Oromia Law Journal

Sababootaafi Miidhaawwan Diiggaa Gaa'ilaa:

2023-09-19T03:05:01+00:00

Family is the most indispensable unit in the formation of society, and any bad or good fortune related to this unit significantly affects society and the nation at large. Thus, since primordial society, it is common to give families cultural, religious, and legal protection. However, in presence of all these protections, it has never been possible to save every family as an institution from becoming the victim of divorce. In Oromia’s national regional state, like in other parts of the world, divorce has become a common issue in social, economic, and legal affairs. The aim of this research is to assess the cause and effects of divorce in the region. Meanwhile, the efficiency of the legal regimes governing the issue and the practical problems in handling divorce cases are entertained. The research follows a sociolegal research method; accordingly conducted 347 interviews, 58 questioners filled, and 105 dead files are analysed. And it is found that lack of fidelity, addiction of different types, unwanted family intervention, lack of a culture of discussion, and early marriage are the main cause of divorce while its effects are manifested psychologically, socially, economically, and in terms of health upon the former spouses and their children. Besides, practical problems and areas of legal limitation in the Oromia family code, the Oromia Supreme Court manual for family and children bench, and regulations governing the formation of Bench in Oromia Courts are identified. Finally, the necessary measures that need to be taken to lessen the causes of divorce and to minimize its effect are suggested; and as well areas of amendments in the legal regimes are recommended.

Interrogating Land Policy Perspectives:

2023-09-19T03:18:52+00:00

The article examines major contending land policy perspectives in the context of contemporary Ethiopia. It casts doubts whether the people`s land ownership perspective is actually in place in Ethiopia, calling for in-depth empirical investigation of the issue of whether the fundamental ethos of the people land ownership enshrined in the FDRE Constitution is being significantly denuded by land alienation trends reflected in the practices of loose landholding expropriation, of commercial farmland acquisitions and of significant informal land transfers. The article further suggests an investigation of whether a contingent case for the people`s land ownership paradigm is defensible in the circumstances of Ethiopia with a proviso: a system of government which takes into account views of the rural landholding masses and thus bring the silent peasants and herders to the center stage in politics, i.e., prevalence in the nation of representative and deliberative democracy. The article sees the rule of law and functioning independent and competent judiciary as equally important preconditions.

Benefit Sharing Schemes' As A Means to Enforce Forest Legislation:

2023-09-19T03:27:16+00:00

Forest is among the precious resources which is vital for human beings and other living creatures. As forest degradation has a global effect, every nation’s forest law implementation has also a global importance. Most countries’ constitutions, including the FDRE Constitution recognize the right of every citizen to live in a `clean and healthy` environment. But, its implementation is encircled with various challenges. Sheka Zone is among the high potential corridors for forest development, conservation and utilization. But, nowa days, the Sheka forest is dwindling with alarming rate mostly because of man-made factors. Thus, the focus of this article is on one means of enforcement of forest legislation: the need for developing `benefit sharing` schemes to conserve Sheka Forest which is registered as biosphere reserve by UNESCO. The findings of the article vividly show that benefit sharing scheme, a vital tool of forest law enforcement mechanism, is totally ignored in the research area. Thus, the article argues that devising effective benefit sharing schemes for the local community and its effective implementation is one of the means of enforcing forest legislation. Endeavoring to enforce the law with positive participation and thereby visible benefits for the stakeholders has a tremendous value. In order to write this article, the authors employed literature reviews, legal analysis, observations, focus group discussions and intensive interviews.

The Undermined Social Pain:

2023-09-19T03:35:24+00:00

The target of this article is to appraise the (un)suitability of Ethiopian criminal law design to halt the prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Ethiopia. Since practicing FGM has no any health benefit, plethora of international as well as regional treaties, and also domestic legislations of different jurisdictions years ago framed it as a gender based human rights violation. Ethiopia is one of those jurisdictions which have attempted to eliminate the prevalence of FGM by outlawing its practice. It criminalized FGM as one of crimes against person and health under penal code of 1957 whilst as one of crimes of harmful traditional practices (HTPs) under criminal code of 2004. Regarding its punishment, per the latter code, the punishment of FGM crime, as one crime of HTPs, goes up to a maximum five year rigorous imprisonment, while had it been one of crimes against person and health, its punishment should have gone up to a maximum of 15 years rigorous imprisonment. All the same, either failure to treat FGM as one of crimes against person and health or making it a more severe crime, compared to crimes against person and health, represents the fallacy of treating female genital as it is not part of human body. Moreover, attaching less lenient punishment to FGM crime, compared to crimes against person and health, does not serve the very purpose of criminalizing it. Consequently, the author argues practicing FGM should not be one of crimes of HTPs rather one of crimes against person and health in Ethiopian law. In so doing, doctrinal research method is employed to attain the target of this article.

State Parties' Withdrawal of Direct Access to African Court of Human and Peoples Rights:

2023-09-19T03:42:41+00:00

This article analyzes the implications of the recent withdrawals of the declaration under article 34 (6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court Protocol) on the activities of the Court and provides plausible recommendations. It argues that implications of the withdrawals include a decrease in the number of cases reaching the Court, compliance problems with judgments of pending cases, negative effect on the legitimacy of the Court, and more state parties being discouraged from accepting direct access declaration. As a solution to curb the impact of the withdrawals and in general, to improve the effectiveness of the African human rights system, the article suggests that there is a need for the purposive application of the complementarity relationship between the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Court. Accordingly, the Commission needs to adopt a duty-based but rebuttable referral approach for cases of non-compliance with its recommendations. It should develop purposive referral practices and refer cases to the Court frequently as this will help solve the challenges that arise from the recent withdrawals.

Economic Crimes under Ethiopian Bilateral Investment Treaties and Arbitration Law

2023-09-19T03:48:37+00:00

Besides multilateral instruments, states have started to conclude bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with provision expressly aimed at preventing economic crimes. On related subject, recently arbitration tribunals began to assume jurisdiction over all kinds of economic crime claims that arises in investors-state dispute settlement, except where the BITs provide otherwise. In the absence of explicit provision under BITs, the jurisdiction of tribunals’ delimited by the arbitrability of the economic crime claims under domestic laws. Therefore, the purpose of this article is, one, to examine whether Ethiopian BITs are incorporated provision aimed at preventing economic crimes. Two: to examine whether Ethiopian BITs are incorporated provision that limit tribunals’ jurisdiction over certain kinds of economic crime claims. Three: to examine the arbitrability of economic crime claims under Ethiopian arbitration law. To achieve the purpose, the article examined different Ethiopian BITs, Ethiopian arbitration law and other secondary materials. The article also examined other countries BITs that can serve to drive a lesson for Ethiopia. Accordingly, it comes to conclude that most Ethiopian BITs are not familiar with economic crime provision though the problem is too serious in the country. It also concludes that all kinds of economic crime claims are inarbitrable under Ethiopian arbitration law. Finally, it recommends, one, incorporating provision that aimed at preventing economic crimes, two, limiting the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals over certain kinds of economic crime claims for the public policy matter, three, making some economic crime claims arbitrable since total inarbitrability is against new generation of arbitrability.

Himannaa Abbaa Qabiyyummaafi Mirga Abbaa Qabiyyummaa Lafa Magaalaa:

2023-09-19T04:31:51+00:00

This case comment bases itself on the decision rendered by the Cassation Division of Supreme Court of Oromia. It contends that material facts that should be stated in possessory actions and in actions related to landholding rights are different. These two actions protect two different legal interests. While possessory action is an action brought to protect a factual situation (possession) of a person provisionally, action in relation to landholding rights is an action that is instituted to enforce the land rights (title to land) granted to a landholder in case it is violated. In the case under discussion, the Cassation Division of Supreme Court of Oromia has obscured the distinctions between the two types of actions and combined them as one. In this case, all the material facts which should exist to bring a possessory action and all the facts which are required to bring an action in relation to violated landholding right existed cumulatively. The means of proof that are required to establish both actions are also there. Despite the existence of these facts and evidences, the Cassation Division has mingled and decided on the two issues as one on a single file. This decision of the cassation division conflates the material facts of the two actions in a single action; which is procedurally unjust, substantively wrong and thus sets a bad precedent for the lower courts. It has also disclosed that the laws lack clarity regarding whether a title can be pleaded in a possessory action. Thus, in addition to the call for amendment of the laws, it is recommended that possessory actions in relation to land and landholding right action, which according to the relevant laws, constitute different material facts should be treated differently and separately. Even when, a single action that constitutes the material facts of both actions is brought before a court, the court should either order the plaintiff to amend his action or suit so as to ensure its compliance with the relevant laws or the court should, alternatively, for the sake of procedural efficiency and based on the willingness of the parties, allow the parties to plead a title and investigate the two separate issues together, and should try the whole issues on a single file.