Speaking of the current Russia-Ukraine crisis, here is an interesting but less visible international legal dimension to the story.

Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union, during which time it had possessed huge stockpile of nuclear weapons arsenal – actually the third largest stockpile in the world at the time. Russia would not have ventured into Crimea today had Ukraine maintained possession of those nuclear weapons. What happened in 1994 was dramatic, and a bit embarrassing for Ukraine. At the end of the Cold War Ukraine agreed to an international deal that would deprive it of the entire nuclear weapon stockpile in its territory, mostly being transferred to Russia. In exchange, Russia, the US, and UK signed a binding pledge, the so-called Budapest Memorandum, guaranteeing the security of Ukraine. Now, what is interesting about this Memorandum is that it actually contained zero added-value as it offered Ukraine nothing other than what general international law already provided. Let me walk you through all the five articles of this Memorandum (yes it contained only five articles).

Article one states that Russia, USA and UK reaffirm their commitment to ‘to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine’. Why is this promise useless? Because article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which has since become customary international law and even arguably a peremptory norm, already prohibits states from using ‘the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.’ Respecting the territory, independence and sovereignty of Ukraine is a customary international rule, and no additional treaty is needed for that.

Article two of the Memorandum basically repeats the above point, stating that the three powerful states will ‘refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine’, and adds that ‘none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.’ This article seems to waste two clauses to say one and the same thing: what is the difference between ‘refraining from threatening or attacking’ another country and promising one’s ‘weapons won’t be used against’ such other country?  Or the difference between saying ‘I will not attack you’ and ‘none of my equipment will be used to attack you’?  One may say the first formulation concerns the actions of the attacker only while the later formulation creates responsibility on such party for the consequences of its weapons, by whomever the weapons may be used. That is to say, the first clause guarantees Russia, USA, and UK wont attack Ukraine, while the subsequent clause guarantees that the nuclear weapons of these states won’t be used by themselves or any other state against Ukraine. In either case, in as long as the Memorandum only envisages scenarios where the three states would have some control over the use of their nuclear weapons, either by themselves or through proxies, the general international law prohibition on the treat or use of force adequately covers it. A state would be held through the rules of state responsibility even if it uses other states (or non-state actors for that matter) as its proxy to attack another state. In sum, in article two of the Memorandum, Russia, USA, and UK promised not to attack Ukraine – but international law would not have allowed them to even if they had not made that promise.

Article three of the Memorandum guarantees that Russia, USA, and UK would ‘refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty.’ This seems to offer something distinct. Although unacceptable, there is no concrete rule under international law that prohibits the use of economic coercion against states (during the preparation of the UN Charter economic coercion was proposed to be prohibited together with the threat or use of force, but the proposal was rejected). However, the 1975 Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Accords) to which Ukraine and the three powerful states are members already prohibits the use of economic coercion against states. Article three of the Budapest Memorandum, therefore, is simply redundant.

ዛሬ በጠዋቱ ዜናው በሙሉ ከአዲስ አበባ ወደ ሮም ሲጓዝ የነበረን 202 ሰዎችን ያሳፈረ የኢትዮጵያ አውሮፕላን 'መጠለፍ' ጉዳይ ነበር፡፡ የኢትዮጵያ ኮሙንኬሽን ጉዳዮች ሚኒስትር ‹ጠላፊው ካርቱም ላይ የተሳፈረ ሰው ይመስላል› ቢሉም በመጨረሻ አውሮፕላኑ ካርቱም ላይ ከነጭራሹ እንዳላረፈና ጠላፊውም ረዳት ፓይለቱ እንደሆነ ተረጋግጧል፡፡ ረዳት ፓይለቱ ለምን ይሄን ተግባር እንደፈፀመ ሲጠየቅም ኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ መኖር ስጋት ላይ እንደጣለው በመግለፅ፤ ሲዊዘርላንድ ጥገኝነት እንድትሰጠው ጠይቋል፡፡

 ይህ ከሆነ ከጥቂት ሰዓታት በኋላ የስዊዘርላንድ አቃቢ ሕግ መስሪያ ቤት እንደገለፀው ግን ጉዳዩ ጠለፋ (Hijacking) ሳይሁን እገታ ( Hostage Taking) ነው ብሏል፡፡ በሌላ በኩል ረዳት ፓይለቱ ወደ ኢትዮጵያ ተላልፎ እንዳይሰጥ ስዊዝን ተማፅኗል፡፡ ሁለት የህግ ጥያቄዎች አሉ፡

1. ጠለፋ ወይስ እገታ?

2. በረዳት ፓይለቱ ላይ የዳኝነት ስልጣን (Legal Jurisdiction) ያለው አካል ማነው? ኢትዮጵያ ወይስ ስዊዘርላንድ?

እነዚህን ጉዳዮች የሚፈቱልን ሁለት አለማቀፍ ሕጎች አሉ (ኢትዮጵያም ስዊዘርላንድም የሁለትም የሕጎቹ ፈራሚ ሀገራት ናቸው)፡፡

1. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft – Hijacking Convention on Hijacking – 1970 &,

2. International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages – Convention on Hostage taking - 1983.

በነዚህ ሁለት ሕጎች መሰረትም የረዳት ፓይለቱን ሁኔታ (Situation ) እንይ፡፡

1ኛ. ጠለፋ ወይስ እገታ?

ከላይ በመጀመሪያ የጠቀስነው የHijacking Convention 'ጠለፋ'ን በአንቀፅ አንድ ላይ እንዲህ ይፈታዋል:

Any person who on board an aircraft in flight:

unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or by any other form of intimidation, seizes, or exercises control of, that aircraft, or attempts to perform any such act, or is an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform any such act commits an offence [of Hijacking].

በሌላ በኩል ከላይ በሁለተኝነት የጠቀስነው የHostage taking convention 'እገታ'ን በአንቀፅ አንድ ላይ እንዲህ ይተረጉመዋል፡

Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of hostage-taking.

የኢትዮጵያዊው ረዳት ፓይለት ተግባርም ጥገኝነት ለማግኝት ያደረገው ማስገደጃ መሳሪያ በመሆኑ የስዊዘርላንድ አቃቢ ሕግ መስሪያ ቤት እንዳለው ተግባሩ ለእገታ የቀረበ ሲሆን፤ ተጠያቂነቱም ከእገታ ጋር በተያያዘ ይሆናል ማለት ነው፡፡

2ኛ. ኢትዮጵያ ወይስ ስዊዘርላንድ?

ጉዳዩ 'እገታ' ነው ካልን በጉዳዩ ላይ ተገቢ የሆነው ሕግ አለማቀፉ የፀረ እገታ ሰምምነት (Hostage taking convention) ነው ማለት ነው፡፡ በዚህም መሰረት በረዳት ፓይለቱ ላይ የዳኝነት ስልጣን ያለው የየትኛው ሀገር መንግስት ነው? የሚለው ቀጣዩ ጥያቄ ነው፡፡

ሕጉን ጠቅሰን ብናልፍ ይሻላል፡፡ ዓለማቀፉ የHostage taking convention በአንቀፅ አራት ላይ እንዲህ ይደነግጋል፡

State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offence and any other act of violence against passengers or crew committed by the alleged offender in connection with the offence, in the following cases:

A. when the offence is committed on board an aircraft registered in that State (በዚህ መሰረት ኢትዮጵያ ስልጣን ይኖራታል);

B. when the aircraft on board which the offence is committed lands in its territory with the alleged offender still on board (በዚህ መሰረት ደግሞ ስዊዘርላንድ ስልጣን ይኖራታል ማለት ነው).

ስለዚህም በጉዳዩ ላይ የሁለት ሀገሮች የዳኝነት ስልጣን ያለ ሲሆን፤ ኢትዮጵያ የአውሮፕላኑ ባለቤት በመሆኗ፣ ስዊዘርላንድ ደግሞ አውሮፕላኑ በግዛቷ በማረፉ ስልጣን አላት ማለት ነው፡፡ በዚህ ጊዜ ማን ቀዳሚ ስልጣን ይኖረዋል? የሚለው የሚወሰነው ተጠርጣሪውን (በአሁኑ ጉዳይ ረዳት ፓይለቱ) በቁጥጥር ስር ቀድሞ በማዋል የሚወሰን ሲሆን በአሁኑ ጉዳይ ላይ የዳኝነት ስልጣኑ የስዊዘርላንድ ነው ማለት ነው፡፡

መውጫ፡

ኢትዮጵያ ተጠርጣሪው ተላልፎ እንዲሰጣት (Extradition) በፀረ እገታ ሰምምነቱ አንቀፅ 7ና 8 መሰረት መብት ቢኖራትም ኢትዮጵያና ስዊዘርላንድ የአሳልፎ የመስጠት ስምምነት (Extradition agreement) ስለሌላቸው (እኔ እስከማውቀው ድረስ) ተላልፎ የመሰጠት ጉዳዩ ብዙም አድል የለውም፡፡ የስዊዘርላንድ አቃቢ ሕግ መስሪያ ቤትም ከአሁኑ ክስ ለመመስረት ጉዳዩን እያጣራ እንደሆነ መልለጫ ሰጥቷል፡፡ 

በመጨረሻም:

ረዳት ፓይለቱ ጥፋተኛ ሆኖ ከተገኝ በስዊዘርላንድ የወንጀል ሕግ SR 311.0 አንቀፅ 185 መሰረት ከ3 ዓመት እስከ 20 ዓመት (እንደ ነገሩ ሁኔታ) የሚደርስ ቅጣት ይጠብቀዋል፡፡ በሌላ በኩል 'ድንገት' ተላልፎ ለኢትዮጵያ ቢሰጥ ደግሞ በኢትዮጵያ የወንጀል ሕግ አንቀፅ 507/1 መሰረት ከ15 አስከ 20 ዓመታት እስር ይጠብቀዋል ማለት ነው፡፡ 

እንግዲህ ምን ይደረጋል፤ ፈጣሪ ከእሱ ጋር ይሁን? :) 

In 2002, when I was doing my undergraduate degree, our contract law teacher started talking about period of limitation and its effect. I neither had a concept nor an argument about period of limitation under art 1845 of the civil code. I attended the whole class, tried to understand arguments, justifications and ration d’être of the period of limitation. Mulugeta Mengist, in his monograph says that period of limitation is used to ensure certainty and predictability in transactions.

ፕሬዝደንቱ የስልጣን ጊዜአቸውን ጨርሰው ከሥልጣን ሊወርዱ የወራት ወይም የቀናት ዕድሜ ነው የቀራቸው። ከሥልጣን ከመውረዳቸው በፊት ግን ለወደፊት ሕይወታቸው ገንዘብ ለመሰብሰብ የሚያስችላቸው አንድ አጋጣሚ ከፊታቸው ተደቅኗል። ይህ በሚሊዮን የሚቆጠር ዶላር የሚያስገኝ አጋጣሚ አሁን ባላቸው የፕሬዝዳንትነት ስልጣን ሊያደርጉት የሚችሉት ነገር ነው። ይህ አጋጣሚ “ፕሬዝደንታዊ ይቅርታ” (Presidential pardon) ነው። እስረኛው ይህንን ይቅርታ አግኝቶ ከእስር ከተፈታ የሚከፍለው ገንዘብ እጅግ ብዙ በመሆኑ በሥልጣን ደላላዎች (Power brokers) አማካኝነት ገንዘቡን ተቀብሎ የይቅርታ ሰነዶቹ ላይ ፈረመ።

ከላይ ያነበባችሁት ታሪክ ሕግ ነክ ልብወለዶችን በመፃፍ የሚታወቀው John Grisham የተባለው ደራሲ “The Broker” በተሰኘው መፅሃፉ ውስጥ ከፃፈው ታሪክ በአጭሩ የተቀነጨበውን ነው። ደራሲው ይህንን ሲፅፍ ለመነሻነት ይሆኑት ዘንድ የተለያዩ ሁኔታዎችን ግምት ውስጥ አስገብቶ ነው። ከነዚህ ሁኔታዎች አንዱ የአሜሪካ ፕሬዝደንቶች ይቅርታ ይሸጣሉ ተብሎ በተለያየ ጊዜ የተነገረው ነገር ነው። በተለያዩ ትልልቅ የወንጀል ጉዳዮች ተከሰው የተፈረደባቸው እና እስር ላይ ያሉ የግዙፍ ኩባንያዎች ባለቤቶች እና ስራ አስኪያጆች እንዲሁም ሌሎች ጠቃሚ ሰዎች እና ባለሀብቶች ደግሞ የዚህ የይቅርታ ንግድ ተጠቃሚዎች ናቸው። ከዚህ በፊት የነበረውን አሰራር ስንመለከት ደግሞ ፕሬዝዳንቶቹ የይቅርታ ውሳኔ የሚሰጡት የስልጣን ዘመናቸው ማምሻ ላይ ነው።

ይህንንም ለማስረዳት የተለያዩ ስታቲስቲክሶች የሚጠቀሱ ሲሆን ከነዚህም ውስጥ ፕሬዝዳንት ቢል ክሊንተን ሌላ ማናቸውም ዲሞክራት ፕሬዝደንት ካደረገው ይቅርታ ሁሉ የሚልቅ ይቅርታዎች አድረዋል፤ በቁጥር ሲቀመጥም ለ450 ሰዎች ይቅርታ አድርገዋል (ከነዚህ ውስጥ 140ዎቹ ሙሉ ይቅርታ ያገኙ ሲሆኑ የተቀሩት ከተለያዩ ቅድመ ሁኔታዎች ጋር የተደረጉ ናቸው)። ይሀንን ያደረጉት ደግሞ በመጨረሻዋ የስልጣን ቀናቸው እ.ኤ.አ. መስከረም 20 ቀን 2001 ላይ ነው። የነዚህን የይቅርታ ውሳኔዎች እንዲያጣሩ ሁለት የተለያዩ የፌዴራል ዓቃብያነ ሕግ ተሹመው ፕሬዝደንት ክሊንተንን ነፃ ናቸው የሚል ውሳኔ አቅርበዋል። ይሁን እንጂ ኋላ ላይ እ.ኤ.አ. 2006 ላይ የፖለቲካ እና የፍትህ አካላት ባለሥልጣናትን የሞራል ደረጃ ማሳደግ ላይ የሚሰራ Judicial Watch የተባለ ቡድን የፕሬዝደንት ቢል ክሊንተን ባለቤት የሂላሪ ክሊንተን ወንድም የሆነው ቶኒ ሮድሃም በነዚያ የመጨረሻ ቀናት ከተደረጉት ይቅርታዎች ከአንዱ 107,000 (አንድ መቶ ሰባት ሺህ) የአሜሪካን ዶላር ተቀብሏል በማለት እንዲከሰስለት ለአሜሪካ የፍትህ ቢሮ አመልክቶ ነበር።

ለዚህ ጽሁፍ መነሻ የሆነኝ በቅርቡ በማህበራዊ ሚዲያዎች ላይ የኦሮሞ ፌዴራላዊ ዴሞክራሲያዊ ንቅናቄ (ኦፌዴን) ም/ሊቀመንበርና የኢትዮጵያ ፌዴራላዊ ዴሞክራሲያዊ መድረክ ስራ አስፈፃሚ የነበሩት አቶ በቀለ ገርባ የእስር ጊዜያቸውን ጨርሰው አልተፈቱም በሚል የተሰራጨው ዜና ነው። አቶ በቀለ ገርባ “ሕጋዊ የፖለቲካ ፓርቲን ሽፋን በማድረግ የአሸባሪ ቡድን የሆነው ኦነግ አባል ሆነዋል” የሚል ክስ ቀርቦባቸው በክሱም ጥፋተኛ ተብለው የተወሰነባቸውን የ8 ዓመት እስራት በይግባኝ ወደ 5 ዓመት እስራት አስቀይረው ነበር። ከዚህ የእስር ጊዜ ውስጥም ሶስቱን አመት ጨርሰው በአመክሮ ይፈቱ ዘንድ ያቀረቡት ጥያቄ «ተገቢውን» መልስ ባለማግኘቱ በማህበራዊ ሚዲያዎች የተለያዩ ጥያቄዎች ሲቀርቡ ተስተውሏል። አቶ በቀለ ገርባ ለምን ከእስር አልተፈቱም? መፈታትስ ነበረባቸው? ለነዚህ ጥያቄዎች ምላሹን ከሃገራችን ህግጋት እንመልከት።

በአመክሮ የመለቀቅ ሥነሥርዓት

World Trade Organization (WTO) was established with the main objective of liberalizing multilateral trade, based on the belief that the liberalization of trade brings multiple of benefits to the world population. To this end, the preamble to the Agreement Establishing the WTO (Marrakesh Agreement), provides that “[t]he Parties to this Agreement, recognizing that their relations in the field of trade and economic [endeavor] should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand.” Countries   also join it on the belief that a liberal trade regime will confer these benefits upon those who become members. Moreover, it is noted that the establishment of the WTO in 1995 represented a shift from a multilateral trading system based on diplomacy under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) regime to one that operates under the rule of law. On the other hand, it is argued that the guidelines of accession process under Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement are vague and making the accession process demanding and time consuming. It is also contended that the absence of clear guidelines of accession to the WTO has been allowing current Member states to impose “WTO+” obligations on acceding countries, which is more burdensome especially on least developing countries.

 Nepal and Cambodia are among the poorest countries in the world and they were   the first least developed countries (LDCs) to be acceded to the WTO since it was founded in 1995. Their application for membership was motivated by a desire to ensure predictable market access and become eligible for the special concessions available to LDCs under WTO rules. Moreover, the countries hoped to use accession to the WTO as an incentive for accelerating domestic economic, legal and institutional reforms to create a stable business environment and attract foreign direct investment. However, an analysis of their terms of accession confirms the general trend of exacting significant “WTO+” concessions by the developed members from acceding countries although they were agreed to facilitate and accelerate negotiations with acceding LDCs at the 2001 Launch of the Doha Round of trade negotiation.

 Currently, Ethiopia is also in the process of accession to the WTO. Needless to state, WTO accession is not an end in itself but a means to achieve greater national economic development objectives. On the other hand, the process of accession and terms of commitments have been found so demanding and the potential prospects of being a member of the WTO are mixed with potential challenges. As what is accepted during the bilateral negotiation phase finally  binds an acceding country, it would be wise to carefully and strategically negotiate favorable terms rather than rushing to agree to all onerous terms which compromises the national development objectives instead of bringing the anticipated benefits of membership. To this end, learning from the experiences of other countries, notably LDCs, which have passed through the same process while acceding to the WTO, would be significant.

 This article examines the experiences of Cambodia and Nepal during the accession process, accession commitments, and accession implementation with a view to identifying some lessons that can be helpful to other acceding LDCs, particularly Ethiopia, devise successful strategies and avoid some of the mistakes in an effort to gain maximum benefit from their WTO membership. The article contains three parts. Part one deals with the WTO Accession process so briefly. The second part assesses the experiences of Nepal and Cambodia during their accession process, accession negotiations and accession implementation. The last part produces some lessons that can be relevant to Ethiopia and other LDCs from the experiences of Nepal and Cambodia as well as possible recommendations. The study mainly employs secondary data.

Seerrii yakkaa meeshaa dudhaalee hawaasa tokko (adda addaa) kan calaqisiisuu fi tarkaanfachiisuu dha. Yakkii yeroo kamiyyuu hawaasa keessatti uummamuu kan danda’u waan ta’eef kanaan wal-qabate adabbii yakkamtoota irratti fudhatamuun isaa waan haafu miti. Kana taanaan akkaata murtiin adabbii ittiin murtaa’u waliin wal qabatee qabxiilee ka’uu qaban keessaa kaayyoon seera yakka nageenyafi tasgabbii hawaasa eeguuf akka meeshatti kan gargaaru ta’uu isaati. Hawaasicha kan eeguus yakkii akka hin raawwatamne ittisuun yoo ta’uu, kanas karaa ittin galmaan gahu keessaa tokko adabbiidha. Raawwattoonni yakka adabamuun isaanii, yakka biraa raawwachuu irraa akka of qusatan kan isaan taasisuu yommuu ta’u, darbees namoota yakka raawwataniifis akeekkachiisa ta’a.

Gama yakkoota muraasaatiin adabbiin hidhaa yookiin du’aa kan raawwatamu yoo ta’es yaadni inni duraa balleessitoonni yeroodhaaf ykn itti fufinsaan hawaasa irratti yakka akka hin raawwanne ittisuudha.  Akkas yommuu ta’us, adabbii du’aa irraa kan hafe balleessitoonni adabbiin hidhaa umurii guutuu itti murta’e yoo ta’anillee adabbii isaanii otoo hin fixiin korooraan gadi lakkifamuu ni danda’u. Gama yakkoota tokko tokkootiinis murtiin adabbii otoo hin kennamiin yookiin adabbiin yoo murta’es otoo hin raawwatamiin balleessitoonni daangaadhaan gadi lakkifamu ni danda’u. Kunis balleessitoonni jireenya nagaa akka gaggeessan kan taasisu yoo ta’uu; seerrii yakkiichaa balleessitoonni badii isaaniirraa akka barataniif iddoo ol’aanaa kennuu isaa agarsiisa.

Seeronni yakkaa biyyoota adda addaa adabbiilee gocha yakkaa rawwatamu hordofani dhufan kan of-keessatti kaa’an yoo ta’ellee adabbii hangam, gochafi yakkamaa akkamiitiif murtaa’u akka qabu jalamuranii hin kaa’ani. Seeronni yakka kun Abbootii Seeraatiif aangoo adabbii murtessuu bal’aa ta’ee kan kennaan waan ta’eef gochaafi yakkamaa wal-fakkaatu irratti adabbii gara garaa yeroo murtaa’u qabatamaan mul’achaa turera.  

Rakkoo kanarraa kan ka’ee adabbii yakkamtoota irratti kennamu sirrii fi kan wal-fakkaatu gochuudhaaf /dhimmoota walfakkaatan irratti adabbii walfakkaata karaa itti murteessan mijeessuuf/ Manni Murtii Waliigalaa Federaalaa Qajeelfama Adabbii Itoophiyaa 1/2002 baasudhaan Caamsaa Bara 2002 irraa ka’ee hojiitti galamee jira. Haata’u malee qajeelfamni kun rakkoo adda addaatiif kan saaxilamee ta’uu isaa hojii keessatti waan hubatameef gama tokkoon rakkoolee qabatamaan mul’atan kana furuudhaaf, karaa biraatiin immoo yakkoota muraasa sadarkaa fi gulantaa hin baaneef sadarkaa fi gulantaa baasuun barbaachiisaa ta’uun isaa waan itti amanameef qajeelfamni dur ture fooya’ee akka bahu taasifameera.  Kaayyyoon moojuuli kun qabus qajeelfama adabbii haaraa bahe kana beeksiisun hojii irraa olmaa isaatiif deegarsa barabaachisu hunda gochuudha.

Caasseffamni moojulii kanaa boqonnaa Sadiitti kan qoqqoodame yoo ta’uu boqonnaa tokkoffaa keessatti waa’ee adabbii akka waliigalaatti kan ilaalamu ta’e walitti dhufeenya adabbii fi bulchiinsii sirna haqaa qaban, murtessuu adabbii bu’aa qabeessa gochuudhaaf seeroota fi imaammata biyya keenya keessatti diriiran ni ilaalamu. Kanamalees adabbii murtessuu wajjiin wal-qabatee muuxannoowwan biyyoota adda addaa maal akka fakkaatu ni ilaalamu. Boqonnaa Lamaffaa keessatti qajeeltoowwan adabbii seera yakka Itoophiyaa, rakkowwaan qajeelfama adabbii Itoophiyaa 1/2002 keessatti mul’atan fi dhimootni waligalaa qajeelfama adabbii isaa haaraa keessatti hammataman kan ilaalaman ta’a. Kanamalees yakkoota qajeelfama adabbii kanaan sadarkaa fi gulantaan baheef keessaa kanneen qajeelfama adabbii 1/2002 keessatti sadarkaan baheef qajeelfama isa haaraa keessatti akka fooyya’an taasifaman boqonnaa kana jalatti haammatamaniiru. Boqonnaa sadaffaan guutumaan guutuutti yakkoota haaraa sadarkaan isaaniif qopha’ee irratti kan xiyeefate yommuu ta’u, waa’ee sababoota adabbii cimsaniifi salphisan boqonnaa kana jalatti gadifageenyaan xiinxalameera.Kunis leenjifamtoonni yakkoota sadarkaan baheefi hin banee addaan baasuun bu’uura qajeelfamiichaatiin akkamitti gara hojiitti jijjiru akka danda’amu hubannoo guutuu ta’e akka horatan ni taasisa.

የኦሮሞ ፌዴራላዊ ዴሞክራሲያዊ ንቅናቄ (ኦፌዴን) ምክትል ሊቀመንበርና የኢትዮጵያ ፌደራላዊ ዴሞክራሲያዊ መድረክ ስራ አስፈፃሚ የነበሩት “ህጋዊ የፖለቲካ ፓርቲን ሽፋን በማድረግ  የአሸባሪ ቡድን የሆነው ኦነግ አባል ሆነዋል” በሚል ክስ ተመስርቶባቸው የ8 ዓመት እሥር የተበየነባቸው ሲሆን፤ ይግባኝ ጠይቀው እስሩ ወደ 5 ዓመት ዝቅ ተደርጎላቸዋል፡፡

ከ5 ዓመቱ የእስር ጊዜ ውስጥም 3ቱን ዓመት በመጨረሳቸው በአመክሮ ይፈቱ ዘንድ ለማረሚያ ቤቱ ያመለከቱ ሲሆን ማረሚያ ቤቱም ‹አመክሮ መስጠትም አለመስጠትም መብታችን ነው›  በማለት እስከአሁን ሊፈታቸው አልቻለም፡፡ ይህም ብዙ ጥያቄዎችን አስነስቷል፡፡

አንዳንድ ህጋዊ ሁኔታዎች ስለጉዳዩ፡

አመክሮ ምንደር ነው?

ሌላውን ትርጉም ትተን የኢትዮጵያ የወንጀል ሕግ ‹በተወሰነ ጊዜ በአመክሮ መፈታት› በሚለው ክፍል በተለይም በአንቀፅ 202 እንደደነገገው፡

"ተቀጭው ከተወሰነበት የእስራት ጊዜ ከሶስት እጅ ሁለቱን እጅ ወይም ፍርዱ የእድሜ ልክ እስራት ሲሆን ሀያ ዓመት በፈፀመ ጊዜ አግባብ ባለው አካል ወይም በጥፋተኛው አሳሳቢነት ጥፋተኛውን ከቅጣቱ ነፃ ያወጣዋል፡፡"

ይህም ማለት አመክሮ 2/3ኛውን የቅጣት ጊዜውን የጨረሰ ታራሚ ከእስር የሚፈታበት አሰራር ነው፡፡ 

አመክሮ ለማግኝት ምን መስፈርት ማሟላት ያስፈልጋል?

የኢትዮጵያ የወንጀል ሕግ ከላይ በጠቀስነው አንቀፅ 202 ላይ አመክሮ ለማግኝት አንድ እስረኛ ማሟላት የሚያስፈልገውን መስፈርቶች ይዘረዝራል፡፡ ይህም፡

- ‹ታራሚው በስራ ጠባዩ የተረጋገጠ መሻሻል አሳይቶ እንደሆነ…›

- ‹ካሳ የመክፈል ግዴታ ተጥሎበት ከነበረና ካሳውን መክፈሉ የተረጋገጠ እንደሆነ…›

- ‹አመሉና ጠባዩ መልካም አኗኗር ለመኖር የሚያስችለውና በአመክሮ መፈታቱ መልካም ውጤት ሊያስገኝ ይችላል ተብሎ የታመነ እንደሆነ..›

ነው ብሎ ይደነግጋል፡፡

ማረሚያ ቤት ወይስ ፍርድ ቤት?

ታራሚን በአመክሮ የመልቀቅ የመጨረሻው ስልጣን የፍርድ ቤት፡፡ ነገር ግን ጉዳዩን ማረሚያ ቤቱ በራሱ ተነሳሽነት ወይም በታራሚው አሳሳቢነት ለፍርድ ቤት ሲያቀርብ ነው ፍርድ ቤቱ ውሳኔ የሚሰጠው፡፡ እዚህ ላይ ማረሚያ ቤቱ ትልቁን ስልጣን ይዞ እናገኛለን፡፡ ማረሚያ ቤቱ ለፍርድ ቤት ማቅረብ ካልፈለገ ሊተወው የሚችልበት አግባብ አለ ማለት ነው፡፡ ነገር ግን ማረሚያ ቤቱ በሕግ ስር ያለ አካል እንደመሆኑ መጠን በወንጀል ሕጉ አንቀፅ 202 ላይ የተቀመጡ መስፈርቶችን ላሟላ ታራሚ አመክሮ ሊከለክል አይችልም - የታራሚው መብት ነውና!

በቀለ ገርባስ?

አቶ በቀለ ገርባ ከተፈረደባቸው የአምስት ዓመት እስር ውስጥ 2/3ኛውን ወይም 3 ዓመት የሚሆነውን ጨርሰው የአመክሮ ጥያቄያቸው በማረሚያ ቤቱ በኩል ለፍርድ ቤት እንዲቀርብላቸው ቢጠይቁም ማረሚያ ቤቱ  ‹አመክሮ መስጠትም አለመስጠትም መብታችን ነው› የሚል መልስ እንደሰጣቸው ተሰምቷል፡፡ 

1ኛ. አመክሮ መስጠት የማረሚያ ቤት መብት ሳይሆን ግዴታም ጭምር ነው፡፡ መስፈርቱን ያሟላ ታራሚ አመክሮ የማግኝት መብት ያለው መሆኑ በሌላ በኩል አመክሮ ሰጭውን አካል ላይ ግዴታ ይጥላልና፡፡

2ኛ ሌላው አቶ በቀለ ገርባ መስፈርቱን አሟልተዋል ወይስ አላሟሉም የሚለው ጥያቄ ነው፡፡ 2/3ኛውን የእስር ጊዜ መጨረስ የሚለውን Objective መስፈርት እንዳሟሉ ግልፅ ሲሆን፡፡ ችግሩ የተፈጠረው Subjective መስፈርቱ ጋር በተያያዘ ነው፡፡ ይህም ማለት በእስር ወቅት መልካም ፀባይ አሳይተዋል ወይስ አላሳዩም የሚለው ጥያቄ ነው፡፡ አንድ ታራሚ በእስር ወቅት ለመልካም ፀባይ ተቃራኒ የሆኑ ነገሮችን ካሳየ የቅጣት ማስጠንቀቂያ ከመፃፍ እስከ ብቻውን ማሰር (Solitary Confinement) ድረስ ያሉ እርምጃዎች በማረሚያ ቤቱ ሊወሰዱበት ይችላሉ፡፡

 አቶ በቀለ ገርባ ከፀባያቸው ጋር በተያያዘ ምንም አይነት ቅጣት ያልተወሰደባቸው ከመሆኑም ሌላ መልካም ፀባይ እንዳሳዩ ከማረሚያ ቤቱ እንደተነገራቸው ራሳቸው ገልፀዋል፡፡ በቀለ ገርባ ምም መስፈር አሟልተዋል ማለት ነው፡፡ ታዲያ ምን ይሆን አቶ በቀለን በአመክሮ ከመፈታት ያገዳቸው?

አንዳንድ ነገሮች...

ባለው አካሄድ አብዛኛው ታራሚዎች በአመክሮ ይፈታል፡፡ ከሌባ እስከ ሙሰኛ፡፡ High Profile በሆኑ ክሶች የተከሰሱ ሰዎች ሳይቀሩ በአመክሮ ሲፈቱ እንደነበር እናስታውሳለን ለምሳሌ ቴዲ አፍሮ 24 ወራት ተፈርዶበት 16 ወራትን ጨርሶ በአመክሮ ተፈቷል፡፡ አቶ አሰፋ አብርሃ 9 ዓመት ተፈርዶባቸው ሰባት ዓመታት ታስረው ከብዙ ውዝግብ በኋላ በአመክሮ ተፈተዋል፡፡ በሌላ በኩል በቅንጅት ክስ ስር ተከሰው የነበሩት አቶ ዳንኤል በቀለና አቶ ነፃነት ደምሴ 30 ወራት የተፈረደባቸው ሲሆን 20 ወራትን በእስር አሳልፈው አመክሮ ቢጠይቁም ማረሚያ ቤቱ ‹ፍርዳችሁን ጨርሳችሁ ውጡ› በሚል ምክንያት አመክሮ ከልክሏቸው ነበር፡፡ 

እንግዲህ አቶ በቀለ ገርባ በሕጉ የተቀመጠውን መስፈርት አሟልተው እያለ በአመክሮ የመፈታት መብታቸው አልተከበረም ወይም ማረሚያ ቤቱ ግዴታውን ሊወጣ አልፈለገም!

Seenaa adabbii yakka yoo ilaalle, adabbiin balleessaa adda addaa hordofuun kennamaa ture baay’ee suukaneessaa fi kaayyoo sirna haqaa yakka hammayyaa irraa kan fagaate ture. Adabbiin haala akkasiin kennamaa ture qajeeltoowwanii fi ulaagaalee seera yakka, mirga dhala namaa fi bulchiinsa sirna haqaa yakka kan hin hordofnee fi gonkumaa sirnaa fi qajeeltoo ittiin hogganamu kan hin qabne ture. Haata’u malee, guddina sirna seeraa adda addaa fi dagaagina gaaffii mirga dhala namaa wajjin qajeeltoowwan seera yakkaa fi adabbiin yakkaas guddachaa dhufaniiru.Seerotni adabbii yakkaas adeemsaan boca qabachaa fi qajeeltoowwan bu’uuraa ittiin hogganaman uummachaa deemuun yeroo ammaa kana adabbiin yakkaa haala kabaja mirga namummaa yakkamtootaa hin tuqneen, galma fi kaayyoo seera yakkaa fi bulchiinsa sirna haqaa yakka galmeessisuu danda’utti qophaa’ee fi diriiree jira, raawwiin isaa rakkoo haa qabaatuyyuu malee.

In a business world, business persons boldly strive to get the patronage or custom of consumers to survive and amassed the hefty of benefit in the market. As the business environment exposed to stiff and harsh competition market actors conclude various types of arrangements or agreement to be successful in the market. Among those business arrangements which business persons routinely entered, merger is the one.

The Ethiopian law of tax enforcement experienced a drastic change following the tax reforms of the 2002. Introduction of self-executing tax enforcement mechanisms was among the grand shifts in the country’s tax system. Previously, the only means of ensuring prompt and certain collection of delinquent taxes was through the time taking judicial proceeding. The disapproved judicial means of enforcing delinquent taxes is now replaced by a self-executing enforcement scheme called ‘tax foreclosure.’

Tax foreclosure is by and large an out of court means of recovering delinquent taxes by seizing and selling the asset of delinquent taxpayers’ property. It involves a series of legally inscribed condition precedents that need to be followed in the foreclosure processes. In this article, an attempt is made to closely look at the legal regime governing tax foreclosure in Ethiopia.

Owing to its novelty in the Ethiopian tax system, this article seeks to shed light on the rules governing the foreclosure processes in Ethiopia slightly informed by comparative law. In this respect, the US practice is selected on account of considerable commonalities with the Ethiopian law of tax enforcement.

The very fact that tax foreclosure is a self-executing enforcement scheme could also be a legitimate reason to write about it as both the judge and the enforcer is the tax authority. Undoubtedly, there might be some interest of taxpayers that may be mishandled in the course of foreclosure processes. In this context, the article will draw attention to some lacunas in the foreclosure rules that might be areas of concern. The other aim of this article is to question the constitutionality of tax foreclosure in Ethiopia with respect to some constitutional rights of taxpayers. Since the practice of foreclosing delinquent taxpayer’s property is yet undeveloped, the article is unfortunate to review the implementation of the tax foreclosure regime on the ground.

Accordingly, the article is categorized into five sections. The first section is an introductory part that introduces the various forms of foreclosure followed by a brief discussion on the meaning and nature of tax foreclosure in the second section. In the third section, it will discuss the series of procedures that are involved in tax foreclosure proceedings. The Last section of the article will endeavor to test the constitutionality of the tax foreclosure regime. Finally, a brief conclusion and recommendations will ensue.