“I do not believe that all this intimidation and threat is aimed only at me”

Birtukan Mideksa's letter
(Translated to English by Andinet North American Support Association. The original letter was posted on the Web a day or two prior to her arrest). | January 1, 2009
My Word (My testimony)
It is very difficult to describe what I felt after watching on Ethiopian Television the very same warning that was given to me at the federal police after being summoned there the afternoon of December 23, 2008. Although there is nothing that I will say different from what I know and believe in, I have decided to write this to clarify the issue since what happened has raised questions among the public. Perhaps this can even be my last word.

Let me start with the mediation. The underlying spirit of the mediation led by the elders was to come up with an agreement that can bring the two parties into harmony and resume the political process through injecting a sense of reconciliation. The elders were not aiming at blaming one party while absolving the other from the blames. Instead, what they sought was for each party to ask forgiveness from the public for the problems that followed the 2005 election.
Furthermore, the elders also expected the parties to the negotiation to ask forgiveness from each other and to establish their respective political views on items considered principal in order to move forward with the spirit of reconciliation. The elders continued to present to the two parties proposals they felt will help achieve the above stated objectives. They also tried to facilitate the exchange of ideas between the parties and tried to find a compromised solution.

Therefore, the mediation which was focused on achieving a negotiated deal took place not only with the blessing of the government but also with its active participation. Through the process the government had agreed to guarantee that it will start again to respect the country’s constitution and to compensate citizens and families who suffered due to the violence following the 2005 election. However, later while the negotiation continued to progress and the time for the court to render a verdict was approaching, the coordinators of elders informed us of a very disturbing development. We were told that the other party was no longer willing to agree on any issue other than the one in which we, the jailed ones, ask forgiveness from the government and the people. We were told that they were particularly not willing to agree on the discussion points dealing with the government. Nevertheless, even with this, the spirit of reconciliation upon which the negotiation was based was not altered. Though some of the discussion points were abandoned, the elders continued with their mediation role after explaining that if we sign the document, which was crafted on the basis of our country’s tradition of forgiveness, the case would be stopped and the court file would be closed. And using the Prime Minister’s exact words, the elders confirmed to us that the Prime Minster had said: “If this document is signed, using my executive power I will make sure that the charges be dropped.” In relation to this, an agreement was also reached that “all prisoners who were jailed throughout the country due to issues linked to CUD will be released without any precondition; direct political discussion between the government and the former leaders of CUD will resume; and that leaders of the party will continue with the work of the party without any limitations.” Moreover, the document was signed after confirming that it was being signed to the elders and after that the elders will write a letter to the prime minster based on the signed document. It was also agreed that the document will in no way be used by any of the parties for a political gain. As one of the prisoners I had indeed signed the document, a fact which I have never denied. In accordance with the spirit of reconciliation the elders championed and to give a political conclusion to a charge that emanated from politics, out of commitment for reconciliation and after agreeing with other leaders of the party, I have asked forgiveness through the elders by signing on the document dated June 18, 2006. This is a fact that I cannot change even if I want to.

What was expected after this was the termination of the charge and the closing of the files, according to the promise the Prime Minister had made to the elders. However, the process took a different turn. The office of the prosecutor which is led by the Prime Minster failed to terminate the charge. Instead, we the accused received a life sentence. What happened after this was not based on our agreement, rather it was orchestrated with the permission of the Prime Minster. Then in the end, the case was concluded with our release, after the president of the country granted clemency to the prisoners.

Then, to present a process that has this type of complex features as a case that followed a normal legal process for asking forgiveness is either foolishness or ignorance.

According to the law, an accused person is supposed to submit a request for pardon to a clemency board, and not to the Prime Minister. When it comes to us, the letter that we signed for the elders was submitted to the clemency board by the Prime Minister. It might also be possible to say that it is the Prime Minister who asked for the forgiveness. However, according to the law, the person who can submit an appeal for clemency is the concerned person or his/her lawyer or family members but it is not the Prime Minister. The law also stipulates that such applications could be submitted only after the court process has been completed and a verdict has been rendered. In our case since from the start we did not have an intention to conclude the case with asking for forgiveness, the document was signed to the elders before the court passed its verdict. Therefore, based on this truth I have not asked for forgiveness within what the law stipulates. Yet I have not denied signing the document which the elders cajoled us into signing on June 22, 2006 for the sake of reconciliation. Thus, how is it to say that I have signed this document and I have not denied the content of the document constitute a crime? Where is the mistake?

And what I said on this topic while traveling abroad was exactly explaining and elaborating on this and it had no other form. I suspect that perhaps what I said was misinterpreted.

And even if what I said was said to be inaccurate, should that result in being required to go back and forth to the police station both with and without a warrant? Impossible. And even if it initiates a question of accountability, how can it revoke a pardon granted by the President? Also, even if it is considered enough to revoke the pardon, what legal authority have the federal police to investigate the case and issue a warning?

On December 10, 2008 when the Federal Police commissioner sent two officers of the District 12 Police to ask me to go to his office, I went to his office thinking that he probably wanted to talk to me about our Unity Party. However, when he told me the reason I was summoned to his office was related to the pardon, the first question I asked him was what authority the police have in relation to this issue. But his response was accompanied with a smile of surprise and said this is not an academic discussion and it is better for you to stop this kind of question. But what they found to be funny and perplexing is something great that I will forever live for, stand for, and sometimes get jailed and released for – it is the rule of law and abiding by the constitution.

Lawlessness and arrogance are things that I will never get used to, nor will cooperate with. That is why I did not go to the Federal Police Commissioner’s office when on December 24, 2008 he summoned me to his office again through a messenger but without a legal warrant. But when I received a legal warrant in the afternoon of the same day, I did not waste a minute to go to his office. What awaited me at the Commissioner’s office and what was stated in the warrant were very different. Instead of asking me questions as stated in the warrant, what the Commissioner did was to give me a warning that sounded like an order. He said that unless I retract the statement I made in Sweden within three days, the government will remove the pardon and lock me in jail.

The only person that can remove the pardon is the President, and not the Executive that you consider the government. Twenty days after the request for removal of a pardon has been received by the person, if the pardon board agrees with the decision, the request will be presented to the president, and it is only after that the President might revoke the pardon. I wanted to explain to the Commissioner these proper processes that are necessary to remove a pardon. But I did not do that. After confirming that he has finished his speech, I left the room without saying a word.

In my opinion the reason why all these illegal intimidation's and warnings are aimed at me have nothing to do with playing with words or inaccurate statements or rules broken. The message is clear and this message is not only for me but also for all who are active in the peaceful struggle. A peaceful and law-abiding political struggle can be conducted only within the limits the ruling party and individuals set and not according to what the constitution allows. And for me it is extremely difficult to accept this.

----