Engaging Constructively Human Rights Defenders

The suspension of some four prominent human rights organizations operating in Ethiopia over the past month has set the alarm bells ringing among the human rights community both at home and abroad. According to the affected organizations, the regulatory Authority for Civil Society Organizations (ACSO) suspended them based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations of ‘lack of political neutrality’ and ‘engaging in activities contrary to the national interest’. The suspension of the organizations has far-reaching implications not only for the organizations themselves but also the fundamental rights of the Ethiopian populace, the accountability of the government, and the global perception of Ethiopia’s commitment to human rights and democracy. If, as the organizations claim, the Authority used these nebulous accusations to halt their operations indefinitely, it amounts to an infringement of the fundamental rights of association and freedom of expression. Understanding the ramifications requires a multi-faceted approach, considering the historical context, the present circumstances, and potential solutions.

Concerns about the specter of an unwarranted intrusion by the government have risen ever since Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD) leveled a veiled threat against Ethiopian human rights organizations during a parliamentary question-and-answer session with lawmakers in July. Although he did not single out any institution, he accused them, the premiere seemed peeved by the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC), accusing them, without providing any details or proof, of advocating the agendas of foreign interests, adding the reports they issue are unduly used for political end. His remarks seem to be a preview to the measures his administration would take months later. The allegations cited by ACSO are by no means the first time they have been employed to impose restrictions on human rights organizations; Ethiopian authorities have long resorted to them as tools to stifle civil society organizations.

Ethiopia has a complex history, marked by periods of conflict, authoritarian rule, and civil strife. The 2018 ascension of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed initially raised hopes for political reform and a new era of respect for human rights. His administration initiated various reforms aimed at liberalizing the political landscape, setting in motion the release of political prisoners, the return of exiled political leaders and journalists to Ethiopia, and the annulment of draconian laws that constricted the enjoyment of basic freedoms. The democratic gains these measures represented proved to be short-lived though. Tensions resurfaced not long after he rose to power, prompting outright civil war and other forms of conflicts that have engendered one of the worst humanitarian crises the nation has faced in its modern history. The country’s institutions of democracy—the EHRC, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the National Electoral Board—as well as local rights advocates and international human rights bodies have all issued a stream of damning reports demonstrating  that egregious violations of constitutionally protected rights continue to be rife even after the premier came to office. Given the vital role human rights organizations play in documenting abuses and advocating for vulnerable population, the recent suspension can be seen as a regression from the progress hoped for after political reforms.

The immediate impact of suspending human rights organizations is that it creates a vacuum in monitoring and reporting abuses. Without these organizations, there will be less pressure on the government to uphold the rule of law and respect for civil liberties. Rights violations thus are liable to occur without the scrutiny of watchdogs that previously exposed such actions. The absence of human rights defenders, which serve as a bridge between the government and the populace, also suppresses civil society and limits the avenues through which citizens can express dissent or seek accountability. This can lead to a culture of fear and silence, discouraging public discourse on human rights issues. The suspension further signals a retreat from accountability on the part of the government, potentially triggering widespread public disillusionment and loss of faith in democratic processes and the rule of law. Moreover, it damages Ethiopia’s standing on the international stage and a reconsideration of donor countries’ diplomatic relationships with it or aid strategies. The possible likelihood of sanctions or cuts in funding, albeit low, is apt to have dire economic repercussions.

As Ethiopia’s human rights record worsens after a brief improvement, it’s not too late for the government to atone for its failure to honor the promises it made to Ethiopians that the democratic reforms it initiated would be deepened. Accordingly, it is incumbent on it to engage constructively with human rights organizations and commit itself to foster a culture of accountability. It’s only then that Ethiopians’ aspiration for a nation where the ideals of democracy and justice are truly cherished can be realized.