Can the Current Constitutional Framework of Ethiopia be Used to Bring About a Sustainable Solution to the Border Dispute Between the States of Tigray and Amhara?
/
Zelalem Shiferaw Woldemichael
Melbourne Law School
Background
On November 2, 2022, the federal government of Ethiopia and the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front (TPLF) signed an African Union-led peace agreement to end their ongoing conflict since November 2020, which has brought dire consequences such as the deaths of thousands of civilians, the displacement of millions, and huge destruction of property, among others. The peace deal aims to achieve a permanent cessation of hostilities and lasting peace to the country in general and to the northern part of Ethiopia in particular.
There was a huge expectation that the peace deal would lay the groundwork for resolving the conflict between the states of Tigray and Amhara over the areas known as Wolkait and Raya, located in the northern part of Ethiopia, which has long been a source of intense dispute between those states. Yet, the peace deal makes no explicit mention of the issue other than a generic expression stipulated in Article 10, which implies that the contested areas will be resolved in accordance with the Federal Constitution. It reads: “The Parties commit to resolving issues of contested areas in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia”. This was confirmed in the official statement of Mr. Redwan Hussein (Ambassador), national security affairs advisor to the Prime Minister, released on December 28, 2022.
The disputed areas were demarcated to fall under the administration of the state of Tigray following the fall of the Derg regime in 1991. The areas are now under the control of the state of Amhara as the TPLF lost control following the conflict in the Tigray region. At the time of this post, the federal government and TPLF have discussed the steps to be taken to implement the peace deal. They have not, nonetheless, made any further explanations regarding the border issues. Ostensibly, the border dispute needs particular attention, as it may have the potential to re-ignite the conflict. In this piece, I will consider whether the current constitutional provisions can be used to bring about a sustainable solution.
Will Relying on the Current Constitutional Framework Lead to a Viable Solution?
The Federal Constitution has delimited the constituent units of the Ethiopian Federation (states) by considering mainly the ethnic identities of the inhabitants (Art. 46). The administrative boundaries of each state will cover the areas that the ethnic communities found in the states have long inhabited (Preamble, Article 39(3)). The Tigray elites consider the inclusion of the disputed areas in the state of Tigray as legitimate, as those areas, they argue, have been long inhabited by the ethnic Tigrayans. The Amhara elites, on the other hand, saw it as an illegitimate annexation, claiming that the areas were decided to be administered by Tigray after the TPLF-led government forcibly expelled the ethnic Amharas—the original settlers.
As mentioned, the federal government has decided to rely on constitutional rules to resolve the border dispute. The potential of this approach to bring about a sustainable solution is highly questionable given that the political elites in the state of Amhara have constantly objected to applying the current constitutional provisions to the dispute. As Article 48 of the Constitution lays out, the House of Federation -the second chamber of the Federal Parliament- has the authority to resolve the conflict based on the settlement pattern and the wishes of the people concerned if the disputing parties are unable to settle it by agreement. The Amhara elites seem to have rejected this process, as the referendum may end up favouring the state of Tigray as the ethnic Tigrayans are currently numerically dominant in the areas. The National Movement of Amhara, for example, has requested that the federal government give legal recognition to the present administration of the disputed areas by the state of Amhara instead of using the constitutional provisions to determine their fate.
It should also be borne in mind that the legitimacy of the constitution-making process has been consistently challenged by various authorities, most notably by the political elites in the state of Amhara. The Amhara people, those elites argue, were underrepresented in the process. Numerous studies have documented the TPLF’s enormous influence on the constitution-making process. Political elites in Tigray, on the other hand, dismiss this claim and portray the constitution-making process as inclusive, involving people from all walks of life. Many Ethiopian scholars, activists, and political actors have advocated for the revision of the Constitution's ethnic-based federal arrangement, which influenced the delimitation of the administrative boundaries of the states. The ethnic-based federal configuration, according to them, is to blame for the tragic ethnic conflicts that proliferated following the removal of the TPLF in 2018. The provisions of the constitution on the Ethiopian flag, the working language of the federal government, and the right to self-determination of ethnic groups up to secession are some of the aspects of the constitution that have yet to be resolved.
Going Forward
Accordingly, efforts to iron out the border conflict should give priority to addressing factors that have undermined the constitutional system's legitimacy. To this end, the contested aspects of the constitution should be subject to discussion and deliberation by the public across all regional states of Ethiopia. The process can be led by the national dialogue commission, recently established by the Federal Parliament to deal with the increasing differences and disagreements among various political and opinion leaders through broad-based, inclusive public dialogue. To increase the commission's legitimacy and ability to bring about the desired results, the government should, however, address the serious concerns expressed by some, including opposition political parties, regarding the provisions of the law establishing the commission that deal with matters such as the commission's composition and mandate, transparency, and public participation.
The Commission can discuss the issue along with other critical matters that are required to table for public discussion. The present issue should, then, be addressed following the rules of the constitution that would be developed following the revision process suggested by the dialogue commission. Until decided in this way, the federal government should pass a provisional decision regarding the administration of the areas following an inclusive decision-making process. To that end, lessons can be drawn from the mechanism used during the transitional period following the demise of the Derg regime, when it was decided that because of the claims of the regional states of Oromia and Somalia, Diredawa city should be placed under federal administration until the matter is finally resolved. The federal government may consider establishing a provisional administration that comprises representatives of peoples in the area, most notably the ethnic Tigrayans and Amharas, who, as some have noted, have strong historical and cultural bonds that transcend the Amhara-Tigray linguistic divide. Adequate effort should be made to ensure that the appointment process is transparent and participatory. The provisional administration, then, must be accountable to the federal government.
The long-aged identity questions of Wolkait and Raya should also be considered by the new constitution that comes into play following the national dialogue.The former question relates to the request by the people in the Wolkait area who want to be identified as ethnic Amharas. The latter concerns a demand by the Raya people for autonomous status. Under the current legal framework, identity questions are determined by the state administrations where the inhabitants are located. The House of Federation will be seized with the matter if the question is not answered within two years of the request by the concerned state or if the people are dissatisfied with the decision. As the concerned state that should administer the areas where the people reside is subject to dispute, it will be difficult to answer this question before the border dispute is finally resolved.
Zelalem Shiferaw Woldemichael is a PhD candidate at Melbourne Law School
Suggested Citation: Zelalem Shiferaw Woldemichael, ‘Can the Current Constitutional Framework of Ethiopia be Used to Bring About a Sustainable Solution to the Border Dispute Between the States of Tigray and Amhara?' IACL-AIDC Blog (21 February 2023) https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/2023-posts/2023/2/21/can-the-current-constitutional-framework-of-ethiopia-be-used-to-bring-about-a-sustainable-solution-to-the-border-dispute-between-the-states-of-tigray-and-amhara.
![Xx1088_-_Seoul_city_nightscape_during_1988_Paralympics_-_3b_-_Scan [test].jpg](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5af3f84a4eddec846552ea29/1527486925632-3VZP3ASLAHP1LJI0D9NJ/Xx1088_-_Seoul_city_nightscape_during_1988_Paralympics_-_3b_-_Scan+%5Btest%5D.jpg)
