Increasing Constitutional Complaints in Ethiopia: Exploring the Challenges

Abstract

Constitutional complaint, a right of recourse for constitutional review, is deemed one of the best instruments for keeping the supremacy of constitutions through the act of the decisions of constitutional adjudicators. Constitutional complaints are critical to bring decisions deemed unconstitutional to the attention of the adjudicator so that the adjudicator sets standard for future treatment of similar cases. The quantity and quality of constitutional complaints has its own significance in the realization of human rights through constitutional review. Therefore, this paper seeks to explore the challenges for an increased flow of constitutional complaints in Ethiopia, emanating either from the institutional design of the review body or the legal framework guiding the review. For doing so, in addition to the theoretical inputs and the legal instruments regulating constitutional review, a record of constitutional interpretation made by the offices of the CCI and the HoF is consulted. Interviews have been conducted with key individuals in the area. The composition and working condition of the HoF and the CCI are properly analyzed with regard to the existing context. Accordingly, other things being constant, the research has noted that the restrictive standing rules and the limited physical accessibility, impartiality and effectiveness of the HoF and the CCI as challenges to an improved surge of cases for constitutional review in Ethiopia. For such reasons, the number of constitutional complaints that have been brought to and decided by both the House and the Council remained insignificant and the visibility and impact of constitutional review for ensuring constitutionally guaranteed human and democratic rights have been negligible.