|Title:||Enforcement of Fundamental Rights and the Role of the House of Federation (HOF): Jurisdiction and Limitati|
|???metadata.dc.contributor.*???:||Assefa Fiseha (DL)|
|Keywords:||former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,|
|Publisher:||Addis Ababa University|
|Abstract:||This is an era of human rights. In the aftermath of the Second World War and particularly following the fall of communist regimes in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, courts have assumed a central role in serving as guardians of human rights. Mankind has witnessed popular governments turning into totalitarianism which, in turn, resulted in widespread human rights violations. Ethiopia, too, experienced the bitterness of dictatorial rule under a socialist government. Four years later after the change of government in 1991, Ethiopia adopted a federal constitution which has recognized a wide-ranging list of human rights. As to enforcement, the House of Federation, the second chamber of the federal legislature, has been authorized to be the adjudicator of constitutional cases. In this regard, the HOF is assisted by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry which has eleven members the majority of whom being lawyers by profession. However, the current institutional system has created confusion regarding the respective role of the courts and the HOF in the implementation of the Constitution. Apart from that, the empowerment of a political organ (i.e. the HOF) to decide on constitutional disputes has inherent weaknesses for it lacks the essential qualities required from an adjudicatory organ. To be more specific, the principles of judicial independence, impartiality and competence do not feature in the interpreter of the Constitution. Hence, the need for change in the current institutional set up by way of establishing a full-fledged constitutional court.|
|Appears in Collections:||Thesis - Law|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.