Customs proclamation final draft


Customs proclamation Final draft (Amaharic)       DOWNLOAD
Customs proclamation Final draft (English)     DOWNLOAD

This is the final draft customs proclamation. So what is new? Almost everything is new. The part dealing with offences and penalty has significantly eased the harsh punishments of customs proclamation No. 622/2009.
Article 91(1) of the customs proclamation No. 622/2009 crime of contraband i.e. importing or exporting prohibited or restricted goods was punishable with rigorous imprisonment from 7 to 15 years and fine equivalent to the amount of the customs duties and taxes payable on the goods. Additionally, the goods and equipments used in the commission of the offence and the proceeds will be confiscated.
According to the new draft, the punishment is rigorous imprisonment not less than five years and not exceeding 10 years and fine not less than Birr 50,000 and not exceeding Birr 200,000.
The conditions, under which the means of transport could be confiscated, have also been significantly changed. The draft provides that any means of transport used to carry goods liable to forfeiture shall be forfeited to the Government if:
a) the means of transport is constructed, adopted or fitted with a compartment to conceal goods;
b) the owner of the means of transport, being aware of the fact, fails to take appropriate measure to prevent or stop the commission of the act; or
c) if the owner of the means of transport fail to appear after being summoned
In the previous proclamation, punishment for obstruction of customs formalities was a fine of Birr 5,000 up to 10,000 and imprisonment from 3 to 5 years. If the crime is committed by use of force or by an organized group, the punishment extends from five to ten years rigorous imprisonment. According to the new draft, obstruction of customs control entails punishment of simple imprisonment not less than six months and not exceeding one year and fine not less than Birr 5,000 and not exceeding Birr 10,000. In case of use of force or commission of the offence by an organized group, the imprisonment shall extend from one to five years rigorous imprisonment.
The new draft also authorizes the Director General of the Authority to decide that criminal charges not to be instituted where:
1/ the alleged offender cannot follow the proceedings due to old age or chronic disease;
2/ it is believed that the proceeding of the case in court will harm national security or international relations;
3/ instituting proceedings may cause an unbalanced side effect;
4/ the charge has not been instituted in time and thus has lost its relevance;
5/ there are other similar reasons.

መመሪያ የሌለው መመሪያ


በመርህ ደረጃ ህግ የማውጣት ስልጣን የህግ አውጭው ነው እንላለን እንጂ በተግባር ግን ህግ የሚወጣው በተወካዮች ምክር ቤት ብቻ አይደለም፡፡ ይህ በኢትዮጵያ ብቻ ሳይሆን በየትም አገር ያለ እውነታ ነው፡፡ በየጊዜው እያደገ ከሚመጣው ማህበራዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ ችግር ውስብስብነት የተነሳ ህግ አውጭው ለእያንዳንዷ ችግር መፍትሄ የሚሆን ህግ ከልሂቅ እስከ ደቂቅ በዓይነትና በጥራት ማቅረብ ይሳነዋል፡፡ አንድ የህግ ረቂቅ ውጤት ያለው ህግ ለመሆን ከሚፈጀው ረጅም ጊዜና ዝርዝር የስነ-ስርዓት ቅድመ ሁኔታ አንፃር ህግ አውጭው በየጊዜው ለሚፈጠር ችግር በየጊዜው አዋጅ እያወጣ መፍትሄ ለመስጠት በቂ ግዜ የለውም፡፡ ከዚህም በተጨማሪ አንዳንድ ዝርዝር ጉዳዮች ልዩ እውቀትን የሚጠይቁ እንደመሆኑ ውስን የሆነው የህግ አውጭው እውቀት፤ የህግ ማውጣት ስልጣን በተግባር በከፊል የተገደበ እንዲሆንና ሌላ አማራጭ እንዲፈልግ ያስገድደዋል፡ ይህ አማራጭ በውክልና ህግ ( Delegated Legislation) ይባላል፡፡ ተግባራዊ ከሆኑት አስፈላጊ ምክንያቶች የተነሳ ህግ አውጭው ከህዝብ የተሰጠውን ህግ የማውጣት ስልጣን በከፊል ቆርሶ ለስራ አስፈፃውና ለአስተዳደር መስሪያ ቤቶች ይሰጣል፡፡ በዚሁ መሰረት የሚኒስተሮች ምክር ቤት በተወካዮች ምክር ቤት በአዋጅ በሚሰጠው ስልጣን መሰረት ደንብ ይደነግጋል፡፡ በተመሳሳይ መልኩ የአስተዳደር መስሪያ ቤቶች በውክልና የህግ አውጭነት ስልጣናቸው መመሪያዎችን ያወጣሉ፡፡

ዋነኛ ስልጣኑ ህግ ማስፈፀም የሆነው ስራ አስፈፃሚው የመንግስት አካል በደንብና በመመሪያ የህግ አውጭነት ስልጣን ደርቦ መያዙ ከስልጣን ክፍፍል መርህ ጋር የሚጣረስ ቢሆንም የህግ አውጭው የጊዜና የእውቀት እጥረት እንዲሁም የመንግስት አስተዳደርን ብቁና ውጤታ ከማድረግ አንፃር በተግባር የግድ ሚል እውነታ ሆኗል፡፡ ሆኖም የውክልና ህግ በዚህ እውነታ ብቻ የሚቋጭ ጉዳይ አይደለም፡፡ ያልተገደበ ስልጣን መኖር ለዜጎች መብትና ነፃት መቼም ቢሆን አደገኛነቱ ጥርጥር የለውም፡፡ የውክልና ህግ የአስፈላጊነቱ እውነታ ከዜጎች መብትና ነፃት ጋር እንዲጣጣም ወይም እንዲታረቅ ተግባራዊ የስልጣን መቆጣጠሪያ መሳሪያ እንዲኖር ግድ ይላል፡፡ እንደ የአስተዳደር ህግ ምሁሩ ዌድ አገላለጽ ከዜጎች ላይ ነፃነት ሲቀነስ አብሮ ፍትህ መጨመር አለበት፡፡ የመንግስት ስልጣኑ ሲለጠጥ በዛው ልክ የዜጎች መብትና ነፃነት እየተሸበሸበ ይመጣል፡፡ ስልጣን ሲጨምር ፍትህም አብሮ መጨመር አለበት፡፡ ይህ ማለት ስራ አስፈፃው ተጨማሪ የህግ አውጭነት ስልጣን ሲሰጠው ስልጣኑን በአግባቡና ፍትሃዊ በሆነ መንገድ ስለመገልገሉ የሚያረጋግጥ ይህም ባልሆነ ጊዜ የሚቆጣጠር መሳሪያ ያስፈልጋል ማለት ነው፡፡ Continue reading →

ጥቂት ስለ ህጎች ተደራሽነት


ዳኞች በተሻረ ህግ ውሳኔ ሰጥተዋል የሚባለው የጭምጭምታ ወሬ ከተራ ሐሜት ወደ ቁንጽል እውነት የመሸጋገሩ ነገር ከተገቢ ጥርጣሬ በላይ ባይረጋገጥም በአዲስ አዋጅ መዘግየት ምክንያት ፈጣን ፍትህ ለመስጠት መቸገራቸው ግን ገሃድ የወጣ ሐቅ ነው፡፡ አልፎ አልፎ የሚያጋጥም ቢሆንም ክስተቱ የአገሪቱን የህግ ሥርዓትና የህግ የበላይነት ጥያቄ ውስጥ የሚያስገባ ጥቁር ነጥብ ነው፡፡ ከሁሉም በላይ አዲስ የወጣ ህግ እንዲደርሳቸው የሚገባው ፍርድ ቤቶች ቢሆኑም እዛም ቤት ችግር መኖሩ የችግሩን ስፋትና ጥልቀት ይጠቁመናል፡፡ በተለይ ከአዲስ አበባ ውጭ ርቀው የሚገኙ ፍርድ ቤቶች አዲስ የወጣ አዋጅ በየጊዜው ስላልደረሳቸው ብቻ የመውጣቱን ዜና በጥቅሉ ከሚዲያ ሰምተው ለዚሁ ሲባል የያዙትን ጉዳይ ለሌላ ቀጠሮ ማስተላለፋቸው ለማስተዋል ተችሏል፡፡

ግልጽነት በኢ.ፌ.ድ.ሪ. ህገ-መንግስት እንደ መሰረታዊ መርህ ቢቀመጥም እውነታው ግን በወረቀት ከተፃፈው ጋር ሊጣጣም አልቻለም፡፡ የመንግስት አስተዳደርን በተመለከተ የዜጋው መረጃ የማግኘት መብት እስከአሁን ድረስ በተግባር አልተረጋገጠም፡፡ እዚህ ላይ ለመድረስ ገና ብዙ የሚቀረን ነው የሚመስለው፡፡ ይህን ለመረዳት ብዙ ርቆ መሄድ አያስፈልግም፡፡ እንኳንስ ከመንግስት መስሪያ ቤት መረጃና ሰነድ ማግኘት ቀርቶ የግድ የሚለውን የአገሪቱን ህጎች በቀላሉ ለማግኘት አስቸጋሪ የሆነበት ደረጃ ላይ ደርሰናል፡፡ Continue reading →

PROCLAMATION No. 798-2013 A PROCLAMATION TO RE-ENACT FOR THE STRENGTHENING AND SPECIFYING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY


PROCLAMATION No. 798/2013
A PROCLAMATION TO RE-ENACT FOR THE STRENGTHENING AND SPECIFYING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY OF THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA

WHEREAS, it is believed that the full-fledged implementation of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the supreme law of the land, is a guarantee to the continuation of the ongoing democratic system, development and peace;
WHEREAS, the Council of Constitutional Inquiry is established by virtue of Article 82 of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia to conduct constitutional •inquiries and present its findings to the House of the Federation which is empowered to interpret the Constitution;
WHEREAS, the Council is empowered to investigate constitutional disputes as per Article 84 of the Constitution which necessitates to have better practice and structure to respond to issues related to the interpretation of the Constitution efficiently;
WHEREAS, the Council needs to have its own supporting office so that it can discharge its duties efficiently while maintaining its constitutional independence;
NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance With Article 55 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, it is hereby proclaimed as follows

DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT

 

Federal Supreme Court Cassation Decisions Volume 15


Cassation Volume 15_Page1

Federal Supreme Court Cassation Decisions Volume 15 is now officially released.

DOWNLOAD

2013/14 Exit Exam Question Papers


National Educational Assessment and Examinations Agency (NEAEA)

National Exit Examination for

LL.B Programme Students of Ethiopian Law Schools

Academic Year 2013/2014

Part I:  Private Laws                          DOWNLOAD
Part II:  Public Laws                          DOWNLOAD

Part III:  Procedural Laws and Skill Courses    DOWNLOAD

Part IV:  Miscellaneous Courses      DOWNLOAD

Index to Cassation Deisions Volume 15


volume 15 Table of Contents_Page1

Index to cassation decisions volume 15

The Federal Supreme Court has released the index to volume 15 of cassation decisions.

Click the link below to download the file.

volume 15 Table of contents  DOWNLOAD

 

 

New Proclamations and Regulations 2013/14


Proclamations

Proclamation No. 808/2013 Information Network Security Agency Re-establishment Proclamation DOWNLOAD

Proclamation No. 810/2013 Energy Proclamation DOWNLOAD

Proclamation No. 811/2013 Trucks Demurrage Proclamation DOWNLOAD

Proclamation No. 812/2013 Export – Import Bank of China Loan Agreement Periods Additional Loan for Addis Ababa Adama Toll Motorway Design and Build and a Loan for Addis Ababa Toll Motorway Phase II Project Ratification Proclamation DOWNLOAD

Proclamation No. 815/2013 Bilateral Air Service Agreement Between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the Republic of Senegal Ratification Proclamation DOWNLOAD

Proclamation No. 818/2014  Urban Land Registration Proclamation DOWNLOAD
Proclamation 823/2014 International Development Association Financing Agreement for Financing the Second General Education Improvement Project II, Ratification Proclamation DOWNLOAD

Proclamation 824/2014 International Development Association Financing Agreement for Financing the Sustainable Land Management Project II , Ratification Proclamation DOWNLOAD

 

Regulations

 

Regulation No. 298/2013 Public Service Employee’s Transport Service Enterprise Establishment Council of Ministers Regulation DOWNLOAD

Regulation No. 299/2013 Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Council of Ministers Regulation DOWNLOAD

Regulation No. 300/2013 Insurance Fund Administration Agency Establishment Council of Ministers Regulation DOWNLOAD

Regulation No. 301/20 13 Ethiopian Public Health Institute Establishment Council of Ministers Regulation DOWNLOAD

Regulation No. 302/2013 Ethiopian Electric Power Establishment Council of Ministers Regulation DOWNLOAD

Regulation No. 303/2013 Ethiopian Electric Utility Establishment Council of Ministers Regulation DOWNLOAD

 

Guide to Judicial Review Jurisdiction of Federal Courts


Guide to Judicial Review Jurisdiction of Federal Courts

Do courts in Ethiopia have an inherent power to review the legality of administrative actions? Most legal scholars in Ethiopia are strong adherents of the ‘inherent power’ approach arguing that courts have inherent power to review acts of administrative agencies. However, such an argument is unpalatable to the Cassation Bench. In one case submitted to the bench (Ethiopian privatization and public enterprises supervising agency Vs. heirs of Ato Nur Beza, Casation File Number 23608 date Hidar 3-2000 E.C.) it was held that the source of judicial power in Ethiopia is statute. Courts do not have inherent judicial power and there is no legal framework governing the judicial review of administrative actions.

In spite of the strong words of the bench, not all cases involving judicial review of administrative action are rejected for lack of ‘inherent’ judicial power.  When a directive was challenged on the ground of ultra-virus (beyond power) neither the lower courts nor the cassation bench rejected the legal action on procedural grounds i.e. lack of inherent judicial power or the absence a legal framework governing the judicial review of administrative actions (See Ethiopian National Bank Vs. 1. Hibret Insurance Company 2.Mr. Eyesuswork Zafu 3. Mr. Workeshet Bekele Demisie Cassation File Number 44226 Date Tahesa 15-2003 E.C.) The Federal First Instance Court invalidated some provisions of the directive and its decision was affirmed by the appellate Federal High Court. Both decisions of the lower courts were overturned by the Cassation Bench, but unlike the Ethiopian privatization case (Casation File Number 23608) it was not on procedural grounds. On substantive grounds the bench stated that the issuance of the directive is within the scope of power of the Bank.

Now, let’s leave the issue of inherent judicial power of review and turn to statutory review. To what extent is statutory review available in Ethiopia? In general terms, a legal framework governing the judicial review of administrative actions (if that is to mean a single statute governing judicial review of administrative actions) is not yet available. However, different legislations clearly provide for reviewable administrative actions including which specific court has a power of review. These legislations are scattered here and there making it difficult to determine the scope of power of courts and the extent of availability of review.

What follows is a summary of legal provisions providing statutory review. I have tried to make the list comprehensive. Please let me know if a relevant proclamation is not included.

Finally, as you can see there four categories;

  • Federal first Instance Court
  • Federal High Court
  • Federal Supreme Court and
  • Regular Courts.

The reference to regular courts is due to the lack of clarity of the statute. When the law says “An employee aggrieved by the administrative decision of the top management may present his case to the regular courts” it is difficult to be certain as to which court it is referring to. For this reason, I created a 4th category, leaving it to ‘readers’ discretion’ of interpretation.

Click on the links below or the numbers at the bottom to go to a specific page.

Federal first Instance Court

Federal High Court

Federal Supreme Court and

Regular Courts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

U.S. prosecutors urge 22 years for brutal Ethiopian prison guard – The Denver Post


U.S. prosecutors urge 22 years for brutal Ethiopian prison guard – The Denver Post.

Kefelgn Alemu Worku, an Ethiopian who tortured and killed during a period of political turmoil in the African nation, should get 22 years in a U.S. prison — the maximum sentence allowed for his immigration fraud conviction, prosecutors said in a court document.

“Justice demands nothing less,” according to a sentencing statement filed in U.S. District Court in Denver.

Federal sentencing guidelines for Alemu Worku’s immigration violations recommend a sentencing range of zero to 18 months, but the law allows up to 10 years for each of two counts on which he was convicted, and two more years for a third.

It is unclear if upon release from prison Alemu Worku could be deported to his own country, where he has been sentenced to death, according to the sentencing statement filed by prosecutors.

Alemu Worku was convicted of immigration fraud last month after a five-day trial in which victims of Ethiopia’s Red Terror testified that he was a brutal guard at the Higher 15 prison during the late 1970s. He was convicted of assuming another man’s identity and lying about his background.

“While former Higher 15 prisoners in the United States continue to live every day with the physical aches and pains of their injuries and mental anguish resulting from their torture at the hands of or pursuant to the orders of the defendant, the defendant lived comfortably, safely, and free of any adverse consequences resulting from his commission of politically-motivated torture and murder during the eight years prior to his arrest in the United States and for unknown years in Kenya,” according to the document.

According to the sentencing statement, an Ethiopian Federal High Court convicted Alemu Worku in absentia of genocide on Nov. 13, 2000.

At the time, Alemu Worku, who had been a member of the ruling Marxist Derg junta before it was overthrown, was apparently living as a refugee in Kenya.

After finding that he “unjustly killed 101 … innocent individuals and inflicted injury through torture,” the court sentenced him to death, according to the statement.

On release from an American prison, the Department of Homeland Security would likely pursue his removal to Ethiopia.

But the deportation of Alemu Worku, who is in his mid to late 60s, poses challenges, and could require lengthy adjudication, the document said.

If Ethiopia refused to take him, or he was granted protection under the international Convention Against Torture, it isn’t clear where he could be sent, according to the document.

“The duration of litigation in a removal case can range from months to several years. It is premature to determine now whether the defendant would be subject to detention during any removal proceedings.”

Though he faces a death sentence in his homeland, the last known execution in Ethiopia was in 2007. “Conditions in Ethiopia at the current time do not suggest that a death sentence would be carried out,” according to the document.

In fact, the document said, “there is no record of Ethiopia having carried out any executions of former Derg members … a number of Derg members were pardoned entirely and released.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,801 other followers

%d bloggers like this: