A response to a report by Dr. Berhanu Nega, Ato Muluneh Eyoel and Ato Anteneh Mulugetta, on the release of the Kality prisoners.
January 24, 2009
Washera_2
I thought hard and long what language to use to respond to a nine page report forwarded by the above "gentlemen", explaining the circumstances of their release from Kality prison. I felt it necessary to respond in English, to provide the reader an opportunity to scrutinize the deceptions and fabrications that some opposition groups in the Diaspora, like the above authors, are engaged in.
It did not take me long to discern the real author of this report. If you have read Dr. Berhanu Nega's recent book, then the long, disparaging, name calling and authoritative first few sentences are a clue.
The premise of this report is that they were lied to before they signed the request for a Presidential Pardon. The report did not include a copy of the paper they signed, but I have taken the liberty to translate it and include it below to better understand Dr. Berhanu's argument. This is the only official document we have seen and none of the prisoners have denied signing it.
Sene 15, 1999 (October 2007)
His Excellency Ato Meles Zenawi
Prime Minister
Ethiopian Federal Democratic Republic
Addis Ababa
We the undersigned Kinijit leaders and party members, aware of the misunderstandings created following the 2005 (1997EC) elections, take the responsibility for our wrongful attempts to change the constitutionally created government bodies, by illegal means. We take both individual and group responsibility for the mistakes that resulted. We affirm that, from here to for, we shall refrain from participating in such illegal activities and that we will, as part of our citizenship responsibilities, abide by and uphold the constitution of the country, and also accept and respect the role of the different branches of the government. Recognizing our contrition and our apology to the Ethiopian government and the Ethiopian people, we ask your Excellency to pardon us for our transgressions.
Dr. Berhanu Nega used the entire first page to lecture us on his psychological analysis of pathological liars, basically a direct translation of the googled reference that he provided at the end of the report.
As he begins his explanation of what really happened to result in their release from Kality prison, Dr. Berhanu gives us a birds eye view of his opinions about the elders that mediated their release. By his own account, it took the elders (Prof. Ephrem, Pastor Daniel, athlete Haile, Ambassador Bekele, lawyer Tamiru...among 30 or more others), over 18 months to arrive at a resolution of this political crisis. However, far from being gracious and thankful to their efforts, Dr. Berhanu did not spare a dime to hurl a barrage of insults and chip shots in their direction.
Professor Ephrem Isaac, the Chairman of the Elders, is referred to as a simple messenger from the Prime Minister sent to beg and plead with them, sometimes falling on their feet and crying repeatedly, to give the government a leeway ('ye wond ber') to gracefully get out of this mess. Later, when the good professor arrives to inform them about the news of their impending release, Dr. Berhanu confronts him by saying, "...aren't you ashamed of yourself? You have been an instrument for the government all these months. If you have any respect for yourself, you will condemn these vagabond and reckless people and extricate yourself from their kind." With that, Dr. Berhanu walks out of the meeting within five minutes. The rest of the prisoners refuse to meet with Professor Ephrem from that point on. I am a little ahead of myself, so bear with me.
Pastor Daniel G. Selassie, the Assistant Chairman, is described as some one who has participated from the beginning, prays frequently during meetings with the prisoners. In a meeting toward the end of this ordeal, Dr. Berhanu boastfully documents how he chastised Pastor Daniel, "...Shame on you! How dare you say you are a religious leader and call yourself a Pastor?", and more scornful words that can put a child to shame, let alone a religious elder. According to Dr. Berhanu, Pastor Daniel responded sheepishly as follows: "...Dr. Berhanu, I will not blame you no matter what you say. It is truly a shameful act. I had refused to come, but they forced me to come, saying I am a member of the Pardon Board. I am preparing myself to get out of the country as soon as possible. This is a very humiliating situation...etc." At another instant in the same meeting, Dr. Berhanu lambasts the government officials as thieves and liars and asks Pastor Daniel why he was not telling the truth to the officials about the demands of the prisoners. Pastor Daniel arcs his head down in shame and says nothing.
Dr. Berhanu did not run out of choice words for the rest of the Elders. So let me just delve into the body of his thesis. Suffice it to say that there were many other private individuals involved in talking to government officials to resolve the crisis peacefully. The rest of the country and the Diaspora were hotly debating the merits of the case, ad noseum, and waiting for and end to the crisis.
Dr. Berhanu asserts that this was a negotiation taking place between the government and the prisoners, mediated by the Elders, not just to secure their release, but to agree on a program that would lead to a peaceful transition to a new democratic process. After weeks and months of negotiations, he alleges that they arrived at an eight point program. He and his co-authors of this report don't remember all eight points, but include the following among them.
1. As soon as the prisoners are released, an urgent conference of all concerned political parties will be held, mediated by a third party.
2. The government would apologize for the atrocities committed during the crisis and compensate the families of the dead.
3. The Kinijit leaders will pay their condolences to the bereaved and will apologize to the Ethiopian people for not being able to stop the crisis.
4. If they so desire, the Kinijit members can take their duly won seats in parliament and take control of Addis Ababa, while the party conference goes on.
5. All political prisoners shall be released all legal proceedings against them shall be terminated.
6. All concerned parties shall abide by the constitution and resolve their differences through the rule of law...etc.
I would like to remind readers that these were more or less the same preconditions the Kinijit members put forward to enter parliament.
Dr. Berhanu elaborates further and says that when the Prime Minister received the eight point program, not only did he approve of it, but that he improved on it in their favor. The only sticky point was the issue of the public apology. The government needed a wiggle room regarding the apology. After an intense two day negotiations, they arrived at final draft that included the eight point program, which was signed by two of the Kinijit representatives, one of them Dr. Berhanu. Dr. Berhanu does not say what that draft document said.
The following day, the Elders allegedly arrive with a different document placing the blame for the crisis on the prisoners and asking the rest of the prisoners, minus the two representatives from the night before, to sign the document. The first group of prisoners that arrived to sign the document was so disgusted by the lies and cheap tricks of the high government officials involved in changing the document that they refused to sign the paper and returned to their respective prisons. Dr. Berhanu's report gets better. The leader of the Elders allegedly said he did not know the content of the document they brought to be signed and he was as surprised as the prisoners. He then run out of the meeting to inquire about the "changed" document and never showed up for several months.
In the mean time the legal proceedings continue and the prisoners were getting close to being sentenced. The prisoners were asked to defend themselves and given permission to review the 70 or so documents alleging their crimes. By some mysterious turn of events, Dr. Berhanu alleges that the judges left for a ten minute recess and came back after two hours, to sentence them instead. He says they must have received directives from higher up to do so.
At about this time, the Elders reappear again and the drama thickens! This was the time Professor Ephrem would be falling on their feet and cry pleading and begging them to sign the document. If they sign the document, he tells them, their sentencing would be revoked and they would be set free. He further reassures them that the document would be kept by the Elders and that the PM has said that he does not care to see it as long as it is signed. Before they signed this document, they requested a meeting of all the prisoners and arrive at a consensus after two days of deliberations.
This is what allegedly transpired in the final two weeks of their incarceration and what they agreed on.
1. The final document to be signed shall be part of the overall document that includes the eight point program mentioned earlier. The request for the pardon shall be addressed to the Elders and not to the Prime Minister. The Elders shall use this to write their own pardon document to the government.
2. The prisoners shall be freed within two days of signing the document.
3. Neither the prisoners nor the government shall give any briefing regarding their release. The Elders shall inform the media about the negotiated settlement of the situation and that these negotiations shall go on to resolve the political crisis of the country.
4. Neither the government nor the prisoners shall use this situation for propaganda purposes.
5. All those in prison on charges related to the 2005 elections shall be freed.
The Kinijit leadership signs the above documents which were allegedly addressed to the Elders. The other prisoners were to sign the document the following day. At this point, we see Dr. Berhanu digressing to throw one insult after another at the government leadership, about some cheap propaganda campaign being broadcast on Ethiopian television that night.
When the other prisoners show up the following day, they found out that the document was addressed to the prime Minister and they sign it.
After two days, the Prime Minister appears in parliament and mockingly comments about a rumor circulating around town about the release of the prisoners. He assures that august body that such a pardon can only be considered only after the legal proceedings have been concluded.
The barrage of condemnations and insults would be thrown to the elders when they came to inform them about their impending release. Both the good Professor and Pastor Daniel were the recipients of ridicule mentioned in the introduction of this response. All the prisoners would walk out in disgust and go to their cells after this last encounter with the Elders. They would see them one last time on the night of their release.
The legal proceedings come to an end with terms ranging from years to life time. The government media go on full blast propaganda campaign about the signed document.
After a few days, Ato Assefa Kasito, the Justice Minister, a Professor Mesfin and Pastor Daniel, who were supposedly the Pardon Board members, show up in prison and talk to each prisoner in turn, to validate the legitimacy of their signature. When Dr. Berhanu was asked such a question, he insisted that what he had signed was addressed to the elders and walked out in disgust.
The last two pages of the report by Dr. Berhanu are not worth the paper they are written on. The first page is his own translation of the second page, which was printed from an internet site entitled "Identifying a Pathological Liar."
I will leave the psychological analysis and the aspersions and defamations of the Elders aside and instead conclude by posing several questions which will implicate major inconsistencies in Dr. Berhanu's report. I hope he will take the time to read it and respond to it in a timely fashion.
1. It did not take you long to write a 600 page book for sale, why did it take you two years to produce a nine page report?
2. Why didn't you refuse to talk to the Elders before you signed the pardon document? After all, you have repeatedly shown your disgust for their job.
3. You claim you only signed a document addressed to the Elders. Are we to understand that your signature that appears on the Pardon Document addressed to the Prime Minister was forged?
4. How dare you sign such a condemning document in the first place, no matter who it is addressed to, if you kept your innocence to the end?
5. How could both you and your collaborators of this report fail to remember all eight negotiating points or are you confusing it with the eight preconditions you put forward to enter parliament?
6. What is wrong in taking responsibilities for the causalities of the crisis, for the loss of leadership by your supporters when you went to prison, for giving the government enough reason to announce a state of emergency, and genuinely apologize to all parties concerned and go back to parliament to serve those that elected you?
Or did you have a different agenda? To get out of prison by all means possible and land in your Neighborhood University, where you have long been preparing to take advantage of the good gestures of people in that university. While you plan to renew your contract through lectures and writings lambasting the Ethiopian government, your family is running a successful business in Ethiopia. Talk about double-dipping!
If you are such a great politician willing to lead the Ethiopian people, how come you failed to convince Ato Lidetu to be on your side when you conspired with Professor Mesfin to deprive Ato Lidetu many of the seats that his party successfully won? How come this same Professor opined about your book, "the Berhanu book about Berhanu", and never saw eye to eye with you? How about the big break with Ato Hailu? Were you promised Ato Hailu's position after your service as Mayor of Addis? You could not even make friends with Wt. Bertukan, because she refused to go along with your motto of "overthrow EPRDF by all means possible".
What is wrong with you Dr. Berhanu? Why are you not able to love and care for all Ethiopians? Why are you filled with hate for everyone from the Elders, to high government officials to members of your own party?
Please re-read your own googled reference "Identifying a Pathological Liar" and see how much of that applies to you. There is still time to repent and do the right thing, instead of touring the world at the expense of innocent Diaspora supporters to spread your hate politics.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Commentary on an Essay by Tesfaye Maru
January 22, 2009
Washera_2
Dear Ato Tesfaye Maru,
I read your article that was posted on Ethiomedia, with a lot of interest and anticipation. Although I have reservations about articles that are allowed to be posted on this site, a blog whose motto is “TPLF cannot be reformed; like apartheid, it should be abolished”, I had hopes that you may teach me a thing or two about the evolving Ethiopian democratic process.
Before I delve into the contents of your article, let me apologize for not responding to your article in Amharic. I have a good mastery of the Amharic language, but my Ethiopic fonts needed upgrading and I did not take the time to do so yet. So, I hope you are able to read and understand my comments.
Just like you, I have enjoyed reading the autobiography of Fitawurari Tekle Hawariat. It is a must read book for every Ethiopian. I especially enjoyed the part about the bees and the birds! There is some truth in what HIM said regarding hope. But I will leave that for another debate.
However, It did not take me long to realize the meaning behind your vituperations and tirades against the EPRDF government. It appeared that you thought hard and long to write this article, but such venomous attacks and innuendos against this government are the daily bread of people like Prof (sic) Alemayehu Haile Mariam. You might as well have taken a paragraph or two from his multiple entries on this blog, to arrive at your conclusions. I say this to indicate to you that there is no originality in your thesis.
To summarize your conclusions, you say:
1. Our lives are in danger.
2. Our ports, Bademe and parts of our land on the Sudan border have been given away.
3. The government will continue its ethnic and religious cleansing tactics.
4. This government will impugn any opposition and will soon announce a one-party system.
5. EPRDF must be overthrown by peaceful means or by force.
6. EPRDF will not leave power unless forced to do so.
To give flavor and gain legitimacy for your line of thinking, you have thrown in the “illegal” imprisonment of Teddy Afro, the re-arrest of Wt. Bertukan Mideksa and the “beating” of Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam.
If you plan to go raise arms to overthrow this government, I cannot stop you. But, I plead with you to think about the innocent lives you may be engaging in such a failed struggle tactic, while you bask in a comfortable corner of the world.
If you plan to use such a remonstrance to advance your career in some community college or raise money from innocent Ethiopians in the Diaspora to pay your gas bills, I plead with you to spare them their hard-earned dimes, especially in such taxing economic times.
If you are one of those who left Ethiopia decades ago and whose reality of the situation in Ethiopia comes from disgruntled blogs and power hungry, spiteful extremist politicians, then I suggest that you think hard and long to go visit Ethiopia and experience the reality first hand. You will see overpopulation, poverty, hunger and disease aplenty. But you will also see a very dynamic society trying hard to make ends meet. You will see an amazing growth in the area of commerce, infrastructure, farming and communication. Most of all, you will see a very peaceful people going about their ways with the utmost discipline and respect for each other, not seen any where in the developing world. If they can afford three meals a day it is a luxury; if they can only do with one a day, they will survive. They do their best to share.
If you truly believe in helping your people, I beg you to modify your political stance and find ways to enter a dialogue with concerned Ethiopians at home and in the Diaspora.
Despite my misgivings about the 2005 elections and the deadly aftermath, most believe that the election was won by EPRDF. Democratic principles demand that you start by accepting and respecting the existing government and try to change it through the ballot box in Ethiopia. Try to support a party that articulates a clear alternative agenda to the existing one. You can even include, Assab, Bademe and the Sudan border as part of your party program. You can throw in land for sale and removal of secession from the constitution, if and when you get elected.
All this you can only do through a peaceful and legal means. So long as you respect and uphold the Ethiopian constitution to begin with and articulate your program to reflect your differences with it, which you can constitutionally change when you are in power, then you have room to organize, form, or support an opposition party in Ethiopia.
Most of all, if you do not consider the present leaders of Ethiopia as your own brothers and sisters, who are doing their level best to improve the lot of our people, then you will only be a dying voice in the dwindling Diaspora opposition.
Let President Obama’s speech be a guiding principle to scale down your hatred and demonization for the Ethiopian government.
“…To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.”
“…To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
That statement works both ways. If you believe the government is on the wrong side of history, I expect you to extend a hand of peaceful dialogue. No where in your statements did you indicate that you will cleanse yourself from the hateful propaganda that you have long been immersed in.
That, my friend, will put you on the wrong side of history. When and if you are ready to unclench your hold on hate and armed struggle, you will have plenty of Ethiopian brothers and sisters who will endorse your views. A thriving democracy needs a refined and reputable opposition.
If you do not respond to me or do not see this letter posted on your favorite blog, Ethiomedia, I will understand. I have known that opinions that do not pander to their battle cry will be muted.
Stay tuned.
Washera_2
Washera_2
Dear Ato Tesfaye Maru,
I read your article that was posted on Ethiomedia, with a lot of interest and anticipation. Although I have reservations about articles that are allowed to be posted on this site, a blog whose motto is “TPLF cannot be reformed; like apartheid, it should be abolished”, I had hopes that you may teach me a thing or two about the evolving Ethiopian democratic process.
Before I delve into the contents of your article, let me apologize for not responding to your article in Amharic. I have a good mastery of the Amharic language, but my Ethiopic fonts needed upgrading and I did not take the time to do so yet. So, I hope you are able to read and understand my comments.
Just like you, I have enjoyed reading the autobiography of Fitawurari Tekle Hawariat. It is a must read book for every Ethiopian. I especially enjoyed the part about the bees and the birds! There is some truth in what HIM said regarding hope. But I will leave that for another debate.
However, It did not take me long to realize the meaning behind your vituperations and tirades against the EPRDF government. It appeared that you thought hard and long to write this article, but such venomous attacks and innuendos against this government are the daily bread of people like Prof (sic) Alemayehu Haile Mariam. You might as well have taken a paragraph or two from his multiple entries on this blog, to arrive at your conclusions. I say this to indicate to you that there is no originality in your thesis.
To summarize your conclusions, you say:
1. Our lives are in danger.
2. Our ports, Bademe and parts of our land on the Sudan border have been given away.
3. The government will continue its ethnic and religious cleansing tactics.
4. This government will impugn any opposition and will soon announce a one-party system.
5. EPRDF must be overthrown by peaceful means or by force.
6. EPRDF will not leave power unless forced to do so.
To give flavor and gain legitimacy for your line of thinking, you have thrown in the “illegal” imprisonment of Teddy Afro, the re-arrest of Wt. Bertukan Mideksa and the “beating” of Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam.
If you plan to go raise arms to overthrow this government, I cannot stop you. But, I plead with you to think about the innocent lives you may be engaging in such a failed struggle tactic, while you bask in a comfortable corner of the world.
If you plan to use such a remonstrance to advance your career in some community college or raise money from innocent Ethiopians in the Diaspora to pay your gas bills, I plead with you to spare them their hard-earned dimes, especially in such taxing economic times.
If you are one of those who left Ethiopia decades ago and whose reality of the situation in Ethiopia comes from disgruntled blogs and power hungry, spiteful extremist politicians, then I suggest that you think hard and long to go visit Ethiopia and experience the reality first hand. You will see overpopulation, poverty, hunger and disease aplenty. But you will also see a very dynamic society trying hard to make ends meet. You will see an amazing growth in the area of commerce, infrastructure, farming and communication. Most of all, you will see a very peaceful people going about their ways with the utmost discipline and respect for each other, not seen any where in the developing world. If they can afford three meals a day it is a luxury; if they can only do with one a day, they will survive. They do their best to share.
If you truly believe in helping your people, I beg you to modify your political stance and find ways to enter a dialogue with concerned Ethiopians at home and in the Diaspora.
Despite my misgivings about the 2005 elections and the deadly aftermath, most believe that the election was won by EPRDF. Democratic principles demand that you start by accepting and respecting the existing government and try to change it through the ballot box in Ethiopia. Try to support a party that articulates a clear alternative agenda to the existing one. You can even include, Assab, Bademe and the Sudan border as part of your party program. You can throw in land for sale and removal of secession from the constitution, if and when you get elected.
All this you can only do through a peaceful and legal means. So long as you respect and uphold the Ethiopian constitution to begin with and articulate your program to reflect your differences with it, which you can constitutionally change when you are in power, then you have room to organize, form, or support an opposition party in Ethiopia.
Most of all, if you do not consider the present leaders of Ethiopia as your own brothers and sisters, who are doing their level best to improve the lot of our people, then you will only be a dying voice in the dwindling Diaspora opposition.
Let President Obama’s speech be a guiding principle to scale down your hatred and demonization for the Ethiopian government.
“…To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.”
“…To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
That statement works both ways. If you believe the government is on the wrong side of history, I expect you to extend a hand of peaceful dialogue. No where in your statements did you indicate that you will cleanse yourself from the hateful propaganda that you have long been immersed in.
That, my friend, will put you on the wrong side of history. When and if you are ready to unclench your hold on hate and armed struggle, you will have plenty of Ethiopian brothers and sisters who will endorse your views. A thriving democracy needs a refined and reputable opposition.
If you do not respond to me or do not see this letter posted on your favorite blog, Ethiomedia, I will understand. I have known that opinions that do not pander to their battle cry will be muted.
Stay tuned.
Washera_2
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Desperate Misinformation Campaign of the Vocal Diaspora Surrounding the Re-arrest of Wt. Bertukan Mideksa.
Washera_2
January 10, 2009
Both the print, Radio and TV vocal Diaspora are having a field day distorting the circumstances surrounding the re-arrest of Wt. Bertukan Mideksa. Whether out of a desperate move to restore the tattered image of the dying Diaspora opposition or to use this incident as an excuse to fill up their pockets or even out of sheer hatred for the steps that the Ethiopian government took to resolve the debacle of the 2005 elections, many in the Diaspora are engaged in a major smear campaign against the government and the steps it took to uphold the rule of law in the country.
Many questions have been raised and continue to be raised regarding the revocation of the presidential pardon for Wt. Bertukan Mideksa. But before responding to these questions or statements, let me place here and now, an English translation (by me) of the letter of apology sent to the Prime Minister by the accused prisoners.
Sene 15, 1999 (October 2007)
His Excellency Ato Meles Zenawi
Prime Minister
Ethiopian Federal Democratic Republic
Addis Ababa
We the undersigned Kinijit leaders and party members, aware of the misunderstandings created following the 2005 (1997EC) elections, take the responsibility for our wrongful attempts to change the constitutionally created government bodies, by illegal means. We take both individual and group responsibility for the mistakes that resulted. We affirm that, from here to for, we shall refrain from participating in such illegal activities and that we will, as part of our citizenship responsibilities, abide by and uphold the constitution of the country, and also accept and respect the role of the different branches of the government. Recognizing our contrition and our apology to the Ethiopian government and the Ethiopian people, we ask your Excellency to pardon us for our transgressions.
What is inherent in such an apology and what the law assumes is that there is sincerity in the request for pardon and that the parties involved will go out to carry their obligations in good faith and for the good of the country. If the motive of the apology is to trick, to cheat, to bluff or to be used as a ploy to get out of prison, then the spirit of the law is broken right from the outset. It would be better to rot in jail than be out by trickery.
Let us now examine some of the points raised in defense of Wt. Berukan and the response given by several government officials.
1. The Prime Minister promised to have the case annulled before the court ruled on it, but reversed his promise and allowed the ruling to stand before the pardon.
It is to be remembered that the PM appeared in parliament at that time and in response to an allegation that negotiations were going on with the prisoners, he unequivocally responded in the negative, further explaining that it is inappropriate to talk about an issue that is being looked at legally and one where the request of some elders to get involved in this case will be looked into after the legal aspect of the charges have been concluded. He also affirmed that these are prisoners who have no right to negotiate with the government and that such rumors are baseless and untrue.
Therefore, Wt. Bertukan’s allegation that the PM reversed his prior assurance of a pardon before sentencing is false and is fabricated to imply that the apology letter that they signed was based on false promises.
2. Wt. Bertukan’s statement of denial of apology expressed in just one forum cannot be a reason to send her back to jail, unless it is done to weaken the thriving UDJ party. Other opposition political party members have expressed similar sentiment in the past and were left alone.
During her visit to Sweden and Germany, Wt. Bertukan, on more than one occasion, has stated "we did not apologize; we were released through pressure put on them by the world-wide community and you in the Diaspora". This, however, was not the only reason for her re-arrest. On her return to Ethiopia, the responsible authorities had asked her to recant her false statements. She was asked to appear, within three days, on TV and Radio and correct her stand on the issue of the pardon. Her response, after serious deliberation, was made in mockery of the legal system. In fact, she went on to argue that legally, they did not ask for a pardon, since the Prime Minister was the one who entered the apology. Such a statement was not made in error, as an impromptu response or out of slip of the tongue. An extension of the date for her response would have simply looked as a weakness on the part of the government and no more.
3. Wt. Bertukan did not deny asking for a pardon. She was simply arguing that the pardon procedure did not follow the formal proclamations set up for a pardon and hence, does not qualify as a legal apology. The issue then becomes a procedural matter and her elaboration on this issue should not result in putting her back to jail.
Wt. Bertukan alleges that they did not apologize in the legal sense of the word, and the government claims that they executed the pardon according to the law mentioned in the Pardon Proclamation. These two positions differ not only procedurally, but also in the end result. To claim that they received the pardon illegally makes the pardon null and void. Hence, it means that Wt. Bertukan and her colleagues were out of prison for over 18 months illegally. This by itself is a self-defeating argument.
According to the Pardon Proclamation, the request is made by the involved party or by the government. In a situation where the involved party claims not to have apologized and the government claims to have not requested the apology by itself, there is no apologizing and pardoning party. The result: the government has to abide by the rule of law and put the convicted parties to jail.
4. According to the Proclamation of the Pardon procedure, the apology and request for a pardon should have been entered to the Pardon Board by the prisoner, a family member or a legal representative and not the Prime Minister.
It is true that on Hamle 12, 1999 (December, 2007) the letter of apology was submitted to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister then passed it on to the Pardon Board. The Pardon Board members then visited the jail and spoke with each and every prisoner to confirm the validity of the apology and their request for pardon. Each prisoner agreed and signed the request again on Hamle 15, and entered the request directly to the Pardon Board. Thus, the claim that the apology and request for a pardon was not submitted by the prisoners directly to the Pardon Board is untruthful.
5. According to the law, an apology and request for a pardon is entered after a sentence has been rendered. In this instance, the request was made before the sentencing.
The sentencing occurred on Hamle 15 and the request for pardon was signed again after the sentencing. Other preparations for the pardon process, including collecting of signatures may have been accomplished prior to the sentencing. All such internal preparations do not amount to anything as long as it does not indicate that the pardon process relied on the pre-sentencing request. The only legal question would have been if the government had officially accepted the request for pardon prior to the sentencing.
6. Even if the concerned party denied asking for an apology in the legal sense, how does that qualify as a breach of the preconditions of the pardon? Isn't this in violation of the freedom of speech framed in the constitution?
The pardon process was activated as a result of the sentencing of Wt. Bertukan to life imprisonment. She was released from jail because of the successful execution of the pardon process as a result of her request for an apology. If Wt. Bertukan was released from jail without a proper legal process, it is either a mistake or the prisoner has denied the preconditions for her pardon.
Article 2 of the Chapter on Revocation of a Pardon states, "The decision to pardon would be null and void, if is found to have been obtained by cheating or deceiving." As a result, before entertaining the argument over the breaching of the preconditions, the whole pardoning process becomes invalid, if obtained by cheating. The result would be going back to jail and serving the sentence.
7. As stipulated in the Pardon Proclamation, when a pardon is revoked, the recipient is notified in writing about such and the recipient is allowed to respond within 20 days. Why was Wt. Bertukan denied her right for such a modes operandi and sent directly to jail?
First of all, the matter of pardoning an offender is purely a good will matter on the part of the government and not a question of one's legal right. If the pardon is revoked for any reason, the offender goes back directly to jail. As indicated in Articles 2 and 3 of the Pardon Proclamation, "...if it is confirmed that the pardon was obtained by cheating or deceiving... or if it is found that the preconditions of the pardon have been violated, the pardon will be worthless." And then on Article 4 it goes on to say, "in accordance with this Article and Sub-Articles 2 and 3, if the pardon is reversed, the Pardon Board can decide that the offender be returned to the prior area of confinement." The return of Wt. Bertukan to jail after the pardon was revoked was an appropriate and legal process.
The Pardon Proclamation elaborates as follows on the procedures to be followed after the pardon has been nullified.
"Once there has been enough evidence for the nullification of the pardon, the concerned party would be made aware of the decision in a transparent way and given in writing in a language that the party understands...The recipient party would be expected to respond to such a decision in writing within 20 days."
This article does not specify that the written notice be provided to the offender while outside jail. On the contrary, as mentioned on article 4 above, since the Pardon Board requires that the offender return to jail once the pardon is removed, it appears evident that the response from the offender is going to happen from jail. The removal of the pardon is followed by an administrative procedure and not a legal court battle and the offender can respond from jail. Also, there is no where in the Proclamation that obliges the Pardon Board to look at the response and make any other decision.
8. The Prime Minister promised to have the case annulled before the court ruled on it, but reversed his promise and allowed the ruling to take place before the pardon.
It is to be remembered that the PM appeared in parliament at that time and in response to an allegation that negotiations were going on with the prisoners, he unequivocally responded in the negative, further explaining that it is inappropriate to talk about an issue that is being looked at legally and one where the request of some elders to get involved in this case will be looked into after the legal aspect of the charges have been concluded. He also affirmed that these are prisoners who have no legal right to negotiate with the government and such rumors are baseless and untrue.
Therefore, Wt. Bertukan’s allegation that the PM reversed his prior assurance of a pardon before sentencing is false and is fabricated to imply that the apology letter that they signed was based on false promises.
9. Wt. Bertukan was manhandled at the time of her re-arrest. Her driver and Prof Mesfin were beat up. Why wasn’t she given the respect and dignity of a human being and president of her party when she was being taken to jail?
Every Ethiopian has the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In this regard, if such violations as mentioned above were committed, the alleged perpetrator shall be brought to the court of law.
However, the Addis Ababa Police Commission representative, during his appearance on Ethiopian Civility Pal talk Forum, has clearly indicated that no such violations were committed. It is possible that the elder Professor Mesfin is bent on using this incident to allege that Wt. Bertukan was treated in inhuman and degrading manner, so as to divert the issue to that of Human right violation. The alleged punch to his pelvic region by the butt of a rifle could cause serious damage to a man of his age and is too good to be true.
10. Even if Wt. Bertukan made a mistake, would it not have been prudent to exonerate her so as to deny her vocal supporters an excuse to rally around this agenda?
Indeed, the first issue that needs to be looked into is whether or not the lady is legally accountable for her transgressions and whether or not the government took steps, using the legal instrument of the law as set forth in the Pardon Proclamation. If looked at politically, differing opinions may surface. But, to ignore such transgressions, because of political considerations, will be tantamount to ignoring the rule of law and the enormous future ramifications of such an act. Lasting political gain can only come about through peaceful struggle and by accepting the rule of law.
The political instability that followed the 1997 (2005) elections did not come about suddenly. Opposition groups had been undermining the law of the land directly and indirectly. The space allowed to have a free and fair democratic process was gradually trampled on and reached a point of threatening the constitution of the country. If the audacity of Wt. Bertukan to repudiate the rule of law is left unchecked, the future consequences could be cataclysmic.
As very well articulated in an article by Adal Isaw, abiding by the Constitution is what is required of all citizens, no matter what their perception is. Safeguarding the Constitution from contempt is therefore unlike any other duty that we should be bound to carry.
“Washera” Or (Weyis) “Wushilshil”
05 February 2009
From YES WE CAN DO IT (ECADF)
I understand that almost all Ethiopians reach to the point that TPLF is an anti-Ethiopia party with rigid attitude and a story of all kind of fabricated lies. For this very reason TPLF (weyane) is too small to deserve a reply from Ethiopians but I am motivated to present my review to my fellow Ethiopians and innocent Ethiopians whom TPLF (weyane) tried to misinform. As I observed all parties in Ethiopia, TPLF is the only party that is formed without ear and conscious but only big mouth.
This literature is my review on the written document by “Washera_2” on January 10,2009 concerning the re-arrest of Judge Birtukan Mideksa by TPLF regime under the leadership of Melese Zenawi (http://www.ethiocivility.org/The_Desperate_Misinformation.html) had a smart approach in the beginning but suddenly it became contradictory , not only the reality but also with his own baseless literature. I we could say much more about his lies and disrespectful misinformation but I will bring out some of his fabricated lies and misconstrues as short as I can. Hereafter, for his literature is full of childish game, unlimited lies, bunch of contradiction and confused ideas, I prefer to his literature “wushilshil” hereafter.
Furthermore, to facilitate my style of writing as easy as possible to compare and contrast with all the ten points raised by “wushilshil” I will put my review for each issues point by point.
1. This first issue “wushilshil” raised that Wt. Birtukan’s allegation that the “The Prime Minister promised to have the case annulled before the court ruled on it, but reversed his promise” is false and is fabricated. Right from the beginning what “wushilshil” couldn’t realize that he is not one of the three groups who are directly involved in the process of reconciliation.
The prime minister.
The Board of Elders.
The CUD leaders.
Since he is not directly involved in the process of the reconciliation, the comment of “wushilshil” supposed to be as the fourth party who put his own position, not as the direct participant in the process of reconciliation. If that is so then he supposes to collect all the information from the above participants and let them to explain themselves.
On his literature “wushilshil” said that “the prior assurance of a pardon before sentencing is false and is fabricated to imply that the apology letter that they signed was based on false promises” This was the first and the main issue that “wushilshil” raised to disqualify the position of Judge Birtukan Mideksa.
My position on this deliberately fabricated issue is simply to here from the horse mouth.
If we click on this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGEWk6wVzxk) you will get an access to here from the leader of the Board of Elders, Professor Ephrem Isaq, confirming the position of Judge Birtukan Mideksa saying that “ The prime minister promised to annulle the case 5 (five) month before sentencing and the negotiation process took them about 18 month before sentencing” After we hear this story right from the leader of the Board of Elders , any Ethiopian can be able to conclude all the issues raised by “wushilshil” is completely fabricated and baseless. “Wushilshil” is engaged on baseless campaign against the truth with his completely blocked conscious in order to extend his financial link from TPLF.
2. The second issue that “wushilshil” pointed out his argument saying “ Wt Birtukan Mideksa had denied her apology” According to “wushilshil” Judge Birtukan Mideksa denied the reconciliation and the pardon process. My position to this baseless lie is to invite you to website that Judge Birtukan Mideksa gave her statement saying “The reconciliation and pardon process was through the Board of Elders but not through the so called Pardon Board of the government”. Click. According to this letter from Judge Birtukan Mideksa elaborated the negotiation of reconciliation and the pardon process was through Elders board but not the so called Pardon board of the government.
3. The third issue that “wushilshil” pointed out was that “The CUD party claimed that they received the pardon illegally”.
What “wushilshil” trying to deny is the intervention of the Elders board under Pro.Ephrem to facilitate the negotiation and reconciliation process and to replace with the so called Pardon board of the TPLF regime.
According to Ethiopian culture, we understand that in any kind of conflict, Elders can intervene to make reconciliation, not to take all issues to court case and it has been accepted legally and respected system in Ethiopia as the News transmitted by ETV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGEWk6wVzxk). Therefore, to explain the fact about the reconciliation and pardon process when and how it was done through the Board of Elders but not through so called pardon board can’t be an issue of illegality but it should be taken as clarifying the truth about the reconciliation and pardon process.
4. On the forth issue “wushilshil” pointed out that “It is the prime minister passed the letter of apology to the pardon Board” by which he wanted to divert the role of the reconciliation and pardon process from the Board of Elders to the so called pardon Board of the government.
My position to this big, fabricated and contradictory lie is to let the readers to compare what “wushilshil” said on his 4th point second paragraph. It reads as follows: “It is true that on Hamle 12, 1999 (December 2007) the letter of apology was submitted to the prime minister”. On the same paragraph the last line, it reads as follows: “Thus the claim that the apology and request for a pardon was not submitted by the prisoners directly to the pardon Board is untruthful”.
If you see these two sentences, we can understand that why I refer this man’s literature “wushilshil”. Someone with open and clear conscious can see that Judge Birtukan Mideksa is 100% right and “wushilshil” is writing nonsense to fill his hunger of lies. “wushilshil” said on his first sentence, it is the prime minister passed the letter to the pardon Board of the government, which was written and signed by CUD leaders but on the second sentence he said the CUD leaders gave their letter directly to the pardon Board. Again and again, this fact shows that “Wushilshil” can’t be qualified to discredit the honorable Judge Birtukan Mideksa at least until he learns and cease contradicting his own judgment. By now, we all understood the fact that “wushilshil” and the party he tries to defend are so dramatic to the extent to contradict their first and last sentences. For “wushilshil” to accept the truth, he doesn’t need an explanation from second or third person. If he is willing to believe his own literature, he would understand that Judge Birtukan Mideksa is clean and clear as crystal. At this stage I would like to advise, my fellow Ethiopian Brothers and sisters not to waste their time reading any kind literature written by “wushilshil”, even he himself doesn’t believe what he himself wrote a minute ago and write against it all of a sudden.
5. The fifth issue that “wushilshil” foolishly tried to complicate, as if the pardon process was not completed before the sentencing.
With all the evidences we have seen “wushilshil” has no concrete ground or base for his arguments. Since the Board of Elders witnessed that the negotiation, pardon and the reconciliation process started and finished prior to the sentencing. Therefore there is no doubt that negotiation, reconciliation process started and finished before sentencing. And the pardon process by the Board of Elders has no connection with the so called Pardon Board of the TPLF government.
6. The sixth issue raised, mixed and confused by “wushilshil” is deliberately denying and misinforming the different between:-
a. The Board of Elders: - Which interferes before the sentencing to point and facilitate common ground among the disagreed groups or parties and bring peaceful solution of reconciliation and Pardon.
b. The Pardon Board: - Which is a governmental organization that only sees the situation and a letter of apology of a criminal after the sentence passed and prisoned in the consequence of the sentencing.
Since the reconciliation and pardon process with CUD leaders started and finished through the Board of Elders with in the process of 18 month before sentencing, it is meaningless to quote articles, which are prepared for the so called Pardon Board . This simply shows that the writer is desperately tried to cover the open and clean truth by confusing and mixing the two parallel processes. The clear explanation of Judge Birtukan Mideksa on the differences between the two completely different processes can’t be interpreted as if she said either of the processes is illegal.
7. On the seventh point “wushilshil” tried to defend the truth on the fact why Judge….given only three (3) days while the displaced article states that is should be given 20 days.
My comment on this point is to remind the readers to differentiate the two processes, which are deliberately mixed by “wushilshil”. Since the Board of Elders is formed following the consequences of 2005 election, it has nothing to do with articles that are organized many years ago. But it absolutely a foolish approaches to present these articles as if they were made in 2005 for the Elders Board. Even if he want to you these articles where is not applicable, the article doesn’t talk about 3 days but only 20 days. This is one more an amazing story that shows the government of TPLF has never ever uses the law he claims that should be activated.
8. The eighth issue “wushilshil” mentioned has nothing new because he has raised it on his first point. The 8th point was just to play Psychological game to extend his points to 10 because he had no more lie to write. What “wushilshil” couldn’t realize is “false is always false, whether it is written one or more times”.
9. The ninth issue “wushilshil” mentioned that “In the government of TPLF, every Ethiopians has the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” quoting the position of un named police commission officer, who gave speech in one of anti- Ethiopia pal talk room.
A government who used excessive force, killed innocent people and jailed thousands of people, for being UN willing to give the power of leadership for the legal winner and elected party of CUD. Can these kind of massacred be reversed by a person denied all the excessive actions and talked about it through pal talk interview??
This dramatic situation reminds me the English expression “Action speaks louder than your words”. We have seen the blood of dear Ethiopians the streets our land, slaughtered, beaten, being made handicaps and thousands of people had been jailed. Isn’t foolishness to try to reverse all these actions, which we have seen with our own eyes with one day pal talk speech by unknown so called commissioner??
10. On the 10th point “wushilshil” sounds like he wanted to convict Judge Birtukan Mideksa, as if she made a mistake by presenting his contradicted baby style literature. But someone like “wushilshil” has no any moral and concrete knowledge of the law to convict Judge Birtukan Mideksa, in any measure.
As we have reviewed the literature of “wushilshil” he is totally confused and contradicting himself and mentally lost to understand the difference between the Board of Elders and the so called pardon Board of the TPLF government. Therefore he has no evidence to pull Judge Birtukan Mideksa into his ideal mistake.
Since all the points of “wushilshil” are denied the reality and full of contradiction, It seems he is engaged on this business only because he is badly hungry to support his blood baptized party (TPLF) but to strengthen his dollar strings from TPLF being out of conscious, without evidence and even having no harmony with his own writings.
January 10, 2009
Both the print, Radio and TV vocal Diaspora are having a field day distorting the circumstances surrounding the re-arrest of Wt. Bertukan Mideksa. Whether out of a desperate move to restore the tattered image of the dying Diaspora opposition or to use this incident as an excuse to fill up their pockets or even out of sheer hatred for the steps that the Ethiopian government took to resolve the debacle of the 2005 elections, many in the Diaspora are engaged in a major smear campaign against the government and the steps it took to uphold the rule of law in the country.
Many questions have been raised and continue to be raised regarding the revocation of the presidential pardon for Wt. Bertukan Mideksa. But before responding to these questions or statements, let me place here and now, an English translation (by me) of the letter of apology sent to the Prime Minister by the accused prisoners.
Sene 15, 1999 (October 2007)
His Excellency Ato Meles Zenawi
Prime Minister
Ethiopian Federal Democratic Republic
Addis Ababa
We the undersigned Kinijit leaders and party members, aware of the misunderstandings created following the 2005 (1997EC) elections, take the responsibility for our wrongful attempts to change the constitutionally created government bodies, by illegal means. We take both individual and group responsibility for the mistakes that resulted. We affirm that, from here to for, we shall refrain from participating in such illegal activities and that we will, as part of our citizenship responsibilities, abide by and uphold the constitution of the country, and also accept and respect the role of the different branches of the government. Recognizing our contrition and our apology to the Ethiopian government and the Ethiopian people, we ask your Excellency to pardon us for our transgressions.
What is inherent in such an apology and what the law assumes is that there is sincerity in the request for pardon and that the parties involved will go out to carry their obligations in good faith and for the good of the country. If the motive of the apology is to trick, to cheat, to bluff or to be used as a ploy to get out of prison, then the spirit of the law is broken right from the outset. It would be better to rot in jail than be out by trickery.
Let us now examine some of the points raised in defense of Wt. Berukan and the response given by several government officials.
1. The Prime Minister promised to have the case annulled before the court ruled on it, but reversed his promise and allowed the ruling to stand before the pardon.
It is to be remembered that the PM appeared in parliament at that time and in response to an allegation that negotiations were going on with the prisoners, he unequivocally responded in the negative, further explaining that it is inappropriate to talk about an issue that is being looked at legally and one where the request of some elders to get involved in this case will be looked into after the legal aspect of the charges have been concluded. He also affirmed that these are prisoners who have no right to negotiate with the government and that such rumors are baseless and untrue.
Therefore, Wt. Bertukan’s allegation that the PM reversed his prior assurance of a pardon before sentencing is false and is fabricated to imply that the apology letter that they signed was based on false promises.
2. Wt. Bertukan’s statement of denial of apology expressed in just one forum cannot be a reason to send her back to jail, unless it is done to weaken the thriving UDJ party. Other opposition political party members have expressed similar sentiment in the past and were left alone.
During her visit to Sweden and Germany, Wt. Bertukan, on more than one occasion, has stated "we did not apologize; we were released through pressure put on them by the world-wide community and you in the Diaspora". This, however, was not the only reason for her re-arrest. On her return to Ethiopia, the responsible authorities had asked her to recant her false statements. She was asked to appear, within three days, on TV and Radio and correct her stand on the issue of the pardon. Her response, after serious deliberation, was made in mockery of the legal system. In fact, she went on to argue that legally, they did not ask for a pardon, since the Prime Minister was the one who entered the apology. Such a statement was not made in error, as an impromptu response or out of slip of the tongue. An extension of the date for her response would have simply looked as a weakness on the part of the government and no more.
3. Wt. Bertukan did not deny asking for a pardon. She was simply arguing that the pardon procedure did not follow the formal proclamations set up for a pardon and hence, does not qualify as a legal apology. The issue then becomes a procedural matter and her elaboration on this issue should not result in putting her back to jail.
Wt. Bertukan alleges that they did not apologize in the legal sense of the word, and the government claims that they executed the pardon according to the law mentioned in the Pardon Proclamation. These two positions differ not only procedurally, but also in the end result. To claim that they received the pardon illegally makes the pardon null and void. Hence, it means that Wt. Bertukan and her colleagues were out of prison for over 18 months illegally. This by itself is a self-defeating argument.
According to the Pardon Proclamation, the request is made by the involved party or by the government. In a situation where the involved party claims not to have apologized and the government claims to have not requested the apology by itself, there is no apologizing and pardoning party. The result: the government has to abide by the rule of law and put the convicted parties to jail.
4. According to the Proclamation of the Pardon procedure, the apology and request for a pardon should have been entered to the Pardon Board by the prisoner, a family member or a legal representative and not the Prime Minister.
It is true that on Hamle 12, 1999 (December, 2007) the letter of apology was submitted to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister then passed it on to the Pardon Board. The Pardon Board members then visited the jail and spoke with each and every prisoner to confirm the validity of the apology and their request for pardon. Each prisoner agreed and signed the request again on Hamle 15, and entered the request directly to the Pardon Board. Thus, the claim that the apology and request for a pardon was not submitted by the prisoners directly to the Pardon Board is untruthful.
5. According to the law, an apology and request for a pardon is entered after a sentence has been rendered. In this instance, the request was made before the sentencing.
The sentencing occurred on Hamle 15 and the request for pardon was signed again after the sentencing. Other preparations for the pardon process, including collecting of signatures may have been accomplished prior to the sentencing. All such internal preparations do not amount to anything as long as it does not indicate that the pardon process relied on the pre-sentencing request. The only legal question would have been if the government had officially accepted the request for pardon prior to the sentencing.
6. Even if the concerned party denied asking for an apology in the legal sense, how does that qualify as a breach of the preconditions of the pardon? Isn't this in violation of the freedom of speech framed in the constitution?
The pardon process was activated as a result of the sentencing of Wt. Bertukan to life imprisonment. She was released from jail because of the successful execution of the pardon process as a result of her request for an apology. If Wt. Bertukan was released from jail without a proper legal process, it is either a mistake or the prisoner has denied the preconditions for her pardon.
Article 2 of the Chapter on Revocation of a Pardon states, "The decision to pardon would be null and void, if is found to have been obtained by cheating or deceiving." As a result, before entertaining the argument over the breaching of the preconditions, the whole pardoning process becomes invalid, if obtained by cheating. The result would be going back to jail and serving the sentence.
7. As stipulated in the Pardon Proclamation, when a pardon is revoked, the recipient is notified in writing about such and the recipient is allowed to respond within 20 days. Why was Wt. Bertukan denied her right for such a modes operandi and sent directly to jail?
First of all, the matter of pardoning an offender is purely a good will matter on the part of the government and not a question of one's legal right. If the pardon is revoked for any reason, the offender goes back directly to jail. As indicated in Articles 2 and 3 of the Pardon Proclamation, "...if it is confirmed that the pardon was obtained by cheating or deceiving... or if it is found that the preconditions of the pardon have been violated, the pardon will be worthless." And then on Article 4 it goes on to say, "in accordance with this Article and Sub-Articles 2 and 3, if the pardon is reversed, the Pardon Board can decide that the offender be returned to the prior area of confinement." The return of Wt. Bertukan to jail after the pardon was revoked was an appropriate and legal process.
The Pardon Proclamation elaborates as follows on the procedures to be followed after the pardon has been nullified.
"Once there has been enough evidence for the nullification of the pardon, the concerned party would be made aware of the decision in a transparent way and given in writing in a language that the party understands...The recipient party would be expected to respond to such a decision in writing within 20 days."
This article does not specify that the written notice be provided to the offender while outside jail. On the contrary, as mentioned on article 4 above, since the Pardon Board requires that the offender return to jail once the pardon is removed, it appears evident that the response from the offender is going to happen from jail. The removal of the pardon is followed by an administrative procedure and not a legal court battle and the offender can respond from jail. Also, there is no where in the Proclamation that obliges the Pardon Board to look at the response and make any other decision.
8. The Prime Minister promised to have the case annulled before the court ruled on it, but reversed his promise and allowed the ruling to take place before the pardon.
It is to be remembered that the PM appeared in parliament at that time and in response to an allegation that negotiations were going on with the prisoners, he unequivocally responded in the negative, further explaining that it is inappropriate to talk about an issue that is being looked at legally and one where the request of some elders to get involved in this case will be looked into after the legal aspect of the charges have been concluded. He also affirmed that these are prisoners who have no legal right to negotiate with the government and such rumors are baseless and untrue.
Therefore, Wt. Bertukan’s allegation that the PM reversed his prior assurance of a pardon before sentencing is false and is fabricated to imply that the apology letter that they signed was based on false promises.
9. Wt. Bertukan was manhandled at the time of her re-arrest. Her driver and Prof Mesfin were beat up. Why wasn’t she given the respect and dignity of a human being and president of her party when she was being taken to jail?
Every Ethiopian has the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In this regard, if such violations as mentioned above were committed, the alleged perpetrator shall be brought to the court of law.
However, the Addis Ababa Police Commission representative, during his appearance on Ethiopian Civility Pal talk Forum, has clearly indicated that no such violations were committed. It is possible that the elder Professor Mesfin is bent on using this incident to allege that Wt. Bertukan was treated in inhuman and degrading manner, so as to divert the issue to that of Human right violation. The alleged punch to his pelvic region by the butt of a rifle could cause serious damage to a man of his age and is too good to be true.
10. Even if Wt. Bertukan made a mistake, would it not have been prudent to exonerate her so as to deny her vocal supporters an excuse to rally around this agenda?
Indeed, the first issue that needs to be looked into is whether or not the lady is legally accountable for her transgressions and whether or not the government took steps, using the legal instrument of the law as set forth in the Pardon Proclamation. If looked at politically, differing opinions may surface. But, to ignore such transgressions, because of political considerations, will be tantamount to ignoring the rule of law and the enormous future ramifications of such an act. Lasting political gain can only come about through peaceful struggle and by accepting the rule of law.
The political instability that followed the 1997 (2005) elections did not come about suddenly. Opposition groups had been undermining the law of the land directly and indirectly. The space allowed to have a free and fair democratic process was gradually trampled on and reached a point of threatening the constitution of the country. If the audacity of Wt. Bertukan to repudiate the rule of law is left unchecked, the future consequences could be cataclysmic.
As very well articulated in an article by Adal Isaw, abiding by the Constitution is what is required of all citizens, no matter what their perception is. Safeguarding the Constitution from contempt is therefore unlike any other duty that we should be bound to carry.
“Washera” Or (Weyis) “Wushilshil”
05 February 2009
From YES WE CAN DO IT (ECADF)
I understand that almost all Ethiopians reach to the point that TPLF is an anti-Ethiopia party with rigid attitude and a story of all kind of fabricated lies. For this very reason TPLF (weyane) is too small to deserve a reply from Ethiopians but I am motivated to present my review to my fellow Ethiopians and innocent Ethiopians whom TPLF (weyane) tried to misinform. As I observed all parties in Ethiopia, TPLF is the only party that is formed without ear and conscious but only big mouth.
This literature is my review on the written document by “Washera_2” on January 10,2009 concerning the re-arrest of Judge Birtukan Mideksa by TPLF regime under the leadership of Melese Zenawi (http://www.ethiocivility.org/The_Desperate_Misinformation.html) had a smart approach in the beginning but suddenly it became contradictory , not only the reality but also with his own baseless literature. I we could say much more about his lies and disrespectful misinformation but I will bring out some of his fabricated lies and misconstrues as short as I can. Hereafter, for his literature is full of childish game, unlimited lies, bunch of contradiction and confused ideas, I prefer to his literature “wushilshil” hereafter.
Furthermore, to facilitate my style of writing as easy as possible to compare and contrast with all the ten points raised by “wushilshil” I will put my review for each issues point by point.
1. This first issue “wushilshil” raised that Wt. Birtukan’s allegation that the “The Prime Minister promised to have the case annulled before the court ruled on it, but reversed his promise” is false and is fabricated. Right from the beginning what “wushilshil” couldn’t realize that he is not one of the three groups who are directly involved in the process of reconciliation.
The prime minister.
The Board of Elders.
The CUD leaders.
Since he is not directly involved in the process of the reconciliation, the comment of “wushilshil” supposed to be as the fourth party who put his own position, not as the direct participant in the process of reconciliation. If that is so then he supposes to collect all the information from the above participants and let them to explain themselves.
On his literature “wushilshil” said that “the prior assurance of a pardon before sentencing is false and is fabricated to imply that the apology letter that they signed was based on false promises” This was the first and the main issue that “wushilshil” raised to disqualify the position of Judge Birtukan Mideksa.
My position on this deliberately fabricated issue is simply to here from the horse mouth.
If we click on this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGEWk6wVzxk) you will get an access to here from the leader of the Board of Elders, Professor Ephrem Isaq, confirming the position of Judge Birtukan Mideksa saying that “ The prime minister promised to annulle the case 5 (five) month before sentencing and the negotiation process took them about 18 month before sentencing” After we hear this story right from the leader of the Board of Elders , any Ethiopian can be able to conclude all the issues raised by “wushilshil” is completely fabricated and baseless. “Wushilshil” is engaged on baseless campaign against the truth with his completely blocked conscious in order to extend his financial link from TPLF.
2. The second issue that “wushilshil” pointed out his argument saying “ Wt Birtukan Mideksa had denied her apology” According to “wushilshil” Judge Birtukan Mideksa denied the reconciliation and the pardon process. My position to this baseless lie is to invite you to website that Judge Birtukan Mideksa gave her statement saying “The reconciliation and pardon process was through the Board of Elders but not through the so called Pardon Board of the government”. Click. According to this letter from Judge Birtukan Mideksa elaborated the negotiation of reconciliation and the pardon process was through Elders board but not the so called Pardon board of the government.
3. The third issue that “wushilshil” pointed out was that “The CUD party claimed that they received the pardon illegally”.
What “wushilshil” trying to deny is the intervention of the Elders board under Pro.Ephrem to facilitate the negotiation and reconciliation process and to replace with the so called Pardon board of the TPLF regime.
According to Ethiopian culture, we understand that in any kind of conflict, Elders can intervene to make reconciliation, not to take all issues to court case and it has been accepted legally and respected system in Ethiopia as the News transmitted by ETV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGEWk6wVzxk). Therefore, to explain the fact about the reconciliation and pardon process when and how it was done through the Board of Elders but not through so called pardon board can’t be an issue of illegality but it should be taken as clarifying the truth about the reconciliation and pardon process.
4. On the forth issue “wushilshil” pointed out that “It is the prime minister passed the letter of apology to the pardon Board” by which he wanted to divert the role of the reconciliation and pardon process from the Board of Elders to the so called pardon Board of the government.
My position to this big, fabricated and contradictory lie is to let the readers to compare what “wushilshil” said on his 4th point second paragraph. It reads as follows: “It is true that on Hamle 12, 1999 (December 2007) the letter of apology was submitted to the prime minister”. On the same paragraph the last line, it reads as follows: “Thus the claim that the apology and request for a pardon was not submitted by the prisoners directly to the pardon Board is untruthful”.
If you see these two sentences, we can understand that why I refer this man’s literature “wushilshil”. Someone with open and clear conscious can see that Judge Birtukan Mideksa is 100% right and “wushilshil” is writing nonsense to fill his hunger of lies. “wushilshil” said on his first sentence, it is the prime minister passed the letter to the pardon Board of the government, which was written and signed by CUD leaders but on the second sentence he said the CUD leaders gave their letter directly to the pardon Board. Again and again, this fact shows that “Wushilshil” can’t be qualified to discredit the honorable Judge Birtukan Mideksa at least until he learns and cease contradicting his own judgment. By now, we all understood the fact that “wushilshil” and the party he tries to defend are so dramatic to the extent to contradict their first and last sentences. For “wushilshil” to accept the truth, he doesn’t need an explanation from second or third person. If he is willing to believe his own literature, he would understand that Judge Birtukan Mideksa is clean and clear as crystal. At this stage I would like to advise, my fellow Ethiopian Brothers and sisters not to waste their time reading any kind literature written by “wushilshil”, even he himself doesn’t believe what he himself wrote a minute ago and write against it all of a sudden.
5. The fifth issue that “wushilshil” foolishly tried to complicate, as if the pardon process was not completed before the sentencing.
With all the evidences we have seen “wushilshil” has no concrete ground or base for his arguments. Since the Board of Elders witnessed that the negotiation, pardon and the reconciliation process started and finished prior to the sentencing. Therefore there is no doubt that negotiation, reconciliation process started and finished before sentencing. And the pardon process by the Board of Elders has no connection with the so called Pardon Board of the TPLF government.
6. The sixth issue raised, mixed and confused by “wushilshil” is deliberately denying and misinforming the different between:-
a. The Board of Elders: - Which interferes before the sentencing to point and facilitate common ground among the disagreed groups or parties and bring peaceful solution of reconciliation and Pardon.
b. The Pardon Board: - Which is a governmental organization that only sees the situation and a letter of apology of a criminal after the sentence passed and prisoned in the consequence of the sentencing.
Since the reconciliation and pardon process with CUD leaders started and finished through the Board of Elders with in the process of 18 month before sentencing, it is meaningless to quote articles, which are prepared for the so called Pardon Board . This simply shows that the writer is desperately tried to cover the open and clean truth by confusing and mixing the two parallel processes. The clear explanation of Judge Birtukan Mideksa on the differences between the two completely different processes can’t be interpreted as if she said either of the processes is illegal.
7. On the seventh point “wushilshil” tried to defend the truth on the fact why Judge….given only three (3) days while the displaced article states that is should be given 20 days.
My comment on this point is to remind the readers to differentiate the two processes, which are deliberately mixed by “wushilshil”. Since the Board of Elders is formed following the consequences of 2005 election, it has nothing to do with articles that are organized many years ago. But it absolutely a foolish approaches to present these articles as if they were made in 2005 for the Elders Board. Even if he want to you these articles where is not applicable, the article doesn’t talk about 3 days but only 20 days. This is one more an amazing story that shows the government of TPLF has never ever uses the law he claims that should be activated.
8. The eighth issue “wushilshil” mentioned has nothing new because he has raised it on his first point. The 8th point was just to play Psychological game to extend his points to 10 because he had no more lie to write. What “wushilshil” couldn’t realize is “false is always false, whether it is written one or more times”.
9. The ninth issue “wushilshil” mentioned that “In the government of TPLF, every Ethiopians has the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” quoting the position of un named police commission officer, who gave speech in one of anti- Ethiopia pal talk room.
A government who used excessive force, killed innocent people and jailed thousands of people, for being UN willing to give the power of leadership for the legal winner and elected party of CUD. Can these kind of massacred be reversed by a person denied all the excessive actions and talked about it through pal talk interview??
This dramatic situation reminds me the English expression “Action speaks louder than your words”. We have seen the blood of dear Ethiopians the streets our land, slaughtered, beaten, being made handicaps and thousands of people had been jailed. Isn’t foolishness to try to reverse all these actions, which we have seen with our own eyes with one day pal talk speech by unknown so called commissioner??
10. On the 10th point “wushilshil” sounds like he wanted to convict Judge Birtukan Mideksa, as if she made a mistake by presenting his contradicted baby style literature. But someone like “wushilshil” has no any moral and concrete knowledge of the law to convict Judge Birtukan Mideksa, in any measure.
As we have reviewed the literature of “wushilshil” he is totally confused and contradicting himself and mentally lost to understand the difference between the Board of Elders and the so called pardon Board of the TPLF government. Therefore he has no evidence to pull Judge Birtukan Mideksa into his ideal mistake.
Since all the points of “wushilshil” are denied the reality and full of contradiction, It seems he is engaged on this business only because he is badly hungry to support his blood baptized party (TPLF) but to strengthen his dollar strings from TPLF being out of conscious, without evidence and even having no harmony with his own writings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)