Special Issue: Sentencing in Ethiopia: sanctions, guidelines and reform

• Author: Yilma, K.M.
• Pages: 148-167
• Date: 06 July 2020
• Citation: (2020) 33 SACJ 148
• Published date: 06 July 2020

Sentencing in Ethiopia: Sanctions,

guidelines and reform

KASSAHUN MOLLA YILMA*

ABSTRACT

This art icle explores the Ethiopian sentencing framework. Ethiopia is one of

the few African jurisdictions to develop a systematic sentencing guidelines

system. These guidelines have been in operation for several years now,

and represent a useful model for other African states to adopt. Although a

number of problems remain (and are di scussed in this article) the Ethiopian

guidelines follow a principled approach to sentenc ing and are likely to have

achieved benecial effects with respect to trial court sentencing practices.

This positive development can be complemented by introducing reform in

several other areas, which are also suggested in this article. These include

expanding the existing sanctions, establishing institutional facilities for the

enforcement of alternative sanctions, and establishing a custody threshold.

1 Introduction

Ethiopia is one of the few African jurisdictions to develop a systematic

sentencing guidelines system. These g uidelines have been in operation

for several years now and represent a useful model for other African

states to adopt. Although a number of problems remain (and are

discussed in this article), the Ethiopian guidelines follow a principled

approach to sentencing and are likely to have achieved benecial

effects with respect to trial court sentencing practices. This article

begins by providing some general information about sentencing law

and practice in Ethiopia, before examining the sentencing guideline.

After working through an offence for the purposes of illustration,

the essay offers some critical comments and proposes a number of

reforms.

The article proceeds in four par ts. Part I provides a general overview

of the sentencing framework in Ethiopia and describes the purposes

of punishment and principal sanctions. This part explains that the

Ethiopian sentencing system is moving away from a system based

upon rehabilitation towards retribution. Part II analyses the Ethiopian

sentencing guidelines. It demonstrates how the guidelines work in

practice. Part III looks at the deciencies of the existing system and its

challenges. Part IV presents reform proposals suggested in this article.

*LLB LLM MSc [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands], Legal Consultant at

International Tribunal and Researcher, The Hague, Netherlands.

148

(2020) 33 SACJ 148

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

2 Sentencing in Ethiopia

The Constitution of Ethiopia establishes a federal structure of

government consisting of the federal government and regional states.

It gives the former the power to legislate criminal law.1 This means

that the national parliament legislates criminal law and the states

do not have their own criminal codes.2 As a result, both the federal

government and the regional states use the same Criminal Code and,

by extension, the same sentencing law. The organisation of courts

in Ethiopia also mirrors the federal structure and each state and the

federal government have their own courts.

The Ethiopian Criminal Code is the primary source of sentencing

rules. The Criminal Code denes crimes, provides sentences, and r ules

regulating the determination of sentences. Under the current system,

crimes are classied into two categories: ordinary crimes, dened by

the Criminal Code, and petty offences, dened by the Petty Code.3 As

is stated in the Petty Code, ‘Petty offences differ from ordinary crimes

by reason of the different penalties they merit.’4

In connection with sentencing, the Criminal Code recognises three

broad categories applicable to different categories of offenders and

offences: (i) adult offenders; (ii) young offenders; and (iii) sentences

applicable to petty offences. Age and gravity are therefore the two

factors used by the legislator to prescribe different sentences and

measures for different categories of offenders and offences. At present,

the Criminal Code and the Ethiopian sentencing guidelines govern

the determination of sentences for adult offenders. Therefore, the

discussion in this article is restricted to analysing sentencing of adults.

2.1 Purpose and principles of sentencing: retributive or

preventive?

Although for centuries scholars have been debating the justications

for punishment, little consensus has emerged.5 The debate is broadly

1 Article 55(5) of the Constit ution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Et hiopia 1 of

1995.

2 Regional States, however, are empowered to enact penal laws on residual matters.

According to art 55(5) of the Constitution, ‘The States may … enact penal laws on

matters that are not specically covered by Federal penal legislation’.

3 According to art 733 of the Petty Code, a petty offence may be committed when

a person infringes a mandatory or prohibitive provision or regulation issued by

a competent authority or when a person commits a minor offence that is not

punishable under the Criminal Code.

4 Article 746 of the Criminal Code.

5 See MC Materni ‘Crimi nal punishment and the pursu it of justice’ (2013) 2 Brit J Amer

Legal Stud 263.

Sentencing in Ethiopia: Sanctions, guidelines and reform 149

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd