the fight for Ethiopia’s media law
and the price of speaking up
Hi there,
Monday, November 25, is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and the start of the 16 Days of Campaign Against Gender-Based Violence, which ends on December 10, on Human Rights Day.
I was at the launch of an art exhibition dedicated to this campaign, which focused on street harassment and public space safety. The interactive art exhibition is open throughout these 16 days, so for those in Addis, I highly suggest you check it out at Studio 11.
I spent most of last Wednesday at parliament, at a public discussion on the proposed amendments to Ethiopia’s media law. I touched on the possible effects of this proposed amendment a couple of weeks ago, and in today’s edition, I have details on the arguments presented for and against this change by media actors in Ethiopia, and the regulatory body.
To new subscribers, welcome!
My name is Maya Misikir, and I’m a freelance reporter based in Addis Abeba. I write Sifter, this newsletter where I send out the week’s top 5 stories on human rights and news in Ethiopia.
Now, to the news.
Media: the mental gymnastics to justify regression
Last Wednesday, there was a public discussion for actors in the media space to debate the amendments to Ethiopia’s media law.
Who was present in this public session? Journalists and various journalist associations, including the Ethiopian Media Women Association, which I represented with my colleagues, heads of rights bodies, like the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, the Institution of the Ombudsman, representatives of the Ethiopian Media Council (a self-regulatory body) as well as the government regulatory body, the Ethiopian Media Authority.
Last month, I wrote about the news that the country’s media law was being fast-tracked with some fundamental amendments. Days later, several associations released a public statement requesting a public hearing to discuss this.
Who proposed these changes? The Ethiopian Media Authority, the government regulatory body.
What did they want to change about this law (celebrated as progressive when it first passed in 2021)? Many things, but I’ll touch on a few of the major ones below.
One major amendment was to shift the power to refuse, suspend, and revoke licenses from the management board of the Ethiopian Media Authority to the head of the Authority instead. Regulatory body representatives justified this decision to shift this major responsibility saying that the board meets only once a month and is getting bogged down by day-to-day activities limiting the efficiency of the Authority. Also, they added, the country was emerging from a ‘traumatic past’ (the previous regime) when the law was passed in 2021 and this ‘doesn’t align with where the country stands now’.
The counterarguments to this were profuse. First of all, yes, in 2018, when there was a government change, there were promising signs along with legal reform. Unfortunately in 2024, Ethiopia has regressed in press freedom and stands as the second worst place to be a journalist in sub-Saharan Africa, one rights body representative argued.
There is a significant trust deficit in the government, and the power to revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew broadcasting licenses should not be considered a mundane, ‘day-to-day’ activity, but rather a consequential decision that requires deliberation.
The argument from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, which unequivocally opposed this amendment, is this: why change the law and impact fundamental constitutional rights like freedom of expression based on claims of increasing efficiency, an administrative issue?
But what difference does it make if the management board makes this decision instead of the head of the Authority? First, the board is not one person. Secondly, the member composition of the board as it stands is this: two from civil society organizations, two from media, two from institutions that have relevance to the media sector, and three from relevant government bodies. This brings me to the next major proposed amendment; the board’s composition.
The amendments propose striking the quote system, stating instead generally, that members’ eligibility should be based on their proximity to the media. Also, part of the amendments presented: get rid of the provision that says, ‘board members cannot be a member or employee of a political party’.
The justifications provided for this? Having members of the media on the management board can cause a conflict of interest (‘there are powerful media owners that have undue influence’). Also, representatives of the regulatory body argued that a person doesn’t need to be a member of a political party to be partial (it’s a ‘state of mind’). No one else in the room seemed convinced of this particular line.
A lot was said countering this but I’ll share this note from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission: there are many ways to mitigate the issue of conflict of interest (rigorous selection process, recusal), so why jump into steps that are neither legally necessary nor proportional to the matter at hand? Also, allowing political parties to be board members will impact independence.
The next amendment deals with who selects the board members: striking Article 9 (2) of the media law, which states that ‘members of the Board must be appointed in an open and transparent manner’ (through public participation). Members of the media argued against this change, saying that leaving public participation out would delegitimize decisions passed by the board, and would depict it as a move ‘by the government’, instead of indirectly endorsed by the public.
If these new changes come into effect, the head of the Media Authority (who will take on these powers of the board) will also be nominated by the Prime Minister, instead of…the board.
The speed at which these proposed changes were coming was another concern. The law has recently come into effect (in 2021), when, in comparison, the last two media laws were in place for over a decade. Barely anyone in the media sector knew of these coming changes beforehand, and this indicates that it was a politically motivated move, the idea, process, and desire for which came solely from the executive body, added another representative of a lawyer’s association.
There were several more important amendments discussed and argued over. Hit reply to this email and let me know if you’re interested to learn more. I’ll share notes.
Civic space: worse than what was anticipated
The civil society regulatory body (ACSO) suspended the license of three major civil society organizations over the past few days. The organizations are the Center for the Advancement of Rights and Democracy (CARD), the Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia, and Lawyers for Human Rights.
Civil society actors have been speaking of telltale signs that this was in the works; harassment from government security actors has forced some to leave the country and shut down branch offices of rights organizations.
The associations, established after the legal reform was initiated in 2019 (change of government) have rejected what they say are ‘unjust allegations made by the Ethiopian government’.
Grounds for the suspensions include lack of political neutrality, and, ‘engaging in activities deemed contrary to the interests of the country’, the latter a phrase that lawyers I spoke to say might be cropping up all too often after this.
Here’s an excerpt from a statement released by CARD:
While CARD categorically contests all allegations made against it and maintains that ACSO did not follow the requisite legal procedures, such as providing prior notification of the issue, conducting a transparent investigation and involving CARD in the process, CARD has nevertheless complied with the decision and ceased all operations to prioritize constructive engagement.
The date when these organizations received these notices is note-worthy. CARD was issued this suspension on November 14, three days after the organization, along with 12 other civil society actors released a public statement requesting that the media law amendment include a public discussion before being passed (see previous update). The Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia was one of the signatory bodies.
The decision to suspend Lawyer for Human Rights, came last week, Thursday, a day after the public hearing for the media law. During the public hearing, a representative of the organization had argued that the speed of the amendment, and the exclusion of all other actors in the space, indicated that the changes were unilaterally the government's desire and indicative of being politically motivated (see previous update).
I often mention in conversations that the presence of certain civic actors in this volatile space is a source of comfort for many of us; to know that there is a network of people and organizations that are outspoken, doing valuable work whether in research work, filling in the information gap for journalists, or speaking out when things go wrong is important. These steps now threaten that fragile safety net.
Experts I spoke to say the final decision on this, which will pass through the board of the regulatory body (comprised of 3 government representatives, one independent body, and 7 from the CSO sector), will be a test of its independence and credibility.
The full statement by the Center for the Advancement of Rights and Democracy here, by the Association of Human Rights in Ethiopia here, and the Lawyers for Human Rights, here.
Oromia: hiding from forced conscriptions
Reports of forced conscription into the military have been coming from across different areas in Ethiopia’s Oromia region, according to a story by Addis Standard.
Oromia is where the federal government has been fighting the region’s informal militia, the Oromia Liberation Army (OLA), since 2019. The police are detaining and then forcefully conscripting men in the region, including students and farmers, who are unable to pay ‘substantial ransoms’ says the story.
Here’s an excerpt:
The resident explained that prior to the forced conscription, announcements were made in Fital town and surrounding villages, inviting youth to voluntarily enlist for military training. However, the resident reported that when no one volunteered, “government forces, in collaboration with local administrators, began rounding up individuals.”
In the region’s North Shewa Zone, young people have gone into hiding in fear of being forcefully conscripted, by both the government forces and fighters from the armed group.
Meanwhile, university students across multiple campuses in the country were out protesting the murder of a 17-year-old in the region, ‘after a video depicting the heinous act’ went viral on social media.
The full story on Addis Standard, here.
Labor: union’s continued call for minimum wage
Parliamentarians were in session last week discussing the delayed issue of setting a minimum wage in the country. Labor union representatives say that this push, which has been in motion since 2019, has hit another roadblock: a government-backed feasibility study that claims it would lead to mass unemployment, according to a story on The Reporter.
The country’s 2019 labor proclamation (once again which came at a time of legal reform) sets the mandate for the establishment of a wage board to determine this minimum, but there are still no signs of this board yet.
Here’s an excerpt from what the head of the trade confederation says:
“Why would the government conduct a study on its own and say a minimum wage is bad for employees? The Board must be established first, then it can conduct the study. The decision whether a minimum wage is good or bad will be determined by representatives from the employers’ side, employees, and the government. But now the government seems to be deciding alone. This is not acceptable,” argued Kassahun.
The Minister of Labour and Skills has called, instead, for ‘workers to improve productivity’.
The full story, on The Reporter, here.
Refugees: protection for Eritreans coming in
Since the beginning of the year over 20,000 Eritreans have crossed over the border into Ethiopia, through the country’s Afar and Tigray regions. Registering asylum seekers in the country as they get in is important as they have come, ‘seeking international protection and basic assistance’ says a statement by the UN’s refugee agency.
Why is registration so important?
Here's an excerpt from the statement:
Registration will support access to basic services such as healthcare, education, and family reunification. Refugees will also gain the right to work…
Quick registration also decreases the risk of human trafficking. Currently, there are over 70,000 registered Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia.
That’s all for this week. I’ll be back next week with more updates!
In the meantime, feel free to share this with anyone you think can benefit from keeping up with what’s going on in Ethiopia.
Was this forwarded to you by someone? Then hit the button below to subscribe and get free weekly updates.