UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN ETHIOPIA: THE PRACTICE UNDER VEIL AND DEVOID OF A WATCH DOG

Abstract

The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) under Article
104 and 105 sets forth amending clauses for formal constitutional changes that sets
procedures to be observed in the process of constitutional amendments: both initiation
and approval. Such constitutional provisions serve to confine the power to amend the
constitution within the prescribed legal requirements as well as help to control arbitrary
changes to the constitution, which consequently promotes constitutionalism within the
country. The FDRE Constitution has been amended twice within these twenty years. The
first amendment was made on Article 98 of the Constitution in 1997, and the second on
Article 103 (5) of the Constitution in 2005.This study explores the practice of such
constitutional amendments and their constitutionality under the Ethiopian legal context.
The study argues that the first and the second amendments substantially contravened
procedural requirements set by the Constitution, and hence are unconstitutional.
Moreover, the study also examines the institutional set up of the Ethiopian legal system
and finds that neither the House of Federation nor ordinary courts are appropriate
organs to review the constitutionality of constitutional amendments. Finally, the study
recommends that amendments made on the FDRE Constitution should be published, and
institutional reforms to be carried out in order to (re-)organize a watch dog body to
safeguard the Constitution against practice of unconstitutional amendments.