Ensuring national ownership of the transitional justice process need not preclude drawing on valuable international expertise.

Ethiopia’s transitional justice process has grappled with the issue of international involvement from the start.

The country’s green paper on transitional justice policy options issued in January 2023 rejected international or hybrid tribunals. That, along with the government’s resistance to the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, has contributed to the global community’s perception that Ethiopia’s process is one of quasi-compliance – excluding external involvement to circumvent accountability under the guise of national ownership.

However, following nationwide consultations on the green paper, the Transitional Justice Working Group of Experts revised their position and advocated for international experts' ‘meaningful’ participation. Some said this included roles such as co-prosecutors and co-judges in a proposed special court and prosecution office. But the final policy restricted international experts to advisory and training functions, allegedly to assert national ownership over the process.

Post-policy government communications have increasingly embraced slogans such as ‘Ethiopian Transitional Justice for Ethiopians by Ethiopians.’ The implementation roadmap drafted in July recommends using the tagline: ‘Ethiopia’s transitional justice will be realised through the leadership and ownership of its people and the nation’ in all related communications.

Strong international involvement was further weakened in the implementation roadmap, where the term ‘international experts’ was replaced with ‘experts with international experience’. This subtle change indicates a preference for drawing on Ethiopians who have studied or worked abroad, rather than relying on external figures.

Emphasising national ownership in transitional justice isn’t problematic in itself; indeed it aligns with broader continental principles. The African Union Transitional Justice Policy asserts that the ownership and responsibility for transitional justice lie primarily with African governments, and calls on other stakeholders to respect and support their leadership. But maintaining ownership does not preclude drawing on international expertise, which can add value.

First, international experts’ presence can give victims a sense of impartiality, particularly in a context like Ethiopia, where trust in the domestic system is low. This doesn’t imply that international experts are more capable than their Ethiopian peers. Nor should their involvement be based on the assumption that knowledge flows in one direction (global to local).

Second, the international community has a responsibility to combat impunity for international crimes, wherever they occur and whoever the victims are. When the territorial state is perceived as unwilling or unable – whether historically or presently – to tackle international crimes according to international standards, the international community must step in and guide the process. Ethiopia could be such a case.

Historically, Ethiopia’s efforts at transitional justice were exercises in victor’s justice, which didn’t guarantee non-recurrence. Various current challenges – such as ongoing conflicts, rising transnational organised crime and the presence of alleged perpetrators in regional and federal offices – may cause an unwillingness or inability to address past atrocities.

Third, Ethiopia’s transitional justice process extends beyond national borders; the country’s peace and stability have significant regional implications. And some violations in Ethiopia involved regional actors, such as Eritrea. Implementing transitional justice needs the coordinated efforts of various international organisations.

The donor community has seemingly become hesitant to support Ethiopia’s transitional justice process due to the country’s diminishing openness to international involvement. Limiting access to vital international cooperation, resources and expertise could delay or even derail successful implementation.

Sources close to the process say the country’s reservations stem from the belief that international stakeholders are narrowly focused on the Tigray situation, and want to dictate terms for how Ethiopia should conduct its transitional justice process. Justice Minister Gedion Timothewos echoed this at the transitional justice implementation launch. ‘[We] welcome partners, we welcome more support and advice, not dictates,’ he said.

Yet, Ethiopia’s process should remain true to its policy, which permits international experts’ involvement as advisers and capacity builders. Although surveys show limited support for international experts serving as judges and prosecutors, there is no justification for their exclusion at a technical level.

While Ethiopia should open its doors to international engagement, the global community must recognise that the country’s unique situation requires a context-specific strategy rather than a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach.

Mutual understanding can be achieved through principled diplomacy. Ethiopia and the international community can use diplomatic missions and multilateral forums to strategically reassess the country’s process and how to collaborate.

The global community can also support Ethiopia by strengthening the capacity and independence of local civil society organisations (CSOs). Their on-the-ground presence and nuanced understanding of the context make them invaluable.

While Ethiopia’s civic space needs improvement, progress has been made with the formation of transitional justice-focused CSOs and consortia. A further opening of civic space would enable international CSOs to engage more directly, moving beyond their reliance on remote or consultancy-based approaches.

The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission is another important avenue. It recently adopted a more critical approach to addressing the country’s past and ongoing violence. International support could help it to better fulfil its role in monitoring the transitional justice process.

Beyond engagement through United Nations offices and agencies, the international community could focus on partnering with the African Union (AU). After brokering the Pretoria peace deal and facilitating transitional justice consultations, the AU has emerged as Ethiopia’s trusted partner in this process. The African Union Transitional Justice Policy, now available in Amharic, has become the basis for Ethiopia’s policy.

Through respectful, collaborative engagement, Ethiopia and the international community can foster justice, reconciliation and sustainable peace together. However, resolving the tension between national ownership and international involvement is vital to avoid missing crucial opportunities for impactful collaboration.

Ethiopia’s transitional justice process is moving fast. A comprehensive policy and implementation roadmap was crafted in less than 18 months, and the drafting of legislation is already underway. An approach that combines international involvement with national ownership can ensure its success.

Written by Tadesse Simie Metekia, Senior Researcher, Rule of law, ISS Addis Ababa​ & Beza Dessalegn, Assistant Professor, Institute for Peace and Security Studies