When the Ethiopian parliament
enacted the anti-terrorism law in mid-2009, many of its contents provoked a
heated debate.
But little, if any, attention was
given to the National Anti-Terrorism Coordination Committee established by the
legislation, comprising the heads of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the Federal
Police and the National Intelligence & Security Service, chaired by the
Director of the latter. It has been four years and counting without a public
statement or report from this committee; either because it is not functional or
because it has chosen not to draw attention to itself.
In stark contrast, its offshoot –
the Joint Anti-terror Taskforce of the National Intelligence & Security
Service and the Federal Police – has turned into a media production unit.
The latest of its production, in
collaboration with the state-owned broadcaster, was the documentary film
produced in collaboration with ETV, and entitled "Jihadist Harekat".
The main thesis of the film can be
hastily summarised as revolving around two related groups who had been working
together towards an Islamic state by using terror and colour-revolution
tactics.
The first group, named
"Harekatul Shebable Mujehadin Fi Biladel Hijraitain", is a youth
movement to establish an Islamic state in the area covering Ethiopia, Somalia,
Sudan, Kenya, and Uganda, and is said to be led by a man named Aman Assefa
(Ismael Assefa). Aman allegedly received ideological training by Daru Bilal, an
extremist group based in Nairobi, and military training by Al-Shabaab in
Somalia.
The second group is led by Kamil
Shemsu and Ahmed Mustefa, who were trained on colour-revolution tactics by the
Qatari Jasim Sultan (PhD), and said to have tried to "hijack and divert
the legal questions of the Muslim" by leading from behind the group of
representatives of the Awolia Movement, the year-long weekly protests.
The film presents several
eye-catching claims, connections and confessions, but fell short of showing a
smoking gun. In fact, the repeated reference to ‘police files’ and
‘intelligence files’, without disclosing their contents, made it seem as if the
Ethiopian Television (ETV) was merely playing a script written by the taskforce
rather than a media report. Perhaps, ETV’s main contribution was the
sensationalisation of the film through production techniques.
In their defence, perhaps, they
could not share much more evidence publicly, as it would expose their
informants and some may be obtained from foreign intelligence agencies. The
intense denunciation of the protestors against prospective court witnesses has
already forced the case to be tried in closed chambers, let alone being
televised on national television.
Apparently, the taskforce and the
ETV wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Thus, they wanted to present
their version of the matter by compensating the gaps through
sensationalisation.
As would be expected, this did not
go well with the lawyer of the Awolia Movement representatives who are
currently on trial on terror related charges. Despite the film’s half-hearted
insertion of phrases like "suspects", the harm caused to their
reputation is irreparable; as the legal presumption is that they are innocent
until proven guilty. It cannot be rectified by a court’s ruling on their
innocence, in a country where the masses regard state-media statements as
superior even to the text of the law, let alone a faceless judge in a court.
The impact on the on-going trial is
less certain, however. The judges will be presented with whatever is in the
film in length and detail. The most compelling argument in this regard is that
the judges would have difficulty in acquitting the accused in the face of
overwhelming public consensus of their guilt created by the film. While this is
generally true, its applicability to this particular case is doubtful.
To begin with, the judges have no
illusion of the government’s position on the matter. If they can brave to
decide regardless of that, public opinion will be less of a concern for
them.
Moreover, the public opinion that
matters to them is that of their social class – the educated and the middle
class. And, that class takes state media statements with a grain of doubt and
perceives the Awolia Movement as a harmless one, mishandled by the government.
The film, at best, might have made them think, "what if it is true?"
*Here "them" seems to be
reffering to the judges while I was reffering to the social class
But these are issues for the
judiciary to decide, no one else.
Indeed, on the day when the film was
scheduled to be broadcasted, the High Court, upon the request of the lawyers,
issued an injunction order against it and set a date to review it. However, ETV
went ahead with its plan and broadcast it.
How that happened is not fully clear
yet. Apparently, the Supreme Court reversed the injunction order a few hours
after it was issued in the absence of the defendant’s lawyers, who are still
disputing the procedure.
Given all these problems, one would
ask what the government was intending to achieve with the film. The probable
aim is to underline that it is not going to back down, thereby reassuring its
allies.
That will also encourage its
witnesses and informants, whom the film extolled as patriots. Needles to say,
it sent a warning to those organising and backing the protests. This is in
addition to the presumable eagerness of the taskforce to present its version of
the story to the public, which it might think was not satisfactorily informed
by ETV.
But all these could have been
achieved through various, albeit time taking, means other than a sensational
controversial film. Even where the latter is necessary, there is no convincing
reason for not giving the court a chance to review it and apply exertions, if
need be. That should not worry much a broadcaster who is so resourceful to have
an injunction order reversed in a few hours.
*I think the proper verb would be –
"is" not "was"
It is debatable whether the film
precluded an impartial trial, but the controversy surrounding it indeed harmed
the judiciary’s stature. Apparently, neither worried the co-producers of the
film much.
***************
* A version of this article was
published on Daniel Berhane’s weekly column "Capital
Insight" on Addis-Fortune on Feb. 17, 2013 originally titled "Thin line divides information,
defamation".
