Reconciling Human Rights and Evictions for Public Purposes in Ethiopia: Appraisal of the Laws and Practices with Focus on Some Selected Sites in Addis Ababa City
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2015-05
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Addis Ababa University
Abstract
The objective of this research is to investigate whether evictions for public purposes in
Ethiopia has been reconciled with human rights laws or not. Ethiopia’s eviction laws and
practice, focusing on three eviction sites in Addis Ababa has been analyzed. The researcher
used qualitative in approach and combination of doctrinal and socio-legal research in type.
Desk reviews of primary documentary and secondary sources, interviews, personal
observation and FGDs with government officials, victim evictees were employed to collect
data from participants. Comparative and thematic analyses were used to diagnose the
Ethiopian eviction legal regime and practices against the standards set forth under
international human rights laws.
The research has revealed that although FDRE Constitution and other legislations
guaranteed the right not to be evicted, the laws and practice are inconsistent with the
standards set forth by international human rights instruments. First, only the government
authorities determine public purposes which lead to evictions using top-down approaches
without any consultation with the victims. Against the eviction order and administrative
tribunal decisions, victims have no right to recourse remedy from regular courts which is
dare to fair trial right. Second, since laws do not recognize the right not to be evicted as
rights of everyone, private tenants and informal settles are subjected to arbitrary evictions
and public tenants have been deprived alternative accommodations. Evictees able to prove
ownership right to home or land use rights are entitled compensations without guarantee of
sustainable right to livelihood. Third, the laws and practice do not consider competing human
rights while designing and enforcing evictions for public purposes. This leads the processes
and outcomes of evictions unfriendly to human rights which in turn have placed the life of
evictees’ to deplorable conditions. The rights to livelihood, food, life, adequate housing,
freedom of choices of residence, right to privacy and security of person have been adversely
affected. Fourth, both practice and the eviction legal regimes have not been acquainted with
the disproportionate impacts of eviction on vulnerable group of the societies including aged
persons, women, and children.
To reconcile human rights and eviction for public purposes, the research recommends the
government to amend or repeal all the laws inconsistent with human rights and to adopt
human rights friendly eviction laws. The study urges policy makers and concerned authorities
to envisage competing human rights using legality, legitimate aim and proportionality tests,
to follow human rights based-approaches, to conduct human rights impact assessment before,
during and after evictions, to rehabilitate the livelihood of evictees and to make available the
fair trial guarantees.
Description
Keywords
eviction, public purpose, human rights, livelihood