The SPDM/ EPRDF Decision on the Sidama Regional Question .

By Mulugeta B. Daye

October 1, 2012

The SPDM and its Officials at the helm of the power in the Regional State  created by merger of 56 nations, nationalities and peoples known as SNNPRS have  been shaken down to their  foundation since the  Sidama people demanded regional self-administration.   The last week meeting of 820 cadres and loyalist in Hawassa called by the SNNPRS President of Southern region about which our various reporters have shared detailed account   has concluded on the following   three issues. These issues are decisive to existence of the Sidama people:

1)       The president of SNNPRS  forced  the cadres to accept that  the Sidama people have  denounced their  quest for regional autonomy.

2)      He forced the cadres to  agree to replace the Sidama  Administrations of Hawassa city by non-Sidamas, with implementation of the agreed upon plan postponed for little while.

3)     Regarding the release of the Sidama prisoners, who are jailed simply on suspicion of mobilising the Sidama for regional autonomy, shall be denied the release even on bail.

      Release on the bail means, in Ethiopian system; If the accused given the right to release on bail the accuser secures the detainees   appearance in court, when the person is needed to do so.  This can be attained in Ethiopia, primarily, by some of money deposited to secure an accused person’s temporary release from custody and to guarantee that person’s appearance in court at a later date. If the person fails to appear in court on the date set, the money is forfeited, Secondly, released under security:-  temporary release from  custody after bail has been paid. This indicates the mistreatment of  the Sidama political prisoners, who have no other criminal records.  They are feared and  suspected only of mobilising the Sidama people to echo the demand for regional self administration and the entire Sidama community  honoured and respected  them.
       Further more, mis-treatment of sidama political prisoners is so harsh,  particularly those who are respected by the sidama community, that ranges from simple psychological  torture such as demoralising, discouraging, bullying, teething by criminals in jail lose of Job and physical torture such as  beating  the person in the custody  which is also violation of human right, the recent heart-breaking news  form Hawassa according to Sidama Worancha reporter net work , unknown criminals  attempted  to commit unsuccessful assassination to Dukkale Lamiso 55,
      prominent Sidama politcal prisoner   Dukkall'e Laamiso, witnesses this case.

Amharic report taken from Sidama Worancha Blog reads:
     "የ55ዓመት እድሜ ባለበት የሆኑት እና በአሁኑ ወቅት በማረሚያ ቤት ሆነው በስኳርና የደም ግፊት እየተሰቃዩ የሚገኙት ካላ ዱካሌ ላሚሶ፣ በነሐሴ 10/2004ዓ.ም ከስራ ቦታቸው ታፍነው እስር ቤት የተወረወሩት፣ እስከዛሬ መስከረም 15/2005ዓ.ም ድረስ ክስ ሳይመሰረትባቸው በማረሚያ ቤት የሚገኙት እና ለሲዳማ ሕዝብ መብት ሕይወታቸውን ሙሉ ሲታገሉ የኖሩ፣በግብርና ዘርፍ ማስተርሳቸውን በእንግሊዝ ሀገር በ1980ዎቹ ያገኙት አቶ ዱካሌ ላሚሶ መስከረም 14/2005ዓ.ም ከጠዋቱ 4 ሰዓት ላይ በቴክኒክና ሞያ ት/ቤት አካባቢ ከወህኒ ቤት በፖሊስ ታጅበው ለደም ግፊት ህክምና ወደ ሃዋሳ ሬፈራል ሆስፒታል ሄደው ሲመለሱ ማንነታቸው ባልታወቁ ሰዎች ከተጫኑበት ባጃጅ ጭምር ታርጋ በሌለው መኪና ተገጭተው 4 ሜትር በሚረዝመው የአስፋልት ጠርዝ ገደል ውስጥ ጥለዋቸው ለጊዜው ተሰውረዋል፡፡በዚህም አደጋው በደረሰበት አካባቢ ህብረተሰብ ርብርብ ሕይወታቸው የተረፈ ሲሆን ታርጋ የሌለው ተሸከርካሪም ለጊዜው ተሰውሯል"፡፡  Which means roughly:" Dukkale Lamiso 55, is the diabetic and suffering from blood pressure. He was  kidnapped and later found himself in one of notorious jail, on 17^th of August 2012, he was not charged until 22/09/2012.  Mr. Laamiso is  MSc.  In agriculture [ graduate of Reading in 1999] United Kingdom. On 21t of September at 10: am local time was being escorted to  Hawassa Referral Hospital. On his way back to jail he was narrowly escaped death trap. The culprits were unknown in a vehicle without plate number who crashed  Laamiso’s taxi  and throw him in 4 meter deep canal  beside road, he was survived by the help of local community, shortly  after the culprit disappear the crime scene." [ other sources claim  that assassination attempt was organised by the government security forces]    


      This turn of events shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who understands African political tradition in general and Ethiopian politics in particular. It is unfortunate that the government opted for All or None approach and denied the Sidama people's constitutional right, the right the Ethiopian constitution(Article 39) grants to all Ethiopian nations, nationalities, and peoples, without restriction.
 

  Sidama's quest for regional status is neither new nor unreasonable request. Both the federal and   regional governments had enough time to explore various solutions, including temporary solutions that could be revisited after a specific time period in the future to come up with a better solutions that both parties can live with. Unfortunately, that is not how the government saw the issue. Well, we are where we are and the question we have to answer is: "Where do we go from here?" The simplest answer is to pick up the next higher card, which makes the issue the matter of international law. In other words, the quest becomes the right of general/external self-determination(--Territorial title, authority, political right).

 

It is imperative to consult some legal documents, in light of breaching the article 39 of the Ethiopian constitution, by those who are supposed to defend it The  supremacy clause of the constitution is a shorthand expression of the fact that constitutional principles are sources of ‘an objective normative value system, a set of values that must be respected’ (I. Currie and J. de Waal 2005: 32).   Whenever, laws are passed, interpreted or applied, and decisions are made or actions are taken. It is a local Grundnorm which, once established, becomes a wellspring of the normative order from which a country’s overall legal system, institutions, procedures, processes and substantive principles flow (E. McWhinney1985: 1986)

 The objective normative order and value system established by a constitution should provide a yardstick against which the legal validity of legislations and governmental (in)actions are measured (W. K. Geck, W. K. 1996: 25). Under the Ethiopian constitution, ‘[a] ny law, customary practice or a decision of an organ of state or a public official’ risks nullity if it deviates from the constitutional Grundnorm, the objective legal order sought to be installed by the constitution (FDRE Constitution, article 9(1). As well as all citizens, political organisations, other associations and their officials, all organs of the state have an explicit ‘duty to ensure observance of the Constitution and to obey it’(Ibid., article 9(2))

Nevertheless, the constitution cannot create ‘a track from which no one can deviate. It is simply not humanly possible’ (Willis,1997:30). The best that can be hoped for is for it to provide an overarching framework that can ‘facilitate the co-existence of all socially constituted entities, extending in size from the socially constituted self to the political community-at-large’ (Ibid.: 3). A deviation from the constitutionally established ‘objective legal order’ is obviously unconstitutional, but questions arise in relation to the determination of whether a law, decision or practice of a state organ is indeed unconstitutional.

At the risk of a degree of oversimplification, it may be stated that attempts at guaranteeing constitutional supremacy involve three steps(Bobbs-Merrill 1971) The first step is to codify meta-constitutional norms, higher societal values, into constitutions. This process ‘positivises’ the country’s guiding principles and values and somewhat insulates them against their violation through constitutionally entrenched guarantees. The second step is to rigidify the constitutional principles and values, ‘conferring a relative immutability on the superior law and the values it enshrines’(Ibid) .The final step is to provide for an institutional guarantee for insuring against or remedying executive or legislative encroachments on the values and principles so consecrated. This, more often than not, would entail adjudication of complaints of unconstitutionality of legislative acts or executive conduct or both. It is in this third aspect that nations’ experiences vary greatly in terms of the procedures and institutions designed to adjudicate constitutional disputes.  

 We, the Sidama people have strong case that witnesses the breach of constitution, it is needless to detail historical background here, as both regional, and federal governments of Ethiopia are fully aware of  it.   The Sidama people’s demand for regional autonomy has been placed in front of politicians step by step, using every acceptable procedures. The former PM head of Ethiopian government accepted the legitimacy and the legality of the demand.

It is more than 6 years while the Sidama’s official quest for regional autonomy was filed, the response was however systematically delayed, and now denied. Therefore the   Sidama case   should go to:

1)     Constitutional court if there is any in Ethiopia.

2)     If the Sidama’s, demand for self-Administration has no response form constitutional court in the country, the campaign should be launched to make African Union Aware of the issue.

3)      If African Union fails to consider this case  Sidama’s issue,  the United Nations should be made aware of the breach of constitution, as the Sidama people numbering 3.4 million continue to be denied fair treatment, under the   Ethiopian administration. Therefore all, Sidama people including , councils of elders, students, men, women, and those in diasporas should join hands to contact the African Union and the Untied Nations and other global Human rights organizations  and invite them to probe  the continued unconstitutional mistreatment of the Sidama people including the continued persecution, abuse, harassment and torture and gross violations of human rights for protection.

Dukk'ale  Lammisso, one of the Sidama political prisoners , after surviving fresh car accident.

Free all Sidama Political Prisoners!!!