Haramaya Law Review

The Enactment of Media Law in Federal Ethiopia: Analysis of the Legislative Authority

Hanan Marelign Zeleke — 2026-04-26

This article explores whether the federal regulation of media has a constitutional
basis in Ethiopia. While the authority to legislate with respect to media is not clearly
assigned in the Ethiopian Constitution either to the federal government or to the
regional states, as a practical matter, the federal government enacts laws regulating
the use of media. But is this practice, in fact, constitutional? It could be argued,
based on the residual power doctrine, that regional states, and not the federal
government, have the legislative authority to enact such laws. Due to the lack of
clarity on this important issue, controversies may arise when disputes between the
federal government and regional states involve legislative jurisdiction over the
media. How should such disputes be resolved if brought before the House of
Federation? This article argues, based on federalism principles such as
territoriality and subsidiarity, that the federal government has the ultimate legal
authority to enact legislation regulating the broadcasting part of the media, as the
subject matter necessitates federal regulation. Moreover, the federal legislature has
the authority to regulate the print media since they are under the concurrent
jurisdiction of the federal and state governments for enforcing the freedom of
expression rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This article chiefly employs a
doctrinal approach to unpack the legislative authority over media. Though the
federal regulation of media is found constitutionally defensible, there is a need to
clearly establish its authority.

Trust in Trans-boundary Water Governance: The Case of Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Negotiations

Zelalem Tesfaye Sirna — 2026-04-26

This paper examines the negotiations surrounding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
Dam (GERD) through the lens of trust and confidence-building within the water
security nexus among Nile Basin co-riparian states. Drawing on primary data
collected through in-depth interviews with officials from the Federal Ministry of
Water and Energy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the GERD Project Office,
scholars at Addis Ababa University working on Nile issues, and the Institute of
Foreign Affairs, the study is further supported by relevant legal documents, draft
agreements on GERD filling and operation, official reports, and secondary sources.
The paper advances the hypothesis that increased frequency of negotiations did not
translate into enhanced confidence-building measures (CBMs). While conventional
negotiation theory suggests that repeated interactions reduce mistrust and foster
mutual understanding, the GERD case presents a paradox: the more the parties met,
the more agendas were recycled, entrenching existing positions and complicating
the prospects for consensus. To explain this anomaly, the study revisits pre-GERD
water security discourses in the Nile Basin and analyzes their influence on post
GERD negotiation dynamics. It also finds that the decade-long negotiations failed to
produce agreement, inter alia, due to disparities in negotiating strategies and
behaviors, the securitized framing of drought as a tool of pressure against upstream
states rather than a shared hydrological risk, the involvement of regional and extra
regional powers, and the absence of substantive confidence-building measures. The
paper suggests that trust in trans-boundary water governance cannot be assumed to
emerge from repeated interaction alone but must be institutionally embedded and
strategically cultivated.

The Barred Role of Regular Courts in the Adjudication of Cases of Demolition of Informal Houses in Shaggar City

Eshetu Yadeta Temesgen — 2026-04-26

In the newly established Shaggar City, rapid peri-urban restructuring has led to
large-scale demolitions of residential structures. The paper examines the role of
regular courts in adjudicating cases arising out of the demolition of informal
houses_ the legal challenges surrounding judicial oversight of these executive
actions. The primary objective is to investigate the "justice gap" created when
administrative measures bypass the judicial scrutiny guaranteed under the FDRE
Constitution. Utilizing a qualitative framework, the paper analyses semi-structured
interviews and focus group discussions with legal experts and affected residents,
triangulated against Ethiopia's constitutional and legislative frameworks. The study
identifies three systemic failures: the use of informal circular letters to restrict court
filings; the legislative ouster of jurisdiction via Article 28 of Proclamation No.
721/2011; and the lack of institutional impartiality when grievances are heard by
the same administrative bodies executing the demolitions. These findings suggest
that demolition often functions as a "final judgment," effectively bypassing the right
of access to justice stipulated under Article 37 of the FDRE Constitution. The
suspension of judicial oversight erodes public trust in the rule of law. The study
recommends a robust adherence to constitutional principles supported by legislative
framework to restore the judiciary’s power of review over administrative actions.