A year-long pause should end in stronger political backing, renewed legitimacy and broader ownership of transitional justice.

Ethiopia’s National Dialogue Commission commenced its long-awaited plenary deliberations on 15 July. Key issues identified through the dialogue process will be covered, including transitional justice. The discussions are expected to last three weeks, after which the commission will publish its recommendations.

The inclusion of transitional justice comes as little surprise. For a year, the transitional justice process has been delayed pending the conclusion of the National Dialogue. Commentators argue that transitional justice should proceed alongside the dialogue rather than depend on its outcome.

That position remains legally and conceptually correct. Ethiopia’s transitional justice process neither originated from nor should it depend on the National Dialogue. It emerged from the political transition that began in 2018, including the establishment of the now-defunct Ethiopian Reconciliation Commission.

The process gained momentum after the 2022 Pretoria Cessation of Hostilities Agreement that ended the Tigray war. Ethiopia adopted the Transitional Justice Policy in 2024, together with draft legislation establishing mechanisms for criminal accountability, truth-seeking, reparations and vetting.

Nevertheless, transitional justice will now likely begin after the National Dialogue. If so, the dialogue should be seen as providing political endorsement for relaunching transitional justice after a period of uncertainty – reinforcing an existing process, not creating one.

Portraying transitional justice as merely another recommendation from the dialogue could obscure years of legal, institutional and policy development. It also weakens the understanding that addressing past atrocities is grounded in constitutional principles, international commitments and an adopted national policy, rather than something left solely to political negotiation.

However, political endorsement is important. If approached strategically, the National Dialogue could inject renewed political momentum and consensus into a process that has been dormant for over a year. Transitional justice could be strengthened in three ways.

The first concerns public legitimacy. The consultations underpinning the Transitional Justice Policy are now about three years old, while Ethiopia’s political landscape has continued to evolve. The National Dialogue offers an opportunity to reaffirm and refresh – not replace – the public mandate supporting transitional justice.

The Transitional Justice consultations and an independent nationwide survey showed that Ethiopians across political, ethnic and regional divides believe acknowledging past violations, accountability and reconciliation are essential to sustainable peace.

The National Dialogue itself has faced criticism regarding its inclusivity and representation. Several political actors and constituencies remain outside the process. This should not be dismissed, but shouldn’t prevent the dialogue from being an important first step.

The Justice Ministry and other relevant implementing agencies should treat the dialogue’s recommendations as the beginning – not the end – of public engagement on transitional justice. They should create more opportunities for excluded groups and communities to contribute to the design and implementation of transitional justice institutions.

Second, the National Dialogue should be used to address a key gap in Ethiopia’s transitional justice process: the absence of a shared national acknowledgement of harm.

Portraying transitional justice through the lens of particular conflicts, governments or regions should be challenged. Then the dialogue could affirm that grave human rights violations have affected Ethiopians across political, ethnic and religious divides, under successive governments, and during both peace and armed conflict.

The National Dialogue Commission should consider recommending a formal national acknowledgement of victims’ suffering. While that would not determine legal responsibility – which remains the role of accountability institutions – it would provide an important moral and political foundation for transitional justice and help rebuild trust between citizens and state institutions.

Third, the National Dialogue creates an opportunity to broaden political ownership of transitional justice beyond the executive. Until now, the Justice Ministry has led policy development, nationwide consultations and legislative framework preparation. This has reinforced the perception that transitional justice is primarily a justice-sector project rather than one supported by multiple state institutions.

Greater parliamentary involvement could help embed transitional justice in institutions beyond the Justice Ministry. Since the National Dialogue Commission is a parliamentary body, Parliament is well placed to provide political leadership in implementing its recommendations.

Parliament has greater potential than the executive to function as a cross-party institution, exercise constitutional oversight and coordinate action across government. Parliamentary leadership would help reposition transitional justice from an executive-led initiative to a nationally owned process involving all of government. To this end, Parliament should chair the multi-stakeholder Transitional Justice Institutional Coordination Mechanism envisaged under the Transitional Justice Policy.

Parliament and the Justice Ministry could jointly develop a guide for sequencing and implementing transitional justice. A key weakness of the current process is the absence of an agreed roadmap for establishing institutions and coordinating the implementation of criminal accountability, truth-seeking, reparations and institutional reform. A jointly developed guide would provide greater legal certainty, political consensus and operational clarity from the outset.

To discharge these responsibilities effectively, Parliament should establish a dedicated ad hoc committee or task force on transitional justice. Beyond scrutinising legislation, it should oversee implementation, engage with victims, civil society, regional governments and justice institutions and draw on comparative experience. Given transitional justice’s cross-cutting nature, members should be drawn from all relevant parliamentary committees – not just the Legal Affairs Standing Committee.

A strengthened parliamentary role would complement the Justice Ministry’s central role. The ministry’s institutional memory, technical expertise and years of preparatory work make it indispensable to the next phase of implementation. It should remain the principal body responsible for finalising the legislative framework, advising Parliament and the Coordination Mechanism, and ensuring continuity between policy development and implementation.

Ultimately, the National Dialogue should be seen not merely as an opportunity to restart Ethiopia’s transitional justice process, but as the foundation for a genuine institutional partnership. Parliament can provide political leadership and democratic oversight, and the Justice Ministry can provide technical leadership and implementation support.

Although it did not create the transitional justice process, the National Dialogue’s greatest contribution may lie in strengthening implementation by renewing legitimacy and broadening political ownership.

Written by Tadesse Simie Metekia, Senior Researcher, Special Projects, ISS Addis Ababa​