Public consultations on transitional justice laws should start only after National Dialogue recommendations, gaps and new developments have been considered.

Ethiopia’s Ministry of Justice launched a government-civil society platform on transitional justice on 23 October, signalling the resumption of the process that stalled in April 2025. The transitional justice website is now active, and public consultations on draft transitional justice laws are reportedly expected to begin soon.

The interruption came just as the draft laws were about to be opened for consultations. The pause, which had no official explanation, weakened momentum and created uncertainty. To rebuild public and donor confidence, reasons for the resumption should be made public – along with next steps and timelines.

Four priorities should guide the resumed process: the National Dialogue’s recommendations, existing gaps, outstanding commitments and developments during the pause.

The first priority is the National Dialogue Commission’s recommendations, which were submitted to Parliament on 3 October. They are yet to be made public. Since transitional justice was allegedly paused to make way for the dialogue, proceeding without considering its recommendations would miss the point and the chance to strengthen transitional justice.

The Ministry of Justice should establish a committee to review the dialogue’s implications for the Transitional Justice Policy, draft legislation and implementation. The recommendations may affect transitional justice in three ways: through explicit proposals affecting its scope and mandates; through relevant recommendations in other thematic areas; and through broader reforms that may overlap or interact with its implementation. The review should therefore extend beyond recommendations explicitly labelled as transitional justice.

Addressing these implications requires two complementary approaches. Targeted adjustments to the legal frameworks should incorporate relevant recommendations without reopening the entire legal and policy basis for public debate. A separate strategy could coordinate with other institutions or reforms mentioned in the dialogue’s recommendations to prevent institutional confusion or another pause.

Beyond its specific recommendations, the dialogue could help give Parliament a more prominent role in transitional justice. It may also contribute to establishing a shared, officially recognised account of victimhood and suffering across communities, laying the groundwork for official acknowledgement of and apology for the violence and harm suffered. These contributions should be reflected in the revised transitional justice framework.

The second priority is to address unresolved weaknesses in the policy. The existing framework had shortcomings concerning which institution could resolve legal disputes arising between transitional justice bodies. The proposed Special Bench could do this.

Accountability for crimes allegedly committed by foreign perpetrators, particularly Eritrean forces during the 2020-2022 Tigray war, also remains insufficiently addressed.

Mental health and psychosocial support are hidden under the reparations pillar. The revised framework should recognise them as cross-cutting priorities with clear institutional responsibilities – if not as a standalone pillar whose implementation should begin immediately. Currently, just a few civil society organisations offer support to victims and survivors in their struggle to heal and be recognised.

Economic, social and cultural rights violations also require greater attention, not only in reparations but across other pillars such as criminal accountability and institutional reform. Reform should extend beyond vetting security and justice institutions to government offices responsible for economic governance and development, whose policies and practices may have contributed to historical grievances and systemic violations.

The process also had procedural gaps regarding participation. Dedicated consultations with youth, diaspora communities and other vulnerable groups and underrepresented constituencies did not take place. This should not be repeated in the forthcoming consultations. For communities excluded by continuing conflicts, the resumed process should provide opportunities for later participation and targeted adjustments.

The third priority is fulfilling outstanding commitments. The coordination mechanism envisaged in the policy is yet to be established. Its absence led to failure to resolve misunderstandings between the National Dialogue and transitional justice processes, ultimately contributing to the pause.

The urgent need for such a mechanism was also recognised in the 2024 transitional justice implementation roadmap. This called for an interim, multi-stakeholder body to guide and monitor progress until formal transitional justice institutions were established. Establishing this mechanism is now even more important to coordinate transitional justice with institutions and reforms emerging from the dialogue.

The fourth priority is to consider how the institutional landscape has evolved during the pause. Regional transitional justice initiatives, including the Commission for Investigation of Violence and Reconciliation and Reparation of Victims in the Somali Region, have advanced their work. During the break, the Commission of Inquiry on Tigray Genocide also released its findings.

The national transitional justice framework must clarify its relationship with these initiatives, particularly in recognising and using their findings, institutional cooperation and avoiding duplication.

Ethiopia has also established thousands of customary courts across several regions, with the new criminal procedure and evidence code allowing for complementarity between formal and traditional justice mechanisms in criminal cases. But the Transitional Justice Policy addresses traditional justice largely in abstract terms. Its practical integration within each transitional justice pillar, and principles and safeguards governing this relationship, require clarification.

To strengthen the independence, transparency and credibility of the forthcoming consultation process, two measures are essential.

First, independent experts involved in drafting the laws should participate alongside Ministry of Justice experts to ensure independent scrutiny and preserve the coherence and rationale of the legal frameworks. Second, the draft laws should be shared in advance to allow stakeholders to prepare informed contributions.

Resumption should kick off with independent monitoring, parliamentary oversight, African Union engagement and meaningful civil society participation.

Civil society’s contribution should not be confined to structures controlled by the Justice Ministry or other government institutions. It must retain the space to organise independently, contribute to implementation and exercise critical oversight. Its access to credible information and opportunities for meaningful engagement should not be conditional on membership in a Ministry of Justice-led civil society coordination platform.

Overall, the conclusion of the National Dialogue appears to have offered an opportunity to end the uncertainty surrounding transitional justice. The immediate priorities are to review and incorporate those recommendations, address outstanding legal and institutional gaps and commitments, update the roadmap and proceed with consultations on revised legislation.

Rather than restarting transitional justice from where the process left off, the task should be to recalibrate and resume.

Written by Tadesse Simie Metekia, Senior Researcher, Special Projects, ISS Addis Ababa​