Ethiopia Ministry of Justice: Transitional Justice Process Resumes

• Ethiopia's Ministry of Justice has relaunched its transitional justice process, initiating a new government-civil society platform on October 23.
• Public consultations on Ethiopia's draft transitional justice laws are expected to begin soon, following a previous unexplained stall in April 2025.
• The process must integrate recommendations from the now-concluded National Dialogue Commission, submitted to Parliament on October 3 but not yet public.
• Key policy gaps to address include institutional dispute resolution, accountability for foreign perpetrators like Eritrean forces in the Tigray war, and enhanced focus on mental health support and economic, social, and cultural rights violations.
• Transparency regarding the reasons for the process's resumption, along with clear timelines, is essential to rebuild public and donor confidence.

To restore confidence among both the public and international donors, it is crucial that the reasons behind the resumption, along with clear next steps and timelines, are publicly disclosed.

The Ethiopian Ministry of Justice recently signaled the re-initiation of the nation's transitional justice process, which had previously stalled in April 2025. This significant development occurred on October 23 with the launch of a new government-civil society platform dedicated to transitional justice. Concurrently, the official transitional justice website has been reactivated, and public consultations on Ethiopia's draft transitional justice laws are anticipated to commence in the near future.

The initial interruption of the process, which lacked any official explanation, occurred precisely as the draft legislation was poised for public review. This unexpected pause eroded momentum and introduced a period of uncertainty. To restore confidence among both the public and international donors, it is crucial that the reasons behind the resumption, along with clear next steps and timelines, are publicly disclosed. This transparency is vital for the successful progression of Ethiopia's transitional justice policy reforms.

The renewed Ethiopia transitional justice process must be guided by four primary considerations: the recommendations from the now-concluded National Dialogue Commission, existing policy shortcomings, unfulfilled commitments, and new developments that emerged during the period of inactivity. Foremost among these are the recommendations from the now-concluded Ethiopia National Dialogue Commission, which were presented to Parliament on October 3 but have not yet been made public. Given that the transitional justice efforts were reportedly halted to accommodate this dialogue, proceeding without incorporating its findings would undermine the entire purpose and miss a critical opportunity to strengthen the framework.

The Ministry of Justice is advised to establish a dedicated committee to thoroughly review the implications of these recommendations for the Transitional Justice Policy, the draft legislation, and its subsequent implementation. These recommendations could influence transitional justice in three distinct ways: through explicit proposals affecting its scope and mandates, through relevant suggestions in other thematic areas, and through broader reforms that might interact with its execution. Therefore, the review should extend beyond only those recommendations explicitly labeled as transitional justice. Addressing these implications will require a dual approach: making targeted adjustments to the legal frameworks to integrate relevant recommendations without reopening the entire policy for debate, and developing a separate strategy to coordinate with other institutions or reforms mentioned in the dialogue's recommendations to prevent institutional confusion or further delays. The dialogue could also elevate Parliament's role in transitional justice and help forge a shared, officially recognized narrative of victimhood and suffering across communities, paving the way for formal acknowledgment and apology for past violence and harm.

Beyond integrating the National Dialogue's insights, the resumed process must also tackle unresolved weaknesses within the existing policy framework. A significant gap concerns the institutional mechanism for resolving legal disputes that may arise between various transitional justice bodies; the proposed Special Bench could effectively address this. Furthermore, the framework currently provides insufficient attention to accountability for crimes allegedly perpetrated by foreign actors, particularly Eritrean forces during the 2020-2022 Tigray war, which is a critical aspect of Ethiopia Tigray war accountability.

Mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) are currently subsumed under the reparations pillar, but the revised framework should recognize them as cross-cutting priorities with clear institutional responsibilities, or even as a standalone pillar, with immediate implementation. Presently, only a limited number of civil society organizations offer such vital support to victims and survivors. Moreover, violations of economic, social, and cultural rights demand greater emphasis, not only within reparations but also across other pillars like criminal accountability and institutional reform. The scope of institutional reform should also expand beyond vetting security and justice institutions to include government offices responsible for economic governance and development, whose policies and practices may have historically contributed to grievances, thereby strengthening Ethiopia transitional justice policy reforms.

Lawyers and compliance officers involved in human rights, international law, or advising on accountability in Ethiopia should closely monitor the upcoming public consultations on draft transitional justice laws. This presents a critical opportunity to engage with the evolving legal framework, particularly regarding accountability for past conflicts and reparations, and to understand the implications of the National Dialogue Commission's recommendations on future policy.

Source: Original reporting via undisclosed source