Law scholars say the new ‘terrorism’ bill, which will allow hearsay evidence, violates international human rights treaties the nation ratified and made part of its constitution

By Kirubel Tadesse ǀ June 8, 2009

Capital - A new anti-terrorism bill endorsed by cabinet recently will allow hearsay evidence on terrorism suspects’ trials, if accepted by parliament, the Government announced last Monday.
Law scholars say the move would violate international human rights treaties the nation ratified and made part of its constitution.
Prepared by the National Intelligence and Security Service, the anti-terrorism bill was endorsed by the Council of Ministers on May 27.

Ermias Legesse, State Minister at the Government Communication Affairs Office, told journalists last Monday, the bill will establish a national anti-terrorism committee to be set up by the Intelligence, Security Service, Justice Ministry and Federal Police, who are each to set up a special division in their own institutions too.

Government said the bill would not only allow better cooperation with allies to fight terrorism, but would also create an effective system for law enforcing agencies and the judiciary to best protect the nation from the threats and attacks it has repeatedly endured during the past years.

Ermias explained the bill followed similar laws in a number of countries and is based upon up to 12 international treaties.

Parliament is the body that has been given the power to label an organisation as a terrorist group. Ermias said this was done since terrorism acts may involve some political groups and therefore parliament, rather than the executive, should make the decision.

In England, the Prime Minister determines if a group is a terrorist organisation or not, while in the US it is the State Department that has full authority on the matter. Ethiopian parliament will use the bill’s definition to determine if a group should be labeled as a terrorist. The new bill, according to Ermias, defines terrorism as activities that try to impose political, religious or ideological beliefs into the public, or the Government, by force.

While the bill would hold everyone legally accountable for failing to report terrorism acts in progress, it puts a condition on house and car rental services to notify police of the identity of their clients within 24 hours.

Changing the 14 day period police now have to investigate criminal case after putting suspects in custody, the new bill will allow police not only to ask courts an extension period of a minimum of 28 days and a maximum total additional time of four months investigation periods, but empowers it to make arrests without a court warrant.

The most contentious article is the one that allows hearsay evidence in trials of terrorism suspects. Shimeles Kemal, State Minister at the Government Communication Affairs Office, who was also a federal prosecutor, says existing laws don’t ban hearsay evidences: “There are different approaches internationally on hearsay evidence. For example, in the United States there are exceptions where hearsay evidence becomes admissible,” Shimeles explained, adding that the bill complies with existing laws and allows hearsay evidence, taking the very complicated nature of terrorism acts and operations in to consideration.

One law of evidence lecturer agrees. “The existing stipulation that says witnesses can testify their direct and indirect knowledge rather opens door for argument that in fact the law allows hearsay evidence since these evidences are naturally not direct knowledge which is allowed by law.

“However, the practice has been that some courts regard hearsay evidence inadmissible, while others either accept it fully, or consider it as collaborative evidence, but the latter practice was always opposed since it violates the constitutional right of suspects, a right to confront, where suspects can cross examine the testimony, which is impossible in hearsay evidence, since the witness is explaining what they heard other people saying,” the scholar explained to Capital.

The scholar added that to allow hearsay evidence would violate a number of human rights treaties Ethiopia has made part of its constitution.

“The UN led treaties say member states can not deny terrorism suspects’ fair trial as such kind of rights are non-derogable rights, which can not be suspended even in time of war, public danger, or emergency. Fair trial is the one that lets the suspect exercise guaranteed rights those by Ethiopian constitution which stipulates accused persons have the right to full access to any evidence presented against them, to examine witnesses testifying against them,” another scholar with same view argues, adding that hearsay evidence violates constitutional rights.

After the cabinet’s amendments are adopted, parliament will vote on the proclamation. The house has a record of endorsing cabinet approved bills without major amendments.