Ethiopia's justice ministry links transitional justice to national dialogue, sparking concerns

This sequencing, while seemingly logical, raises concerns that it may undermine both processes. Transitional justice and national dialogue are seen as complementary, not mutually exclusive. Deferring justice could erode trust among victims, who have waited for acknowledgment and accountability.

Integrating justice into the dialogue could provide a framework for truth-telling and ensure victims' experiences are central, preventing the dialogue from becoming abstract or punitive. Critics suggest that delaying justice risks politicization and could lead to manipulation by dominant political forces. While stability concerns might motivate the government's approach, proponents argue that justice, properly designed, strengthens dialogue by addressing grievances rather than destabilizing it.

International examples from South Africa to Colombia show that pursuing both processes concurrently can be effective. The article suggests that even with the current timeline, steps can be taken to integrate victims' voices, launch truth-telling initiatives, and prepare for justice mechanisms in parallel. Meanwhile, a draft Freedom of Information Proclamation in Ethiopia has drawn criticism for its broad exemptions, particularly regarding information related to government activity against insurgents and enemies of the state.

The draft