Enforcement of Fundamental Rights and the Role of the House of Federation (HOF): Jurisdiction and Limitations
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2008-03
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Addis Ababa
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 theimplementation 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.