An ongoing trial in Ethiopia continues to attract widespread attention as political prisoners and prisoners of conscience—predominantly of Amhara ethnicity—face terrorism charges widely regarded as politically motivated. These individuals now find themselves entangled in the complexities of Ethiopia’s legal system, with proceedings at the Federal High Court in Addis Ababa unfolding slowly since July 7, 2017. Observers point to deliberate delays as a tactic by an oppressive regime intent on prolonging the ordeal.
In the case of Temesgen Getnet, the defense has voiced strong frustration. They argue that the prosecution’s repeated failure to present witnesses is causing needless delays, raising suspicions of intentional stalling and public humiliation. Similarly, Tewodros Tamrai and Solomon Teferi face shifting court dates and the absence of prosecutors, compounding confusion and uncertainty for the accused.
These trials reflect deeper tensions within Ethiopia’s political landscape, raising urgent questions about justice, fairness, and ethnic discrimination.
Overview of the Charges Against Amhara Prisoners
Background and Nature of the Charges
The terrorism charges brought against Amhara ethnic political prisoners have sparked both domestic and international criticism. These accusations—alleging activities that threaten national security—are seen by many as vague, overly broad, and deliberately designed to criminalize dissent.
Analysts argue these charges fit into a broader strategy of suppressing opposition to the OPDO-led government. By labeling dissent as terrorism, authorities seek to legitimize repressive actions domestically while maintaining a façade of legal propriety internationally.
Ethnicity as a Driving Factor
The ethnic dimension is crucial. The targeting of Amhara individuals is widely interpreted as an effort to marginalize a historically influential group perceived as a political threat. Throughout Ethiopia’s modern history, Amhara people have often been central to political power struggles, making them frequent targets for those seeking to consolidate control.
Terrorism charges are thus viewed by critics as a convenient pretext for sidelining Amhara political voices under the guise of national security.
Widespread Criticism of the Charges
Allegations of Political Manipulation
Observers and human rights advocates argue that these charges are part of a systematic effort to stifle dissent and maintain authoritarian rule. The OPDO government stands accused of exploiting legal mechanisms as tools of political persecution rather than justice.
Such accusations, critics say, aim to delegitimize legitimate opposition, intimidate community leaders, and undermine the Amhara ethnic group’s political participation. These actions have raised alarms over human rights abuses and the erosion of democratic norms.
Defense Lawyers’ Objections
Defense attorneys have been outspoken in condemning both the charges and the broader judicial process. They point to glaring irregularities, a lack of credible evidence, and consistent procedural delays. Key witnesses remain absent, and court schedules fluctuate without explanation—all of which the defense argues are deliberate strategies to disadvantage their clients.
Lawyers insist these practices fall far short of international legal standards and further erode trust in Ethiopia’s judicial system. They maintain that the accusations are not only baseless but also a calculated attempt to exclude Amharas from political life.
