can exist without a stable Tigray.
What is your general assessment of the National Dialogue Commission and its potential to address the ongoing issues in Tigray?
First and foremost, we do not recognize this Commission. Neither the people of Tigray nor the region’s political actors understand how it was established or what its ultimate purpose is. We are not aware of its mandate, and there is absolutely no connection between this body and the people of Tigray.
In fact, this disconnect extends beyond the Commission. We have no relationship with the Ethiopian government or any of the so-called democratic institutions. Tigrayans are unrepresented—we are absent from the House of Federation, the House of Peoples’ Representatives, the defense establishment, and every other federal organ.
For a commission to claim it can address Tigray’s issues without the participation, consent, or even recognition of the people is absurd.
Secondly, our grievances far exceed the scope of what the National Dialogue Commission claims it can address. We are talking about genocide. We assert that the government of our own country colluded with foreign forces to commit war crimes and gross human rights violations against us. These are not technicalities to be resolved by procedural dialogue—this is about the fundamental right to self-determination.
Tigrayans have deep political questions. These cannot be resolved through a body created without our involvement and lacking a clear purpose. We do not believe the Commission has the legitimacy or capacity to engage with our concerns.
Given this, we firmly believe our demands lie far beyond the Commission’s mandate. A genuine national dialogue can only begin once our grievances are acknowledged and meaningful steps are taken in line with the Pretoria Agreement. Only then can broader societal dialogue be considered.
Yes, we support dialogue and reconciliation. But the situation in post-war Tigray is neither symbolic nor theoretical. This Commission is offering answers to questions we never asked. The real issue is whether our grievances can be mediated at all—and we do not believe the current Commission is capable of doing so.
As a party, our core belief is that we are a marginalized people with a legitimate claim. We continue to suffer and remain marginalized. Any institution that refuses to recognize the crimes and destruction inflicted upon us cannot be considered a genuine partner in resolving our challenges. That is why we do not recognize or accept this Commission.
Your party has consistently pursued the independence of Tigray since its formation and some reluctance toward national dialogue might be expected. However, the new TIA President has pledged to facilitate Tigray’s participation in the national dialogue. If dialogue proceeds at the regional level, how will your party raise and register the question of self-determination?
One of our primary concerns is ensuring that the right to self-determination is central to any dialogue process. The people of Tigray must be the ones to decide their future—whether to remain part of Ethiopia or not. That decision belongs solely to them. It must be resolved through a process of self-determination.
This is a constitutional right. Tigrayans have paid a heavy price to preserve their ability to decide their fate. That decision must come through peaceful, legal, and political means—through a democratic vote by the people. Any effort to preempt or suppress that right is, in our view, unacceptable.
Our party remains firmly committed to achieving our goals through peaceful and constitutional channels. That is the path we believe in.
That said, we are watching developments closely, particularly regarding the document signed by Lt. Gen. Tadesse. The real question is: Will this agreement be implemented as stated, or will the reality on the ground differ? That is our concern
Following the ceasefire, several institutions were established within Tigray without federal or international involvement. Among them is the Tigray Genocide Inquiry Commission, which announced it would present its findings to the Interim Administration by November and make the report public. The deadline has passed, and the findings remain undisclosed. How do you assess the Commission’s performance and view claims that it lacks legitimacy? Does your party believe it can produce a credible and meaningful report?
We have consistently raised concerns about how the TPLF interprets the Pretoria Agreement solely to serve its own interests. The Commission was supposed to function thoroughly, transparently, and in a manner that ensured justice and accountability. But one of our long-standing concerns is the extent of TPLF influence.
The TPLF has a tendency to shield some actors while targeting others, depending on its agenda. We also know it attempted to manipulate media narratives—guiding some outlets on what to report and what to omit. That is why we advocated for the establishment of an interim council to provide oversight and allow the Commission’s professionals to work independently. But that never materialized. Ironically, the strongest opposition to such a council came from the TPLF itself.
We acknowledge that the Commission includes competent professionals. However, the critical question is: Can they work independently, without TPLF interference?
Our position is that the documentation and investigation of atrocities must be carried out by an international and independent body. Justice and accountability should be pursued through global mechanisms—under the scrutiny of neutral and credible institutions. That is the only path to meaningful and lasting justice.
