Freedom of expression under attack in Ethiopia

The Ethiopian government bolstered its image as a global leader in stifling internal dissent last week with the convictions of 24 prominent critics on conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism charges. Eskinder Nega, an influential journalist repeatedly detained over past years for challenging regime policy, is among those awaiting sentence, along with five other journalists tried in absentia.

Employing new anti-terrorism legislation, widely condemned by rights groups as draconian, the move reinforces Ethiopia’s status as one of the most inhospitable environments for press liberty worldwide.

“Freedom of speech can be limited when it is used to undermine security and not used for the public interest,” said Judge Endeshaw Adane in court. The dissidents face potential life terms in prison.

The 27 June ruling unleashed an outcry from rights groups, who condemned the charges as part of a systematic campaign to eliminate political and social opposition.

Analysts say those convicted acted in accordance with rights enshrined in the Ethiopian constitution and international law statutes.

“These individuals were targeted for peaceful activities and calling for reform to take place,” said Claire Beston, Ethiopia researcher at Amnesty International, while emphasising the need to alter the language of the anti-terrorism bill. “Since this legislation was passed, but particularly over last 12 to 18 months, there have been significantly more incidents of suppressing dissent.”

Since claiming power in 1991, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front-led government has treated the independent press as a threat. The Nega case prosecutor claimed those convicted have connections to outlawed organisations, such as US-based Ginbot 7, an organisation that calls for the overthrown of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s regime.

Former US Ambassador to Ethiopia and Horn of Africa expert, David Shinn, says the convictions do not represent a significant change in the government’s approach towards the press. Shinn termed the effort to stifle media voices “cyclical”.

“There’s obviously been a long history of cracking down on journalists in Ethiopia,” said Shinn, who served as ambassador from 1996 to 1999. “It goes back to the very beginning of press reporting in the country.”

In mid-June, prominent US Senator Patrick Leahy threatened to withhold USD $500,000 of military aid to Ethiopia should the country fail to improve its human rights record. Considering the relatively small sum, the gesture is merely symbolic and world powers seem reluctant to implement stern measures to curb the harassment of dissidents.

With the US as a primary backer, Ethiopia is a beneficiary of billions of dollars of military and humanitarian aid on an annual basis. Beston says imposing financial restrictions on assistance is an effective yet severely under-utilised mechanism to ensure improvement in the government’s attitude towards human rights.

“There’s been no strong response, no significant criticism… there are no questions being asked about the humanitarian situation in the country,” said Beston. “[Foreign powers] have influence and they should be asking questions about the ever-decreasing space for press freedom, among other things, in the country.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) claims Ethiopia sends more reporters into exile than any other country across the globe. Those that remain are shackled and isolated. The government, according to critics, recently unveiled a sophisticated new technology to censor web content, dubbed the Deep Packet Inspection. CPJ claims the filter blocks heavily trafficked local and international sites, and places Ethiopia in the censorship lead among African countries.

“As the technology develops in order to assist civilians and activists to get around censorship, the government is introducing additional technology to prevent that,” said Beston. “There’s also very high level of surveillance. People are scared of sending emails with any type of criticism.”

Since November Ethiopian courts have charged 11 journalists with terrorism, including two Swedish reporters apprehended in the volatile Ogaden region of the country. The charges triggered a diplomatic row but the journalists remain in detention.

The government prevents all independent observers from entering Ogaden, a large swathe of territory bordering Djibouti, Somalia and Kenya. The Ethiopian Army has deployed in the region in recent years to quash local rebel groups, primarily the Ogaden National Liberation Front. Despite the media blockade, rights groups claim both sides commit atrocities. The situation there is steadily gaining attention.

“The accusations certainly require media and other independent investigations,” said Beston. “The US should be pushing for that. They should be ensuring their aid is not used to commit crimes that violate international law.”

Over recent years, however, the Zenawi regime has provided a critical ally to the US and European powers. In a vitally important area prone to unrest, the Ethiopian army frequently engages in peacekeeping missions and military campaigns in conjunction with global partners.

“You go back to the issue of how far you can push [human rights abuses] and risk losing what the Ethiopians do in the region,” said Shinn. “They were asked to step in in Abyei as peacekeepers and they did that, like any other number of incidents where they’ve done similar things in the region.”

But to innumerable Ethiopians, last week’s arguably erroneous convictions will likely serve as a deterrent to push for reform in a country seemingly in dire need of it.

“The evidence presented…criminalized their individual rights to freedom of expression and their legal conduct as journalists and political oppositionists,” said Beston.

Brian Dabbs is an internationally published print and photo journalist based in Nairobi

http://www.briandabbs.com/

Ethiopia: Jailed dissident blogger may face death penalty

Jailed Ethiopian dissident blogger Eskinder Nega will stand trial in March for terrorism charges, a federal high court judge ruled this week. He could face the death penalty if convicted. Nega and five other journalists were last November charged with providing support to Ginbot 7, a banned opposition movement that the government formally designated a terrorist entity under the 2009 anti-terrorism law last year. At this week’s hearing, the judge confirmed all six charges for two of those accused and dismissed all but one charge against three others.

Illegal use of section 44

Thousands of people across Britain have been stopped and searched illegally by police using Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Office has revealed.

One of the most flagrant of these illegal uses was in London in April 2004, involving 840 people.

Fourteen police forces in the UK including the Metropolitan Police, City Police and Thames Valley misused powers on 40 separate occasions between 2001 and 2008. The Home Office said a number of “administrative errors” led to police chiefs not getting the proper authorisation to carry out searches. The Act allows officers to stop and search people without having any “reasonable suspicion” they are about to or intend to commit an act of terrorism.

The errors involve paperwork. Someone didn’t sign something or fill in the right bit. The errors came to light after the Metropolitan Police had to dig around its archive thanks to a Freedom of Information request.

If you define terrorism as the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve a goal, then you can make that definition fit police actions whenever they invoke Section 44. The European Court of Human Rights ruled the blanket use of Section 44 across London was unlawful. The law is too loose and open to abuse.

Home Office admission to the illegality of stops and searches under Section 44 does not mean a government admission to the illegality and inhumanity of that very act. Messing up on an administrative level only means that police forces around the country will tighten up their bookkeeping. It does not mean they will cease stopping and searching members of the public they arbitrarily deem a threat to the status quo.

It doesn’t take guts to question what a police officer is doing to you once he invokes Section 44. It takes knowledge.
So what can you do?

• You do not have to give your name and address or explain why you are where you are. You can’t run off, but you can go limp and stay silent.
• Police can only give you a pat down, remove your outer clothes, search your bags and have you empty your pockets. Women cannot be touched by male police.
• Police cannot take your DNA, nor do you have to agree to be photographed or recorded.
• Take notes about the officers searching you — name, number, police force — and the time and events before the search.
• Remember the wording used by police to explain their search and ask them why they are searching you.
• Always get a receipt. And speak to a good lawyer.