Prime Minster Meles Zenawi's Letter to the Editor of the Ethiopian Herald
Part II

  P.M. Meles’s Letter to the Editor

Guilty until proven innocent

The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU-EOM) has three main arguments to prove that the complaints investigation mechanism’s activities were flawed and did not meet international standards. It first alleges that opposition parties had been hindered by intimidation and arrests of their witnesses. It also argues that there were inconsistencies in the application of the rules of procedures. Finally, it further argues that the impartiality of the evaluation of complaints was questionable. Let us deal with each point by starting with the last one.

It is worth reminding your readers what the EU-EOM had said about the quality of cases presented by the parties to the Complaints Investigation Panels (CIPs). It had said that the opposition parties witnesses were “inconsistent” their evidence poor and their arguments weak. It had said that on the contrary the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF’s) evidence was substantiated and its arguments well drafted. One can guess as to what an impartial evaluation of the complaints would decide on the basis of the above mentioned facts.

On page three of the statement the EU-EOM says as follows.

“de facto there was no level play ing field: the ruling party was generally represented on the panels by important members of the local society, including state officials, such as judges. This increased confusion between the roles of the state and EPRDF and (sic) exacerbated the atmosphere of intimidation, including of members of the election administration, often called as witnesses by all parties....”

Let me start by disposing of the obvious misrepresentation first. Judges could not and did not represent any of the parties in the CIPs. Not one judge sat on the CIPs anywhere in the country representing the ruling or any other party. Let me also add that an investigation into alleged electoral malpractice could not but hear testimony from the election administrators. Naturally therefore the parties called on them to testify.

The procedure of the CIPs which was agreed upon by all parties was designed to give them a level playing field. Every party that had a case to be presented before any CIP was given one seat in the CIP, and every one had the right to appoint whoever they wished to represent them in the CIPs. Naturally, members of institutions that are not allowed to engage in partisan politics (Judges, members of the police and armed forces) could not represent parties, but other than that it was up to every party to name its representative. Each party was also allowed to name people who would plead its case before the panels. It was naturally assumed that all parties would assign to the task the best people they have.

The EPRDF assigned the best people it has to represent it on the panels. This usually happened to be officials elected to local government posts or political appointees. It also assigned the best people it could get to defend its case. Those in government positions took a leave of absence from their position and devoted their time to defend the party that they support and/or are members of. The opposition parties had exactly the same right. But in the opinion of the EU-EOM, the quality of people assigned by them was not on a par with that of the EPRDF. The EU-EOM is of course entitled to its opinion about the capability of the representatives of the various parties, but what concerns us here is its impact on the playing field.

Leveling the playing field means that every party is given the same chance. That I believe is the international standard. Leveling the playing field does not mean leveling the capability of the representatives of each party. That is not the international standard. That is EU-EOM standard. So long as the EPRDF was represented by more capable people or people who command more respect locally than those of the opposition, the EU-EOM concludes there can be no level paying field.

The EU-EOM is also concerned about confusion of the roles of the state and parties. In every democratic country members of a ruling party are elected into state positions or are appointed into state offices that are held by political appointees. Such people are allowed to retain their state and party positions in every democratic country that I know of. They carry out their state functions in their capacity as state officials and perform party duties in their capacity as party officials.

Those who were involved with the CIPs were the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) and the parties. The government was not a party to the process. EPRDF party officials took a leave of absence from their state positions and represented their party in the CIPs. That I believe fulfils international standards and implies no confusion of the state and party.

The EU-EOM seems to argue that the very presence of state officials in the CIPs would intimidate people. It does not present any evidence as to whether their very presence did have such an impact. In any case, if that were to be the assumption, then the ruling party could not be represented by the best people it has because as ruling parties normally do, it fields its best people as candidates to elective state positions and appoints its best people in state positions held by political appointees. The EU-EOM appears to think that such an approach would level the playing field. No, it does not. What it does is let the opposition parties be represented by the best they have while denying the EPRDF the same right. The argument of EU-EOM that there was no level field says a lot more about its sympathies and antipathies than about the playing field which was level and which was agreed upon by all the concerned parties.

On the same theme, the EU-EOM has the following to say:

“The opposition may appeal NEBE decisions on the CIPs conclusions to the courts. Nevertheless, the chairman of the National Electoral Board, Ato Kemal Bedri, is the same person who chairs the Supreme Court. Despite his efforts to uphold an independent and legally grounded arbitration within the NEBE that coincidence of offices does not encourage public trust in an independent review by the NEBE or, actually, the courts. The opposition parties and other observers, who charged since the electoral campaign that NEBE was not independent, perceived it worsening at the appeals stage, also pointing out that there is no clear separation of power between the judiciary and the executive.”

I believe this is one of the most extraordinary paragraphs in the statement and requires careful scrutiny.

The author of the statement suggest that the fact that the president of the Supreme Court is at the same time the chairman of the independent election board jeopardizes the independence and objectivity of both. The author must know that in some of the oldest democracies, it is ministers and senior government officials who oversee elections. As these government officials are in most cases also senior members of ruling parties, there is in such an arrangement an even more obvious “coincidence of offices”. No one has to the best of my knowledge questioned the impartiality of the electoral institutions in these countries on the basis of the mere fact of “coincidence of offices”. The EU-EOM talks of international standards, and if the practice of established democracies is one element of that standard, then the NEBE is by far less susceptible to the alleged harm that may be caused by the “coincidence of offices” than those of some of the most democratic states on earth. In our case, parties - ruling or opposition - have no place on the Board of NEBE. In our case, it is the president of the highest court of the land, a president who by law is forbidden from belonging to any party, who chairs the board. How can the fact that a person who is by law obliged to be non-partisan is chairman of the board ipso facto jeopardize its impartiality? How is our board’s set up inferior to any of those in the established democracies in terms of avoiding “coincidence of offices”?

The author must know that judges in all democracies do, from time to time, face issues of conflict of interest, when for example they are asked to adjudicate cases involving family members or cases that they have already come across in a different capacity. The normal practice in such cases is that the concerned judge excuses himself/herself from adjudicating the case in question and lets other judges deal with it. That is the normal practice in Ethiopia, too, for after all we do try to live up to international standards. How is it possible that such potential conflict of interest automatically puts the independence of both the judiciary and the NEBE into question when Ethiopia practices the same remedy that is practiced in all democracies to address problems of conflict of interest in a satisfactory manner.

While the EU-EOM talks of international standards it apparently has no interest in applying them to its own work. It appears to prefer the standard of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to the EPRDF, The NEBE, The CIPs etc. The NEBE and the judiciary are found guilty of partiality because of the “coincidence of offices” which in some form or another is to be found in every democratic country and for which internationally accepted remedies are available, remedies that have and will continue to be used in Ethiopia.

The EU-EOM reinforces this argument in a most unusual fashion, and in order to highlight this point, I feel, I must quote again one single sentence from my previous quotation. The author of the statement says “the opposition parties and other observers, who charged since the electoral campaign that NEBE was not independent, perceived it worsening at the appeals stage, also pointing out that there is no clear separation of power between the judiciary and the executive.” You must remember that this is a quote from a statement of an election observer team whose task is to observe the electoral process and report what they observed. What this particular group of observers is telling us in the sentence just cited is not what they themselves observed and verified. No! What they are telling us is what the opposition parties and some other unnamed observers perceived. What these unnamed observers perceived is that the NEBE is partial and that its partiality has been getting worse, and that the judiciary is not independent. The EU-EOM appears to some how been made aware of this perception of the opposition parties and unnamed observers. To the author of the statement, God save her soul, that is enough to condemn the NEBE of impartiality and the judiciary of lack of independence. After all, the standard they prefer to use is that if you are accused by the opposition of doing something wrong, or perceived to have done something wrong, that is all there is to it, the case is closed. You are guilty as accused, or perceived.

In the end, even the EU-EOM understands that it has to come up with something concrete to show that the CIPs and the NEBE have acted in a manner that favours the EPRDF and it comes up with the following case on page six:

“One such case occurred in Shashemene 1 constituency, where the complainant, (UEDF) presented certificates of results for 64 Polling Stations (out of 67 in the constituency) duly completed, signed and stamped by the relevant election officers, declaring the UEDF candidate as winner. This evidence was rejected by the CIP on the allegation that the documents were forged. The complaint was dismissed so the EPRDF candidate retains the seat. This decision was based on the testimony of a local police officer, who certified in front of the panel that some copies of the mentioned form had been stolen prior to the election, thus the documents presented to the panel could be fake.”

The same story is told on page five as follows.

“....There were cases where opposition (sic) had strong evidence, namely result certificates of May 15th, and that was dismissed against unconvincing elements, namely statements from NEBE or Police Officials. This was, for example, the case in Shashemene 1”

I really am at a loss where to start with this one. It is so symptomatic of the EU-EOM’s shoddy reporting.

You will notice that results certificates are very convincing pieces of evidence to the EU-EOM, and this despite their allegation that there was serious fraud in vote counting and aggregation. What they do not seem to understand is that such certificates are issued by NEBE officials whose statements are of course unconvincing. As a result, you have these strange phenomena where a certificate issued by a person is very convincing but testimony by that very person is very unconvincing. In the eyes of the EU-EOM, it goes without saying that testimony of a local police officer cannot but be unconvincing. That apparently is the international standard for the EU-EOM.

On a more serious note, what the CIP in Shashemene had was not only the testimony of some lowly police officer but also the said certificate. You see the certificate presented to the CIP by the UEDF was a photocopied version of an alleged original. The problem with the photocopied document presented to the CIP was that some lines and figures had been erased with a pen and most of the figures had been inserted by writing on the photocopied letter in ink. It was patently obvious to the CIP that this was indeed a crude forgery. They did not have to take the word of the policeman for it. They saw that the photocopied document had been written over and some of its parts had been erased. Naturally, this, like all the proceedings of all CIPs has been recorded and the EU-EOM could have checked their facts if they were interested in the facts. But let us proceed to the other example the EU-EOM cites on page six.

“Another case occurred in Hagere-Selam, Sidama, where the EPRDF was also the complainant and the CIP recommended re-election. Re-run of the election allowed the current Minster of Justice, Mr. Harka Haroya to regain his seat, lost in May 15. During the hearing and, as stated in the Summary of the Facts and Recommendations of the CIP, it became clear that the Police conducted an investigation against the chairman of Wirama 01 Polling Station, Mr. Werku Dulecha, on charges of taking registration cards from voters on Polling Day. However dubious the charges could be, Mr. Dulecha was sentenced to jail for that, and despite the legal provisions to allow witnesses in prison to testify in the CIPs, he was not heard. Moreover, other three election officers testified against him, paving the way for a recommendation in favour of the ruling party. The fact that NEBE election officers testified for one of the competing parties (EPRDF) and that the main witness could not defend himself does not attest to the independence neither of the CIP not the National Election Board.”

Let me deal with the peripheral issues first and then I will let you in on a little secret. The EU-EOM emphatically asserts that the EPRDF had lost the seat on May 15th. The opposition says so and it must be so. The fact is this was one of the few constituencies in the country where no winner was declared by the NEBE because the NEBE found evidence of serious irregularities on May 15th.

The EU-EOM believes that the fact that election officers testified for one of the competing parties (EPRDF) puts the independence of the CIP and National Election Board at risk. Mind you that is just the EU-EOM of page six. The EU-EOM of page three has a very different take on that. While stating in a matter of fact manner that all parties had called election officers to testify, it suggests that what was wrong about such an act was that these witnesses were intimidated by the very presence of local officials who were representing the EPRDF in the panels. The EU-EOM of page six is however of the opinion that the very fact that three such people testified for the EPRDF is proof of the partiality of the CIPs and the National Election Board. At the very least, the EU-EOM of page three and that of page six should find some way of communicating with each other.

Back to the more serious issue which is that a certain Worku Dulecha was not heard. Let me share a little secret with you. You see on the eve of her press conference, Ms Ana Gomez, the head of the EU-EOM, had met one of our ministers and had told him that this person was prevented from testifying by the authorities. The minister told her that this was not the case as the opposition had not asked that he be allowed to testify. No one called him as a witness and so he could not testify. She must have checked her facts but did not want to let go of the accusation. That appears to be the reason behind this awkward word “he was not heard”. Now that I have let you in on the little secret, let us proceed.

This gentleman had had his day in court and was convicted by the court. The EU-EOM casts aspersions on the proceedings of the court without any evidence to show for it, but the point remains that he had had the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. The CIPs were established to investigate complaints and not to provide prisoners their day in court. The parties are allowed to call their witnesses, and if their witnesses happen to be prisoners of law, they can still have them testify in front of the CIPs. The EPRDF called its witnesses. The oppositions called theirs. This gentleman was not called to testify by either party. Perhaps the opposition knew better than to call him as a witness, because, you see, he had been caught red-handed with 140 cards which led to his conviction. If the parties do not call him as a witness, how is the CIP going to ensure that “he is heard”. But the facts are one thing, the conclusion of the EU-EOM quite another thing. This gentleman was not heard and that is sufficient proof of the partiality of the CIPs and NEBE.

The argument that the NEBE, judiciary and CIPs were partial to the EPRDF is based on such frivolous and groundless allegation. Let us see if the EU-EOM’s other allegations fare any better.

As you might remember, the EU-EOM believes that the CIPs operated in general on the basis of their terms of reference. That suggests that in some instances these terms of reference were violated. The EU-EOM, unusually for it, felt compelled to provide some evidence of instances when the procedures were violated and it tries to do so on page five as follows:

“EU observers noted several cases in which the original complaint, as recommended by NEBE, was not the main source of investigation. Also, in a number of cases, procedures were followed accordingly (sic) to the Terms of References, only as long as international observers were present. This was the case in East Shewa, in Ada1, Ada2 and Adama2, where the EU-EOM observers noted that three complaints had been considered in just 4 days before their arrival, while afterwards each complaint took at least three days to debrief all witnesses.”

The instances where the original complaint was not the main source of the investigation are not cited. It is difficult to comment on such a general statement. But I do know that the opposition had on a number of occasions raised new complaints during the proceedings when their original complaints were proved baseless. I am told that some CIPs may have felt that it did not hurt the cause of truth if such new complaints too were investigated. However helpful such an approach might be to sorting out the truth, the CIPs cannot be made to investigate every allegation under the sun, which is why the Terms of Reference states that the focus of the investigations be the original complaint. Changing the rules is not acceptable, even when done to accommodate the opposition and to make sure that all allegations, new or old, are investigated. This can in no way be ground for the conclusion that the CIPs did not live up to international standards. Another conclusion impossible to comprehend.

Let us deal with the more specific allegations. You see the EU-EOM observers noted that in Eastern Shewa, the CIP had completed 3 cases in four days before they arrived. You divide 4 by 3 and you have one and one third days per case. As soon as they arrived they notice that the procedures are being adhered to but also that it is taking at least three days to complete. Presto. The procedures must have been violated, when they were absent, otherwise how could the CIP complete a case in one and one third days without violating the procedures. Besides, you see, as Ms. Ana Gomes has said in one of her frequent press statements, the presence of the EU-EOM was instrumental in ensuring democratic principles are adhered to. Naturally, in their absence people here must be assumed to go back to their old bad undemocratic ways.

The problem with the Arithmetic of the EU-EOM is that the fact tells a very different story. You see the winner in Ada 1 and 2 was the CUD. The complainant was the UEDF. The complaint was made against the EPRDF despite the fact that it had lost both constituencies. As soon as the investigations started the UEDF recognized that it had targeted the wrong party and recognized that if the investigations proceeded the EPRDF might be the ultimate beneficiary. It quickly pulled the rag from under the EPRDF’s feet and declared it had withdrawn its complaints as it had the right to do. Where there is no complaint there is no investigations. Ada 1 and 2 were thus passed without investigation and the CUD allowed to retain both seats. The only investigation carried out by the CIP before the EU-EOM arrived was thus that of Adama 2. The time it took to carry out one real investigation was thus identical both before and after the EU-EOM arrived. But the EU-EOM is not interested in the facts, because if they were, they could have been saved from the embarrassment of being caught lying by simply asking the CIP what had happened. They needed to trash the CIP and blame it on the EPRDF so they did not check their facts. They simply assumed that the natives would go back to their bad undemocratic ways if the prying eyes of the EU-EOM are temporarily absent.

Let us now deal with the third and final allegation of the EU-EOM against the CIPs, that which suggests the opposition was hindered by intimidation and arrests of their witnesses. In this regard, the EU-EOM says the following on page three.

“Material evidence was unobtainable because detained or fearful witnesses were unable to testify and, in one case, an important witness was killed. The climate of threats and intimidation was maintained throughout the complaints investigation process. EU-EOM observers reported cases, where militia, police or armed forces were present around the location of the hearings. Also opposition witnesses were arrested before or after they testified in front of the panel, and many witnesses or opposition supporters reported to the observers that they were threatened in various ways, as it happened (sic) in Albuko and Eteya constituencies.”

The EU-EOM goes into the alleged assassination in some detail on page five as follows.

“A CUD witness, Ato Wudu Amelegn, in Meragna constituency, North Sehwa Zone, was assassinated on July 16th 5 days after testifying in front of the CIP. Authorities indicated that the murder was the result of a family feud.”

The EU-EOM alleges that detained or fearful witnesses were unable to testify. It does not give any evidence of detained witnesses being unable to testify. The case of Hagere Selam, we have already dealt with. There is no other case presented by the EU-EOM, because no prisoner called to the witness stand of the CIPs by any of the parties was prevented from testifying. Not one! I also know for a fact that prisoners called to testify did testify. This was the case for example in Woliso where at least six prisoners took the stand for the opposition.

The only specific examples of witnesses being intimidated and thus being unable to testify that we are given by the EU-EOM are those of Albuko and Eteya. The evidence of intimidation in Albuko and Eteya that we are given consists solely of the say so of opposition party witnesses and supporters. If the supporters and witnesses of the opposition report to the EU-EOM observers that they were being threatened and intimidated, it meant the EPRDF was accused of doing something wrong, and according to the EU-EOM, if the EPRDF or the government were accused of doing something bad, or even perceived to have done something bad, then they must be guilty. The EU-EOM does not operate on the basis of international standards on matters that involve the EPRDF or The Government. Instead of the international standard of innocent until proven guilty, they have their own standard of guilty until proven innocent.

Let’s now deal with the presence of police, militia, and armed forces “around the locations of the hearings”. But before I do that let me say a few words about people with arms in the Ethiopian context. Ethiopia is a country where literally millions of automatic guns are in the hands of civilians. Indeed, in some parts of our country a man is not considered to be properly attired if he does not carry a gun. Imagine a scenario where Ethiopians would be intimidated by the mere sight of people carrying guns. Every Ethiopian would be trembling every day. That clearly is not the case. The sight of armed people does not intimidate anyone. Only the sight of armed men threatening some one with their arms can intimidate the average Ethiopian.

As a result, it is not unlawful for an Ethiopian to go about his/her normal business with a gun at hand. There are some places where this is not allowed. One of these is polling stations. People must leave their guns 500 meters away form a polling station. The reason behind the law that prohibits the carrying of guns within 500 meters of polling stations is not because the sight of guns would intimidate the voters. Why should the sight of some one carrying a gun 499 meters away from a polling station intimidate voters, while the sight of some one carrying a gun 501 meters away form the station does not. The reason for the regulation is to prevent someone from killing voters in the heat of contested election. It is known that the effective range of the guns that are held by civilians is less than 500 meters. If we can keep guns away from their effective range, the risk of killings in voting stations would be removed. People are also prohibited from carrying guns into courts for obvious reasons.

Therefore when the EU-EOM states that police, militia, and members of the armed forces were around the places where the CIPs were located, the average Ethiopian would say, so what? After all the CIPs were located in places where there would normally be police, militia, armed forces etc. Their very presence does not intimidate anyone. There has to be threatening behavior by people carrying guns if their presence is to have any intimidating effect. In any case there is nothing in the procedures of the CIPs which requires that such people should not be seen around the location of the CIPs. The EU-EOM do not tell us of any behavior by those armed elements. They simply assume that their very presence intimidates people. That is not a correct assumption, in Ethiopia.

I do however know of one incident where there was violation of the regulation on carrying guns. The CIPs were treated as quasi-judicial organs which means that people were not allowed to have guns inside the premises where the CIPs carried out the investigation. In Eastern Gojjam, one of the representatives of the EPRDF entered the premise with his pistol. He has a problem of family feud and he always carries his pistol with him I am confident that none of the participants felt intimidated because he kept it in its holster and did not brandish it in a threatening manner. But the fact remains that it was wrong to carry a gun inside the premises, and when that was pointed out, it never happened again. It was promptly corrected.

Let us now deal with the infamous Meragna “assassination” of an “important” opposition “witness” five days after “testifying”.

Was the deceased a witness of the opposition? The answer is no. Parties submit the list of their witnesses to the NEBE before the hearings start and as the NEBE has said, Ato Wudu was not in the list of witnesses that the CUD submitted for the hearings in Meragna.

Did Ato Wudu die on the 16th of July? The answer is yes. Did he testify for the CUD in Meragna? The answer is an emphatic no, for two reasons. First, the hearings were supposed to start on the 18th of July two days after he died. Unfortunately, on the 18th the CUD walked out from the hearings in Meragna, as a result of which Ato Wudu who was in any case already dead could not testify. None of the CUD witnesses testified in Meragna, even those that were not already dead. So how did the EU-EOM come with the allegation that he was assassinated five days after he testified? The logical answer is that in this case not only did they not try to check their facts, facts which are a matter of public record, but they did not even listen well to the opposition. The opposition’s accusations were that he was killed to prevent him from testifying. Normally, the EU-EOM would report the accusation of the opposition accurately and conclude that the EPRDF is guilty. This time they forgot to report the accusation of the opposition accurately before they pronounced the EPRDF guilty.

How about the assertion of the EU-EOM, that Ato Wudu was assassinated? The preponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise. The killer has been apprehended and his case is pending in the court at Debre Berhan, the zonal capital of Northern Shoa where Meragna is located. The killer has admitted to killing Ato Wudu because of a family feud. The kith and kin of Ato Wudu are convinced that this is indeed the case and have said so publicly. Everyone in the area knows that these two families have a family feud because it is believed that Ato Wudu had killed a family member of his killer. All of that is a matter of public record. But that is of no consequence as far as the EU-EOM is concerned. The opposition accuses and the EU-EOM pronounces the EPRDF guilty even when it has not properly listened to the opposition. Really, that is all there is to it.

The only thing remaining from the second leg of the EU-EOM’s pronouncement on the CIPs is the general accusation. All the specific examples have been shown to be unfounded. All the arguments about “coincidence of offices” and “level playing field” have been shown to be without any merit. The second leg does not exist in fact. It exists only in the fertile imagination of the EU-EOM. The case against the CIPs has been shown to have no legs at all.

Before moving on to the next item let me make two points. First, as they say anecdotes don’t prove a case. Even if there were to be some incidents of wrong doing, that does not disqualify the process form fulfilling international standards. There are no perfect elections anywhere on earth. What distinguishes the free and fair elections from those that are not, is that in those that are not free and fair, we find not only irregularities, but patterns of frauds and serious irregularities. One has to show that there was a systematic pattern of fraud and electoral malpractice to come to the conclusion that an election process did not live up to international standards. And to show that, one has to have proof of not just incidents of irregularities but a series of such irregularities to prove that they constitute a pattern. The EU-EOM has not done that! It has not even come up with any allegation that stands up to scrutiny!

In disproving the allegations of the EU-EOM, I am not at all trying to prove that there is no case of violation of human rights in Ethiopia. I know no country on earth can say that. I recognize that such violations do occur in our country and we are trying our best to change that. I am not even saying that there was no incident during the elections that violated the laws of Ethiopia. The very fact that election re-runs have been carried out in 31 constituencies is adequate proof that there were serious irregularities in a small percentage of the constituencies.

What I am empathically saying however is that, none of these was such as to make the CIP process one that does not fulfill the requirements of international standards. There are no facts, no patterns of serous irregularities during the investigations to prove that the process was seriously flawed. I am emphatically saying the facts show that the irregularities in a small number of constituencies during the May 15 election have been redressed by the CIPs and subsequent re-run of elections.

Let us now proceed to the re-run of elections.