Ombudsman Resurfaces With Restrictive Access To Information Law

Earlier proposal for ‘Information Commission’ scrapped

The latest version of a draft amendment to freedom of access to information laws proposes to impose more stringent procedural requirements for members of the media and ordinary citizens seeking access to public records.

For a decade, the Mass Media and Access to Information Proclamation (590/2008) served the dual purpose of governing mass media and laws surrounding freedom of access to information.

In April 2025, lawmakers ratified the Mass Media Proclamation despite strong objections from media institutions and human rights bodies who criticized the law for its restrictive provisions, accusing its authors of rolling back freedoms won in a proclamation ratified just a few years earlier.

The second half of the original proclamation—the Freedom of Access to Information Proclamation—is currently in the final stages of review before heading to Parliament for a vote.

The amendment has long been in the making, likely delayed by the sensitivity of its content. An initial draft, considered more relaxed and forward-looking by experts, was tabled to the Ministry of Justice long ago but has since undergone fundamental changes.

Among the more positively received provisions in the initial draft was a proposal to establish a body called the “Information Commission” to implement the proclamation. The law would grant the Commission the authority to compel government institutions to divulge information and take punitive action against entities hindering access to information.

The provision raised concerns within the government and the draft was sent back to the Institution of the Ombudsman for changes. The Ombudsman has since tabled a new draft to the Ministry, and is largely expected to see a parliamentary vote in the new Ethiopian year, according to sources familiar with the issue. The Ombudsman is currently led by Simegn Wube, who previously held positions in government offices including deputy Civil Service Commissioner.

A large part of the latest draft is dedicated to articles on classified information, including ongoing court cases, health records, individual and property-related information, and third-party information. Intelligence, security, and military information and documents are off limits. This includes information related to military operations, personnel, weaponry, positions, and other categories.

Information related to foreign relations and agreements with other countries and international organizations is also classified.

Any information related to the economy or finance and deemed to have the capacity to harm national interests is off-limits. This includes government policy and plans relating to currency, tenders, forex, investment, public debt, tax and government revenue sources, state holdings, state sales, and other categories.

This provision also applies to state-owned enterprises and organizations, according to the draft.

The draft grants the government the authority to deny access to information about agendas and issues tabled to the Council of Ministers, and places communications between government offices off limits.

It permits information categorized as ‘top secret’ to be disclosed after a period of at least 15 years, 10 for ‘secret’, and five in other cases. Information cannot remain classified for more than 30 years unless disclosure could negatively affect the public, an individual, or national interests, in which case it will remain classified, according to the draft.

The draft permits the government to charge application fees for information requests. It requires all government and SOE offices receiving at least half of their budget from the government to assign an officer responsible for handling information requests.

The officer is obligated to process a request within 21 working days, with room for extension under certain circumstances.

The draft states that offices can hold or delay the disclosure of information if the issue in question is under Parliament review or if a government official is assigned to it.

The ombudsman would be mandated to execute the law provided it receives parliamentary approval. In the case a public office or SOE fails to provide information, the ombudsman will issue a ‘recommendation’ for the office to improve, according to the draft.

The ombudsman can levy fines as well, and is charged with mediating in the case of complaints and appeals. If disgruntled by the decisions of public offices and the ombudsman, individuals or the press can take their case to court.

The draft proposes two-year prison terms and 20,000 Birr fines for government officials who exploit their powers to classify information relating to corruption or other illegal activity. Members of the press found guilty of distorting information from government sources could face sentences of up to five years.

The new draft has omitted the provision to establish an information commission, instead opting to place a department under the ombudsman in charge of implementing the proclamation.

A legal expert who spoke anonymously argues the decision to forego the commission was calculated.

“The government did this intentionally. The ombudsman has no power to punish or force government offices and officials to give out information. That’s why the Ministry of Justice ordered the omission of the commission from the latest draft. If the commission were to be established as per the initial draft, it would force the government to provide information, and would have been ideal for the most significant freedom of access to information improvement in Ethiopia’s history,” the expert told The Reporter.