Prominent political leader's imprisonment attracts international condemnation

Birtukan Mideksa, 34

Ethiopian opposition leader and former judge Ms. Birtukan Mideksa jailed for life by increasingly repressive Ethiopian regime
By Chelsey Lepage

Human rights demonstrators gathered last week throughout the world to demand the unconditional release of jailed Ethiopian opposition leader Ms. Birtukan Mideksa and called for an end to American aid to the authoritarian regime of Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.

The recent arrest of Mideksa, 34, comes only 17 months after she was released from jail after spending nearly two years as a political prisoner in the aftermath of contested national elections in 2005.

In Seattle, amidst a chorus of peaceful protest slogans, activists collected cards of support for the charismatic politician, wishing her strength and encouragement and pledging continued support towards her release. Part of an international postcard campaign organized by the newly-formed Ethiopian Women Human Rights Alliance (EWHRA), the cards will be sent along with hundreds of others from around the world to Kaliti federal prison in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where Mideska has been detained in solitary confinement since her arrest on December 29,2008.

"The purpose of the campaign is to mobilize Ethiopians and human rights activists, anywhere and everywhere, to express [their] support and encouragement…and to send a message to the regime in power that the world is watching," explains Portland-based activist and founding member of EWHRA, Lulit Mesfin.

Birtukan Mideksa, leader of the Unity for Democracy Justice party, is the first woman to lead a major political party in Ethiopia, a country with a population of 77 million.

The re-imprisonment of Mideska has drawn strong condemnation from international human rights organizations and lawmakers in the United States and European Union, who have criticized the Ethiopian government’s increasingly brutal rule.

In a statement issued on January 9, 2009, US Congressman Donald Payne, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, called for the immediate release of Mideksa, whom he called a “prominent political leader and staunch human rights advocate”, and warned that “the Ethiopian government must realize that brutality and repression will never succeed in crushing the aspiration for democracy and freedom.”

Following the contested elections of May 2005, the Ethiopian government launched a sweeping crackdown on dissent. Government security forces killed at least 193 unarmed civilians during protests against the election results, and scores of opposition party leaders, academics, lawyers, human rights advocates and members of the press were arrested and imprisoned throughout the country. Mideksa was charged with treason, along with other prominent opposition leaders and supporters, and sentenced to life in prison following a lengthy internationally condemned political trial. She was released along with 37 others after local elders negotiated a pardon with the Ethiopian government in July 2007.

According to a statement by the Ethiopian Ministry of Justice, Mideksa’s pardon was revoked as a result of statements she made publicly in Sweden in November 2008 regarding the circumstances surrounding her release. She now faces a life sentence in federal prison.

Mideksa insists that all statements she made were accurate and within the boundaries of her constitutional rights.

”In my opinion, the reason why all these illegal imprisonments and warnings are aimed at me have nothing to do with…inaccurate statements or rules broken, “ said Mideksa in an open letter to the press a couple of days prior to her arrest. “The message is clear and this message is not only for me but also for all who are active in the peaceful struggle.”

She now faces a life sentence in kality prison.

Ethiopia curb on charities alarms human rights activists

Human rights activists have accused the Ethiopian government of tightening its grip on power through a new law on charity funding that they claim will criminalize human rights work and clamp down on political debate ahead of next year's elections.

At the core of the charities and societies proclamation (CSO law) that came into force this month, is a provision stating that any organization receiving over 10% of its funding from abroad is a "foreign NGO".

Once designated as "foreign", an organization is not allowed to engage in activities concerning democratic and human rights, conflict resolution or criminal justice.

Ostensibly, the law is designed to ensure those who engage in Ethiopian politics should be Ethiopian nationals. However, not even the largest human rights groups in Ethiopia can raise enough money domestically in what is one of the world's poorest countries.

Ethiopian officials say the law is simply in line with the constitution, which forbids foreigners from taking part in domestic political activities. But human rights groups and Ethiopians abroad view the law as a draconian act by an increasingly authoritarian government, especially since the contested elections of 2005.

The critics of the Meles Zenawi government say the law is but the latest in a series of measures aimed at cracking down on dissent, ranging from the censorship of the media to the arrest of opposition leaders. The US and Britain have tried to persuade the Ethiopian government, which is a major beneficiary of foreign aid, to dilute the measure.

"We appreciate that some of our concerns have been addressed," the Foreign Office said in a statement. "However, core elements of the legislation, notably the provisions on foreign funding and social advocacy, have not been changed. We are concerned that the law could limit the legitimate activities of Ethiopian and international CSOs undertaking development work in Ethiopia."

The outgoing Bush administration, which viewed Ethiopia as an important ally in its "war on terror", said this month that the law may restrict US government assistance to Ethiopia.

Organizations such as the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, the main group carrying out human rights monitoring, and the Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association, a woman's advocacy group, depend overwhelmingly on foreign money - by as much as 90%.

The only associations in Ethiopia that do not rely on foreign funds are the so-called mass associations, known as gongos, which are dismissed by critics as "impostors of democracy" because they are essentially ruling party or government-run organizations.

The law also provides for the establishment of a regulating body - the Charities and Societies Agency - with extensive, albeit unclear and arbitrary, powers over the registration of charities and over how they work.

CANADIAN NDP MP PAUL DEWAR CONDEMNS THE IMPRISONMENT OF BERTUKAN MIDEKSSA

Minister of Foreign Affairs
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
January 15, 2009
Dear Minister Cannon,

Since December 28, 2008, Ethiopian government authorities have held opposition party leader Birtukan Mideksa without charge, in solitary confinement. Amnesty International reports that Ms. Mideksa has been on a hunger strike in protest at her detention. Her arrest for the peaceful exercise of her freedoms to expression and association make her a prisoner of conscience.

Concerns have been raised by independent international human rights organizations that she has not been provided medical assistance. This is of particular import in light of her ongoing hunger strike. Also, she has not been provided access to legal representation of her own choosing. Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that Ms. Mideksa is at risk of torture or other ill-treatment due to her confinement in isolation.
Canada’s NDP believes that the Government of Canada must call on the Ethiopian authorities to release Birtukan Mideksa immediately and unconditionally, unless she is charged with a recognizable criminal offense.
I look forward to your immediate action.

Sincerely,

Paul Dewar, MP
Ottawa Center

European Parliament resolution on the situation in the Horn of Africa

The European Parliament,

– having regard to its previous resolutions on the Horn of Africa countries,

– having regard to the report of the mission to the Horn of Africa adopted by its Committee on Development on 8 December 2008,

– having regard to Rule 103(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
22. Regrets that the Ethiopian parliament has ratified the Proclamation for the Registration and Regulation of Charities and Societies; calls for significant adaptations to be made to guarantee basic human rights principles; calls for a non-restrictive implementation of this law, and insists on close monitoring of its implementation by the Commission;

23. Urges the Ethiopian authorities to review the press law and party registration law, as well as the composition of the Election Board, so as to ensure that the political rights of opposition parties are guaranteed; urges it to investigate the allegations of harassment and arbitrary arrests affecting the opposition and civil society organisations and to bring those responsible to trial;

24. Is outraged at the imprisonment of Birtukan Midekssa, leader of the opposition party Unity for Democracy Justice (UDJ), and demands her immediate and unconditional release;

25. Calls on the Ethiopian authorities to swiftly handle the request for registration by the Ethiopian National Teachers' Association (NTA), in accordance with the respective laws and rules, and stop persecuting members of this association;

26. Calls on the governments of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti and the Council, in accordance with Article 8 and Annex VII of the Revised Cotonou Agreement, to jointly agree to deepen the political dialogue on human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, including the issues mentioned above, with a view to defining benchmarks and attaining tangible results and progress on the ground;

27. Recognises that elections are due to take place in Sudan in 2009, but notes that the amendment of the laws which restrict freedom of expression and organisation for individuals, political parties and the media, and which contravene the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and the Interim National Constitution (INC), has not yet taken place, nor has a National Human Rights Commission been formed; stresses that repealing these laws and replacing them with legislation that is in line with the CPA and INC and the creation of the National Human Rights Commission are necessary preconditions for an environment in which free and fair elections can take place;

28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the placePlaceNameMemberPlaceType States, the Chair of the African Union Commission, the Chair-in-Office of the African Union Assembly, the General Secretary of the African Union, the Pan-African Parliament, the Governments and Parliaments of the IGAD countries, and the Chairs of the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly.

Jailed Ethiopian Opposition Leader Mideksa on Hunger Strike

By Jason McLure
Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Ethiopia’s leading opposition politician is in her 10th day of a hunger strike after she was jailed for life on Dec. 29 following a dispute with the government, according to her mother.

Birtukan Mideksa, 34, has been taking only juice and water and is being held in solitary confinement in a windowless 3-meter by 4-meter (10-foot by 13-foot) cell in Ethiopia’s Kaliti prison, said her mother, Almaz Gebregziabhere, who visited her in prison yesterday.

“I didn’t recognize her because of how she’s changed,” said Gebregziabhere, 72, in an interview today at her home in Addis Ababa. “I begged her for the sake of her daughter to eat, but she didn’t.”

Prison officials have banned all visitors except Gebregziabhere and Mideksa’s 3-year-old daughter, Halle, from visiting her, Gebregziabhere said. Gebregziabhere, speaking in Amharic through a translator, said the family had been unable to hire a lawyer for Mideksa because those contacted on her behalf have turned her down as a client, fearing government reprisals.

Mideksa, a leader of the now-dissolved Coalition for Unity and Democracy party, was first jailed after Ethiopia’s 2005 elections, in which the CUD claimed victory. She and dozens of other opposition leaders were sentenced to life in prison, though they were released in 2007 after a pardon agreement with the government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.

She was re-arrested Dec. 29 after she rejected government demands that she make a public statement saying she had formally requested the original pardon.

‘Humane Condition’

Bereket Simon, an adviser to Zenawi, said he wasn’t aware of Mideksa’s fast.

“We have a prison system whereby we hold prisoners in a humane condition,” Simon said. “This is a case where she has said that she didn’t ask for pardon and the decision of the judiciary is being applied. At this point, I don’t think it requires intervention by lawyers.”

Simon also said the government wasn’t interested in potential mediation efforts by the independent group that negotiated Mideksa’s initial release.

Following their release in 2007, some former CUD leaders chose exile in the U.S. or U.K. Mideksa stayed in Ethiopia and formed a new party that planned to contest the 2010 elections.

“Look what has happened to her,” said Berhanu Nega, who along with Mideksa led the CUD movement in 2005, in a phone interview from Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. The government “will never allow any peaceful transition in that country.”

Call to Struggle

Nega, who was elected mayor of Addis Ababa in 2005 before his imprisonment, has called for armed struggle to oust Zenawi. Nega left Ethiopia after his release from prison in 2007 to teach at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania.

His new movement, Ginbot 7, has formed an underground network inside Ethiopia with the goal of overthrowing Zenawi’s Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, Nega said.

The U.S., which views Ethiopia as a key ally in the fight against terrorism, offered a rare rebuke to Zenawi’s government following Mideksa’s arrest, warning Ethiopia to avoid steps that appear to “criminalize dissent.”

Government opponents accused the state of rigging the May 2005 poll, sparking protests in Addis Ababa. A judicial inquiry after the election concluded that government security forces had killed 193 opposition supporters in the unrest.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jason McLure in Addis Ababa via the Johannesburg bureau at abolleurs@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: January 8, 2009 13:51 EST

“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.

----