The human rights commission of Ethiopia and issues of forced evictions: a case-oriented study of its practice

In addition to the past endeavour to meet the MDGs, the Ethiopian government launched an ambitious program, ‘Growth and Transformative Plan (2011-2015)’ in 2011 to transform the country’s economic growth and development. As core part of the Plan, the economic and infrastructure sections envisage massive investment and infrastructure development. While the ultimate target is to improve socio-economic conditions and fulfil basis needs, the Plan will likely heighten massive eviction of people from their ancestral lands and thousands from their houses, and deprive many more of the traditional means of livelihood. In both the past as well as the present development endeavour, little attention has been given to a human rights-approach to development. The discourse on economic growth and development tends to focus more on mere economic improvement, implying needs-based approach. This will reinforce the notion that the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights is an aspiration realized by government program, with no obligation on the part of the government.One of the core functions of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) is to investigate complaints. The Human Rights Commission of Ethiopia (Commission) has been receiving complaints on wide range of issues since it started rendering its quasi-judicial functions. Among them, many complaints relating to forced have been brought to its attention. The Commission has rejected the bulk of the complaints or referred them to either courts of law or and the Ombudsman Institute on the ground they do not involve human rights issues (i.e. they are mere administrative matters that do not qualify for its inquiry). By the same token, investigation of complaints on forced eviction is an exception rather than the norm. Disclaiming jurisdiction might shed light on the underlining issues-it might mark fear on the part of the Commission not to confront the economic and development policies of the government; or adoption of pre-conceived approach to issues of economic, social and cultural rights, or erroneous interpretation of its mandate or incapacity to deal with such issues. This paper will deal with the Commission’s handling of complaints pertaining to the right to housing in general and forced eviction in particular. Some of interesting complaints handled by the Commission will be reviewed to see the underlining reasons hampering the Commission from examining the essence of specific cases. Some measures to be adopted so that the Commission could probe complaints of all sorts and of forced evictions in particular are hinted.In addition to the past endeavour to meet the MDGs, the Ethiopian government launched an ambitious program, ‘Growth and Transformative Plan (2011-2015)’ in 2011 to transform the country’s economic growth and development. As core part of the Plan, the economic and infrastructure sections envisage massive investment and infrastructure development. While the ultimate target is to improve socio-economic conditions and fulfil basis needs, the Plan will likely heighten massive eviction of people from their ancestral lands and thousands from their houses, and deprive many more of the traditional means of livelihood. In both the past as well as the present development endeavour, little attention has been given to a human rights-approach to development. The discourse on economic growth and development tends to focus more on mere economic improvement, implying needs-based approach. This will reinforce the notion that the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights is an aspiration realized by government program, with no obligation on the part of the government.One of the core functions of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) is to investigate complaints. The Human Rights Commission of Ethiopia (Commission) has been receiving complaints on wide range of issues since it started rendering its quasi-judicial functions. Among them, many complaints relating to forced have been brought to its attention. The Commission has rejected the bulk of the complaints or referred them to either courts of law or and the Ombudsman Institute on the ground they do not involve human rights issues (i.e. they are mere administrative matters that do not qualify for its inquiry). By the same token, investigation of complaints on forced eviction is an exception rather than the norm. Disclaiming jurisdiction might shed light on the underlining issues-it might mark fear on the part of the Commission not to confront the economic and development policies of the government; or adoption of pre-conceived approach to issues of economic, social and cultural rights, or erroneous interpretation of its mandate or incapacity to deal with such issues. This paper will deal with the Commission’s handling of complaints pertaining to the right to housing in general and forced eviction in particular. Some of interesting complaints handled by the Commission will be reviewed to see the underlining reasons hampering the Commission from examining the essence of specific cases. Some measures to be adopted so that the Commission could probe complaints of all sorts and of forced evictions in particular are hinted.C