My Testimony: Ms. Bertukan Mideksa’s Statement Regarding the Mediation
January 2nd, 2009 | EthioPolitics.com |
It is very hard for me to describe the dismay I felt on Dec 23/2008 afternoon when I was summoned to the Federal Police Commissioner’s Office and received the warning and when I later watched the same message being conveyed on Ethiopian TV.
Although I don’t have anything to say, to reverse the situation, other than what I know and believe, I do understand that this situation has prompted questions for the public. Therefore, I have decided to write this short piece to create awareness on the matter. Possibly, this will be my last word.
Let me start with the mediation. The basic principle of the mediation was to draw a mutually acceptable set of terms for negotiation and reconciliation that would subsequently allow the resumption of the political process. This is why it took several months. During this process, the elder mediators were not aiming to label one party the culprit and the other the victim. Rather, they were working towards an arrangement where each party would apologize to the public and to each other for the chaos and tension that followed Election 2005, and for each to assure the other of its determination and commitment in its political process and move forward in the spirit of reconciliation. To this end, the elders drafted a set of points that they presented to both groups, and negotiated and facilitated each group’s acceptance of these terms.
So, the mediation carried out by these elders was not one that proceeded because of the government’s willingness only, but rather one that each party was welcome to give and take terms for reaching a negotiated deal.
During this process, the government had reaffirmed its commitment to the constitution, and its intention to compensate citizens and families of victims of the post election disturbances of 2005. However, as the trial proceeded and as the Court was closer to a ruling on the trial, we were handed the devastating news by coordinator of the elder mediators.
We were told that the government was only interested in those points in the proposal where we would be apologizing the public and the government and not in those points where there would be any expectations of the government. Regardless, even then, the spirit of reconciliation still existed. Therefore the elders persisted with the mediation in spite of the fact that the terms for the government’s contribution to the process were dropped. They assured us that if we signed the document in the spirit of forgiveness and traditional mediation, the trial would be suspended and that the case would be closed. They told us verbatim that the Prime Minister had said, “If this document is signed, I will use my executive powers to have the trial suspended”.
Accordingly, it was agreed that “All prisoners in the country detained on CUD related matters would be released without precondition, that political dialogue between the government and the CUD would promptly resume, and that the party’s leaders would be allowed to resume party activity without any limitation”.
In addition both parties had agreed that this document was not to be used for any type of propaganda, and that the document would be signed for the elders, and that the elders would subsequently write their own letter to the prime minister. These terms were listed and itemized in the document that we all signed.
As one of these prisoners, I have never denied that I have signed this document. In the spirit of the elders’ mission, I, along with the other party leaders have signed the document written on June 18, 2007 and submitted through these elders asking the public and the government for forgiveness, in the hope that this would bring about a political resolution to a politically motivated charge and trial. I cannot alter this fact, even if I chose to.
Though the expectation after the signing of the documents was that the Prime Minister would keep his word and suspend the trial to close the case, the whole process took on a new appearance. The Prosecutor’s office led by the Prime Minister did not suspend the trial. In fact, the trial proceeded and we were sentenced to life in prison. Since then, our fate and the process was not at all a result of our agreement, but that of the Prime Minister’s will and desire. This went on to result in the President’s granting us a pardon and our release from jail on those terms.
Presenting such a complicated and checkered process as a straightforward pardons process and one that followed the regular process would be fooling oneself, or a display of the lack of knowledge on these processes.
According to the law, a defendant would present a pardon request not to the Prime Minister, but to the Pardons Board. In our case, the Pardons Board received our signed document from the Prime Minister. One can even argue that he is the one who requested the pardon. The law states that a pardon request can only come from the defendant, legal representative or the relatives of the defendant but not from the Prime Minster.
The law is specific about the fact that a pardons request can only be submitted after the verdict and sentencing. We had never agreed to submit a pardons request and therefore had signed the document for the elder mediators way before the verdict.
Based on this reality, I never submitted a pardons request. So, what is the mistake, and what is the crime when I say that I had only signed the document they presented to us on June 22, 2007 based on the negotiation presented to us by these elders in the spirit of reconciliation and not as a request for pardon even if that was presented to the President and used as the basis for pardon?
My statement abroad was only explaining and clarifying this process and had no other content. Perhaps it was misunderstood.
Even if we say that my statement was inaccurate, does it justify my being dragged to the police headquarters with or without a warrant? Even if we say that my statement was questionable, how is pardon, granted by the President, revoked? What legal power does the Federal Police have to investigate this situation, or to issue a warning to me?
On December 10, 2008, 2 police officers from Wereda 12 were sent by the Federal Police Commissioner to my house to summon me to the Commissioner’s Office. Assuming that he wanted to discuss about our party, Unity and Justice for Democracy, I showed up at his office, only to be told that this meeting was in relation to the pardon. My first question was, “What mandate do police have on the matter?”. With a sarcastic smile, he told me that “This is not an academic discussion, and you had better stop asking such questions. What initiated the sarcasm and their amusement is something that I always stand for, live for, and sometimes lose my liberty for: The rule of law, and constitutionality.
I can never get used to, tolerate or accept impunity and unlawfulness. This is precisely why on December 10, 2008, when the Commissioner used a messenger without a warrant to get me to present myself at the Commission office, I failed to show up. On the same day in the afternoon, I received a warrant. I took no time in getting to the Commissioner’s office then. However, what was stated as the reason for the warrant and what awaited me were quite different.
The warrant stated questioning as the reason for the visit. I, however received only threats and intimidation. I was told that if I did not retract the statement I made in Sweden the pardon would be revoked and that the government would throw me in jail.
I thought about explaining to the Commissioner that: “the pardon can only be revoked by the head of state and not by the executive as he stated. Even then, there is a process for submitting a pardon revocation, to be received by the defendant within 20 days. If the board approves it, then the request gets submitted to the President who will make the decision.” I did not do that. I made sure he was done talking and left without saying a word.
I believe that all this unlawful harassment and intimidation is really not about word play of verification of statement or violation of law. The message is clear; not just to me but to all others in the peaceful struggle. “Engagement in the political process in a lawful and peaceful manner should not be according to constitutional frame work, but rather only with the blessing of the ruling regime and affiliated individuals”. For me, it is extremely difficult to accede to this.
Bertukan Mideksa
December 27, 2008