In defiance of pleas from journalists, civil society groups, and rights advocates, Parliament last week passed a controversial amendment to the Working Media Proclamation with only one MP voting against what many have called a repressive piece of legislation.
Legal experts, critics, and media professionals, including the Ethiopian Media Council (EMC) have warned that the new law opens the door for political interference, silences public voices, and hands the Media Authority’s Director-General sweeping powers against the board over matters pertaining to complaints against the press.
The bill shifts major responsibilities previously handled by the board of the Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA), including the right to choose the Director-General, to the Prime Minister. It also holds media outlets directly responsible for the content of live broadcasts.
Many fear this will further erode the already fragile space for independent journalism, portraying a stark contrast to the honeymoon period it experienced in the wake of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s ascent to office.
Analysts observe that press freedom over the last seven years reflects a complex and contradictory pattern, wavering between the boundaries of authoritarian relapse and reformist rhetoric.
– Advertisement –
The initial optimism surrounding press freedom, which was also shared by members of the media, led many to overlook early tell-tale signs such as the abrupt closure of the Ethiopian News Network (ENN).
The country’s first private news-focused television station was among the first to go, shutting down merely three months after the PM took the helm in mid 2018.
ENN’s demise was not widely seen as something indicative of the pressure that would descend upon the independent media, as Abiy’s administration was concurrently presenting and ratifying legal frameworks that were slated to pave the way to unprecedented levels of press freedom.
While the government initially introduced what appeared to be sweeping reforms—most notably the 2021 Media Proclamation, which aimed to institutionalize media independence by granting the EMA greater autonomy.
Media professionals who spoke with The Reporter argued that those gains have been significantly rolled back by the newly amended proclamation, which was first presented to Parliament in November 2024.
During public discussions over the proposed changes, representatives from human rights organizations, civil society organizations (CSOs), media professionals and MPs praised key provisions in the original proclamation designed to insulate the EMA from political influence.
It dictated that the EMA board must include two members from CSOs, two from the media, two from relevant institutions, and three from relevant government organs. Under the old law, board members could not affiliate with political parties and were beholden to a transparent, participatory process (involving public input) in nominating a Director-General for parliamentary approval.
However, the new bill has dismantled these safeguards.
Under the revised law, the power to appoint the EMA Director-General now rests with the Office of the Prime Minister—a move that centralizes authority within the executive. Transparency requirements for board nominations have been removed, and the ban on political party affiliation for board members has been lifted altogether.
Media professionals argue that even before the amendment took effect, the government had already begun appointing individuals with ruling party affiliations to the EMA board, in direct violation of the existing legal text, only to use the same matter as a center of its defense over the need for an amendment.
The new law, rather than correcting this breach, legalizes it. It paves the way for formalizing a reality in which independent oversight is subservient to political expediency.
Some involved in the amendment process present a more measured view.
Solomon Goshu, a prominent media practitioner who coordinated the team of experts that conducted the research underpinning the 2021 proclamation told The Reporter that the revision was driven by a desire to strengthen—not erode—the EMA’s professional capacity, but maintains that the same cannot be said for the media’s independence.
“The 2021 amendment process was led by independent experts who drew on international standards and best practices,” Solomon said. “The idea was to ensure that the regulatory authority is composed of individuals with professionally tailored, requisite qualifications—people who meet the standards and exercise powers and responsibilities with institutional independence.”
According to him, the core intent of the 2024 revision was to redefine EMA’s internal structures, not dismantle the original proclamation.
“Now, the essence of the current amendment lies in reformulating the Authority’s power and structure,” he explained. “It re-addresses what the relationship between the board and the executive head, the Director-General, must look like while also making changes on who holds decision-making responsibility on what issues.”
He stressed that the revision is not a wholesale repeal: “It’s important to note that this is not a full overhaul of the proclamation. Rather, it is a targeted revision”.
Still, Solomon acknowledged the tension surrounding one of the most controversial changes.
“One new provision stipulates that members of political parties can now serve as board members,” he noted, adding that this was a significant departure from the standards set in the 2021 version. “When we drafted the original version, we managed to put in a provision that firmly stood against that.”
That provision, Solomon explained, was rooted in Ethiopia’s political history and intended to protect media oversight from partisan interests.
“The agreed-upon principle in that article stemmed from the country’s historical experience. It was meant to safeguard the independence and neutrality of the board, especially when investigating and making decisions about complaints raised on media reporting,” he said.
Solomon recounted how the drafting of the 2021 media law followed an inclusive and well-informed process.
“We conducted thorough studies, observed best practices, and consulted international experts with relevant experience and expertise,” he told The Reporter. “Together with them, a well-structured law was developed”.
That law, however, has not been operationalized to its full extent, Solomon noted.
“During the public discussion in Parliament, we were told that the law had become a bureaucratic hurdle for the Authority as it stands,” he said, adding that the international experiences that experts had adopted was not fit for the Ethiopian context.
“They claimed the board doesn’t operate in line with proper procedures,” said Solomon.
The argument was that some board members, who should have been convening monthly, were neglecting their duty, leading the government to call for the nullification of provisions in the proclamation specifying board composition, according to Solomon.
He argues the move undermines the very foundations of press freedom.
“Our position from the start was that board members should be neutral, non-political professionals—people who are available and committed. These kinds of individuals wouldn’t just make time for monthly meetings—they’d show up weekly if needed,” he said.
That principle, he asserted, was abandoned in practice.
“The law was essentially overridden by appointing individuals with political affiliations, many of whom are reportedly closely connected to high level officials,” Solomon told The Reporter.
The consequences, he warned, are clear.
Solomon conceded that the government is right in asserting that the unavailability of board appointees carries broad implications for the media. But, maintains that the fundamental contradiction emanated not from the letter of the law, but from how the government chose to implement it.
“Had the law been implemented to the letter,” Solomon argued, “we would have had a real chance to demonstrate that it really was a more credible, effective approach. If the board had been composed of independent professionals—present, passionate, and principled—none of this would be an issue. But still, this issue was presented as a structural flaw in the law by the incumbent.”
He raises concerns about the new law’s potential to stifle media freedom, particularly through political influence. The expert warns that allowing political party members to join the board could lead to media self-censorship, as outlets may align with the ruling party’s interests. This situation, he argues, could severely undermine the media’s role in holding power accountable.
“If decisions are controlled by the state or party interests, it will negatively impact the public,” cautions Solomon, who foresees that journalists, fearing repercussions, may avoid covering critical issues, thereby compromising democratic reporting.
Solomon’s views are shared by media professionals who submitted a document outlining their observations to the parliamentary Democracy Affairs Committee, which oversaw the legislative process, following the second round of closed discussions over the draft proclamation.
The document, obtained by The Reporter, comprises a list of provisions that practitioners believed need to be retained and others they judged to require improvement.
The concerns raised reflected a broader unease within the media sector about the potential implications of the law on journalistic freedom and the role of media in holding power accountable.
”The right to freedom of expression is meaningfully protected only when diverse media outlets operating within a democratic society are able to properly fulfill their roles. The government’s responsibility is not only to respect this right but also to create a conducive environment that enables the media’s plurality to effectively discharge their duties,” reads the document.
The recommendations highlighted worries about provisions that could lead to the consolidation of political influence within media outlets.
Nonetheless, the advice went unheeded and provisions in the new proclamation allowing board membership for people affiliated with political entities has already sparked fears that media outlets might be coerced into aligning with the ruling party’s narrative.
An analyst who spoke with The Reporter anonymously is among those who worry about the law’s implications for press freedom.
”The concerns we raised stem from the possibility that this law, through the openings it creates, could be used as a path to influence the media and its freedom. What we feared could very well materialize on the ground. One of the scenarios that could enable the law to create divisions is already evident. The enacted amended media proclamation allows individuals affiliated with political parties to be board members,” he stated.
”Most of these individuals, who hold political interests and motivations and have ties with the ruling political party in an official or roundabout form can now preside over meetings that decide over the closure of media outlets. Naturally, this creates concern about the board’s impartiality in overseeing media operations. These put the media’s ability to commit to its foundational responsibility to hold the country’s executive body—including the ruling party—accountable, birthing self-censorship.”
The Analyst argues the new law compromises the media’s ability to raise questions or produce reports that implicate the ruling party or individuals with political power. He fears that if these reports lead to complaints or conflicts, the body expected to resolve the matter might consist of individuals with political interests or ties to the ruling party.
“These individuals may not deliver fair decisions that reflect the public interest. Because of the board’s structure and the allocation of authority and responsibility, the law’s design has led to concerns. These concerns are now beginning to manifest in practice,” he told The Reporter.
Media professionals argue that provisions like those permitting the ascension of political actors to executive EMA roles open the gate for the growth of the government’s power in undermining the media’s independence.
A section of the document submitted to the parliamentary committee explicitly notes that the law’s “structural flaws” could make it difficult for media to function freely, contributing to a rise in self-censorship among journalists.
The document also stresses the importance of protecting media freedom from political interference. If not revised, the law could assist the advancement of an environment where “decisions are controlled by the state or party interests”, potentially having a massive impact over the quality of reporting.
It also argued that journalistic coverage could be influenced by fear of reprisal, asserting that journalists may shy away from addressing sensitive or controversial issues, which in turn leads to a decline in press diversity and investigative reporting.
According to the document, weakening the media’s role as a check on governmental power would ultimately harm the public by restricting their constitutional right of access to information.
The collective concerns of media practitioners were clear in the plea to lawmakers: keep hold of the necessary provisions that safeguard the media’s independence while addressing the aspects that could pave the way for political control over journalism.
On the other hand, for many working journalists, these legal shifts are not mere theoretical narratives, rather lived realities.
A seasoned journalist, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, spoke to The Reporter about the toll of these changes.
”Two media outlets where I dedicated years of work were forcibly shut down by government authorities in 2018 and 2021,” the Journalist stated. “These were more than just workplaces—they were platforms for the voiceless, spaces for public dialogue, and committed channels for truth, accountability, and transparency.”
For this Journalist, the closures mark more than a professional setback.
“These actions go far beyond personal or professional loss; they serve as a stark reminder of the intensifying crackdown on press freedom in Ethiopia,” she said. “In a nation that once showed promise through the power of free expression, it is deeply troubling to witness a path being cleared up to make a U-turn into censorship, intimidation, and suppression.”
She revealed that the closure of the media houses she worked for was concluded without due process.
“The closures were carried out without clear justification and with complete disregard for the countless stories we told—stories that gave voice to communities across the country. The message is clear: critical voices, independent journalism, and truth-telling are increasingly unwelcome.”
The Journalist told The Reporter that the question is no longer whether the country’s media landscape would retain the little freedom it has, but whether it has already been quietly reclaimed by those in power.
Another journalist that spent months in detention during the two-year northern war for reporting on content that diverged from government narratives says the new law and the associated restrictions have long been in the making.
“My story of being detained and then later appearing before court on charges of terrorism is not the exception. When I and my colleagues from various outlets [were arrested], the reformed laws that were supposed to guarantee our right to freedom of expression were and still are active. But, what good is to have laws that won’t make it on the ground?” asked the Journalist.
To this journalist, who has since retired from the profession, the new law only legitimizes what has already been standard practice in reality.
On the other hand, government officials claim the restrictions are necessary for public safety.
During a public hearing on the draft proclamation in November 2024, Mohammed Edris, who was then serving as EMA Director-General, justified the amendments and the rush to see them ratified.
“Thousands of citizens have died in the past few years because of unregulated content and information disseminated through live transmission from media houses. EMA is tied down by the existing proclamation, and could not take action against these media houses to save lives. EMA is the only authority and public institution that is given mandates but not given power. The power is given to the board but the board could not discharge its duties,” he said.
Mohammed argued that the 2021 proclamation prioritizes the interests of media owners over public safety, criticizing the board for delays in making decisions about media institutions accused of publishing harmful and inciting content.
“Do people have to die while the board makes its decision?” he asked. “If power is granted to the Authority, we can make the decision and immediately suspend the media [institution], and stop the conflict and killing of people because of unregulated live streaming.”
He claims the working proclamation has allowed media houses to escape accountability for “false news coverage.”
Earlier this month, MPs seemed to side with Mohammed when they ratified the amended proclamation with just a single vote in opposition, which came from Desalegn Chane (PhD), a vocal member of the National Movement of Amhara (NaMA) party.
“If an independent institution is needed, board members and leaders should be elected independently of any political party. If the human rights and ombudsman appointees are appointed by Parliament, the board and the Authority should have members appointed by MPs as well . This is how we ensure the presence of independent media institutions,” said Desalegn before the bill was put to a vote.
Dina Mufti, another MP, claimed that both state and private media are prone to broadcasting misleading information.
”As a result, the media is neither balanced nor effective,” he said. “Since our media is not effective, we have to pass regulations and laws to build the capacity to achieve the basic economic growth and political goals required. The law should be viewed from this perspective.”
Tesfaye Beljige (PhD), a government official in attendance, argued that over the last seven years, the media in Ethiopia has grown significantly in terms of type, scope, accessibility and language used, with the number of outlets more than doubling from the 122 registered prior to the political upheaval of 2018.
On a similar note, Ewnetu Alene, chair of the Democracy Affairs Committee, stated that EMA’s perceived impotence in regulating the media needed to be rectified.
Responding to questions raised regarding the new Director-General appointment process, Ewnetu argued the constitution grants MPs the power to appoint the heads of constitutional institutions, which, he asserted, EMA is not.
Ewnetu said that granting the Prime Minister the power to nominate the Director-General for parliamentary approval is “appropriate and does not pose a threat.”
In response to worries about political affiliations within the board, the Chairman claimed that EMA’s personnel management regulations prohibits political party membership for all of its employees, disqualifying the concerns.
Government officials and the majority of MPs see the ratification of the amended Media Proclamation as a long-overdue correction—one aimed at empowering the Ethiopian Media Authority with the necessary tools to act swiftly in a volatile information landscape.
They argue that the law strikes a balance between public safety and regulatory oversight, framing the shift as a pragmatic response to existing sectoral challenges rather than a political encroachment.
Yet for media professionals, civil society actors, and rights advocates, the bill’s enactment is less a regulatory evolution and more like a rollback of hard-earned press freedoms.
Most view it as the legalization of partisan interference, the weakening of independent oversight, and a potential death knell for what remains of Ethiopia’s fragile media plurality.
For some prominent media voices, the ratification does not fix the system—it formalizes its erosion.
Now that the law is in place, the country finds itself at a decisive crossroads. Will this legal shift usher in a more accountable media ecosystem as the state claims, or will it deepen self-censorship and further stifle independent journalism?
As the media sector braces for implementation, the next question becomes: How will Ethiopia’s journalists respond to a law that sees them not as watchdogs—but as risks to be managed?
.
.
.
#Freedoms #Fire #Media #Law #Walks #Years #Progress
Source link
