Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia - A Legal

Framework

Shipi M. Gowok

Abstract
Ethiopia has for centuries been using traditional methods of dispute
resolution. The institutions of Gadaa among the Oromo, the
Shimagelle by the Amhara, and the other ethnic groups were used. But
Alternative Dispute Resolution has not attained any significant
position of usage and acceptance in its modern form. Recent
incorporation of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms in the
legal polity has been greeted with a lukewarm attitude by the
government, judiciary and the civil society. However, existing realities
on the ground and in practice have pepped-up the need to resort to
other means of dispute resolution rather than relying entirely on the
conventional courts. This article will attempt to explore the regime of
Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia, its legal framework,
current practices and the way forward. The implication of the need to
embrace the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution by all stakeholders
was also be analyzed.

Introduction
Human existence is characterized by struggle. In fact, it is said that life
itself is a struggle. As we struggle in life for our needs, there are
bound to be consequences arising out of such struggles. Sometimes,
the struggles in life results into conflicts and to get out of this
quagmire we need to put an end to, or resolve such conflicts. Conflicts
may arise out of the family, such as between husband and wife,
parents and children, between communities, nations, and in labour
relations, etc. When they arise, we try to resolve them. There are many
ways to resolve these conflicts. For example, by surrendering, running
away, overpowering your opponent through the use of violence or
filing a lawsuit. Filing a lawsuit has in the last one hundred years or so
has been widely used as a common means of settlement. But due to

265
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

certain reasons, lawsuits have become expensive, slow to achieve

results and open to abuse. So a shift from the conventional law court
processes has become a thing “en vogue” these days.

This shift has resulted in the birth of a movement; the Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR) campaign. It is sometimes referred to
simply as “conflict resolution”. This movement grew out of the belief
that peaceful resolutions of matters are better options than using
violence or going to court. Today, the terms Alternative Dispute
Resolution and conflict resolution are used somewhat interchangeably
and refer to a wide range of processes that involve non-violent dispute
resolution outside of the traditional court system. The field of conflict
resolution has broadened recently to include efforts in schools, work
places and communities to reduce violence and help young people
develop communication and problem solving skills. Alternative
Dispute Resolution, believed by some to be outside the traditional
mainstream of state jurisprudence, have gained acceptance among
both the general public and the legal profession. With the ceaselessly
growing caseload, and with the attendant effect of placing great strain
on conventional courts, many judges have come to see dispute
resolution as an acceptable means of decreasing caseloads, while
settling disputes in a fair and equitable way. This line of reasoning is
rejected by others who insist that it is not all alternative methods that
are always fair and equitable. The unchallenged benefit, however, is
that such methods are much less expensive than a traditional lawsuit.
Alternative Dispute Resolution is generally classified into at least
three major sub-types, namely, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.
A fourth category, conciliation is also usually included here. Under
the Ethiopian legal system, it might not be wrong to include the
Ombudsman as an Alternative Dispute Resolution institution.

The essence of this paper is not an exhaustive description of

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia, but an illustrative analysis
to show its legal status, trend and potency in the ever expanding

266
 Shipi M. Gowok

world. To begin with, the paper will briefly examine the basic forms
of Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Negotiation- When conflicts occur, the parties involved will try to

settle amicably. This effort by parties to settle the conflict themselves
usually takes the form of negotiation. Here participation is voluntary
and there is a third party who either facilitates the resolution process
or imposes a resolution. If negotiation is deadlocked it means the
parties will revert back to the status quo. That is the position of the
conflict. Also, in negotiation the parties are free to opt out of it, but
the essence of Alternative Dispute Resolution is to ensure that parties
resolve their disputes without recourse to violence.

Mediation- In mediation, participation is voluntary because even

though a court may order the process itself, the parties in dispute are
not required to reach a solution. In mediation there is a third-party, a
mediator, who facilitates the resolution process but does not impose a
resolution on the parties. Mediators are individuals trained in
negotiations and bring opposing parties together to attempt to work
out a settlement or agreement that both parties accept or reject.
Mediation is used in a wide range of cases such as juvenile felonies,
disputes between communities, states, labour disputes between
employers and employees etc.

One characteristic of mediation is that it is voluntary and is a process

in which a neutral third party brings the opposing parties to a peaceful
resolution of issues. Mediation steps include efforts such as gathering
information, framing the issues, developing options, negotiating and
aiding agreements. Parties in mediation create their own solutions and
the mediator does not have decision making power over the outcome
of the negotiation.

Arbitration- Arbitration is a process in which a third party who does

not have an interest in the case, after reviewing evidence and
arguments from both sides, issues a decision to settle the case. This

267
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

decision is termed arbitral award. Arbitration was actually one of the

earliest forms of dispute resolution. It was practiced, and is still being
practiced, by many traditional African societies,including the Oromo
nations under the Gadaa system, the Amhara elders- Shimagelle. It
was used by the juri consults of the Roman Empire, and in fact it
predates the adversarial system of the common law by at least 1000
years. The continental/civil law inquisitorial system also allowed for
some measures of alternative conflict resolution.

Conciliation – Conciliation is a term broadly used to refer to

proceedings in which a person or panel of persons assist parties in
their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their disputes. An
essential feature of conciliation is that it is based on a request
addressed by the parties in a dispute to a third party to help them
resolve a conflict. Conciliation differs from negotiation, mediation and
arbitration. In arbitration the parties entrust the dispute resolution
process and outcome of the dispute to the arbitral tribunal that
imposes a binding decision on the parties, while conciliation involves
third party assistance in an independent and impartial manner to settle
the dispute. In conciliation, the parties retain full control over the
process and the outcome, and the process is adjudicatory.

The above are by no means an exhaustive list of conflict resolution

methods in modern days. The paper hereunder proffers other existing
forms of alternative dispute resolution that could be adopted by the
government, the civil society, the bar and the bench as alternatives in
resolving disputes.

a) Community Conferencing- is a structured conversation involving

all members of a group, for example offenders, victims, family
members, friends, who have been affected by the dispute. These all
come together, through the efforts of a facilitator, who requests the
parties to freely state their cases for and against. This will involve the
parties expressing how they were affected, how they feel and how to
address the dispute and repair the harm occasioned. If this procedure

268
 Shipi M. Gowok

is followed to the letter and compromise is achieved, then the dispute

may terminate. This is a very effective tool that that this paper
wishes to recommend to solving disputes among African
communities. For example, after the genocide in Rwanda, the Hutu
and Tutsi have used Gachacha, a form of local community courts,
where victims and offenders of the genocide meet under trees and in
community halls to admit their roles in the genocide and calls for
forgiveness which are encouraged to be accepted. When the public
confrontation is concluded, the parties then shake, hug and backslap
themselves amid tears of reconciliation. This lays a foundation of the
process of reintegration into the good old days. Community
conferencing can be employed in all sorts of disputes resolutions.

b) Peer Mediation- refers to a method where young men or age

groups act as mediators to help settle disputes among their peers. This
akin to the Oromo Gadaa system of settling dispute these days. This
method will be very important nowadays where there are recurring
disputes between the youth in our schools and university campuses.
The student mediators are trained and supervised by other adults. The
recommendations and solutions arrived at are usually encouraged to
be accepted as binding on the disputing parties.

c) Negotiated Rule Making - is a collaborative process in which

government agencies get the feeling of stakeholders on any issue
before issuing a new rule. The importance of this rule is that it enables
government agencies to avoid situations of bringing out laws that the
community or affected sector will resent. Therefore, by sampling the
feelings of people either through referendum and public pulse sensing,
conflict resolution can be achieved.

d) Early Neutral Evaluation- involves using a court appointed

lawyer to review a case before it goes on trial. The lawyer is
empowered to look into the merits and demerits of a particular suit
and encourages the parties to resolve their disputes rather than waste
their time and that of the court by pursuing the action. If the parties

269
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

see the likely outcome of the case to be a wild goose chase then they
agree on a possible resolution of it. Trials before courts entail a lot of
processes, for example hiring a lawyer, assembling of witnesses,
paying of costs, adjournments, etc. To avoid these, embarking on
alternative means of peaceful settlement will be the most preferred by
a wise disputant.

The Position of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia today

In practice, and by veiled reference to the provisions of some
legislation, the Alternative Dispute Resolution has been part of the
Ethiopian legal system. In the olden days, and most especially under
the Fetha Negast, disputes between individuals or communities were
encouraged to be settled amicably. This process usually entailed the
comity of elders-Shimagelle - or people appointed on ad-hoc basis to
settle particular disputes that have arisen either in matrimonial cases
or between communities. There are other traditional methods of
settling disputes through religious leaders. All these options provide a
good forum for conflict resolution.

The modern attempt at introducing ADR into the Ethiopian legal

system started with the promulgation of the Civil Code of 1960 and
the Civil Procedure Code of 1965.Under the provisions of the Codes,
conflict resolution is centred more on contractual or legal relations.
The term compromise enjoys a wider scope by the legislation and is
used as the generic name and springboard to Alternative Dispute
Resolution.

Article 3307 of the Civil Code defines a compromise as “a contract

whereby the parties, through mutual concessions, terminate an
existing dispute or prevent a dispute arising in the future.”

From the foregoing provision, it is to be implied that matters of

dispute resolution may relate to disputes pending between the parties
or the parties may have agreed that while their relationship exists, in
case of any conflict, they will try to settle it peacefully. The second

270
 Shipi M. Gowok

part of the provision relates to anticipated disputes that may crop up as

of course. Under the Ethiopian law, compromise is a means of
creating, modifying or terminating a contractual obligation. The Civil
Procedure Code provides that parties may by a compromise agreement
relating to all or some matters in issue terminate a dispute with respect
to which a suit has been instituted. Here, the intention of the
legislation is that where a conflict arises between parties, they may use
compromise to extinguish the points of disagreement, whether relating
in its entirety to or in part to the subject matter in dispute. Under the
Ethiopian law compromise may be initiated at the insistence of the
parties or by the court, when such matter is still or outside the courts
form consideration. When the assistance of the court is sought, the law
empowers the courts to guide the parties on the terms of reference or
line of action in arriving at compromise. What the law has not been
able to make clear is what the effect of a compromise is? Whatever
the poor draftsman ship, as observed by this author, the law, through
the courts has been able to lay a foundation for the resolution of
conflict between parties when such conflicts rear their ugly heads.

If a compromise is ordered by the court there shall be a format of such

including sundry matters like the name and jurisdiction of the Court,
the title and case number of the suit, a proper description of the parties
with their names and a determinable address for the effecting of
service and finally the particular scope of application of the
compromise. Here, it means that the issues the disputes to be resolved
shall be spelled out devoid of rigmarole. The Civil Code provides that
the terms of a compromise including the right to renunciation shall be
interpreted restrictively. Since the essence of compromise is to arrive
at an amicable resolution of dispute, it is commendable to the terms of
reference. If it were not so, man being given to the propensity of
exceeding limits will import extraneous matters into dispute
resolutions.

Once a party to a compromise renounces unequivocally his entire

rights, actions and claims in a suit, it automatically results in the

271
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

wiping out of such rights and claims only in respect to the matter
which the compromise has been reached. It does not preclude him
from pursuing his rights and claims in matters in the suit that are not
intended to be compromised. In disputes involving multiple parties
having an interest in the matter at hand, the compromise made by one
party shall not be binding on the other parties. This is so because from
the intention of the legislator, compromise is contractual in nature,
therefore, it can be done only with the freewill of parties. This
intention and purpose of the draftsman is also commendable. Once a
compromise is arrived at between the parties it now becomes a final
and settled matter – res judicata. It cannot be appealed against for
trivial reasons except for fraud, duress and other compelling
illegalities in the process of reaching the compromise. Since the
essence of compromise is alternative to the court proceedings, where
the parties either in the hearing of the court or outside the court’s
determination have agreed to settle, then the court will take two steps
in ending the conflict:

I. After entering the compromise in the case file, the court may
on the application of any of the parties, make an order or give
judgment in terms of such agreement.
II. Where however, a compromise agreement is made outside of
the Court, the court shall be notified of such fact and the
plaintiff may apply to the court for the discontinuance of the
suit. If discontinued as a consequence of the compromise
arrived at then the matter terminates as between the parties.

It can be observed that compromise has been a viable means of

settling disputes outside the traditional court system in Ethiopia, but as
observed earlier, it is limited in form and character to contractual
relationship. There has been however a snail paced development of
law in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution, given the new
dimension of Ethiopia in embracing the outside world. There is a
move towards free market economy now which has accentuated the
need for the welcoming of investors into the polity. For these

272
 Shipi M. Gowok

investors to come comfortably and play their role in this level playing
field, there is the need to expand the law to cover these emerging
circumstances.

Another means of settling disputes today in Ethiopia is through the

process of conciliation. Interestingly, it is only the Civil Code that
deals with this issue. The Civil Procedure Code is, however, silent on
this all important topic. Justice will be done to this aspect borrowing
from international procedures as Ethiopia is moving towards ratifying
the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
(UNCITRAL) Rules.

There is no definition of what conciliation is, but the Civil Code

allows for the appointment of a conciliator by parties to settle any
dispute arising between them. Under the law, the parties entrust to a
third party the mission of bringing them together and if possible,
negotiating a settlement between them. The conciliator may be
appointed at the request of the parties, by an institution or by a third
party and if appointed, he/she is at liberty to accept or refuse such
appointment.

From the above there are certain clear issues to be understood before
we proceed.

a. The process of conciliation invariably includes negotiation.

As we have seen, negotiation involves a discussion among
two or more people with the ultimate goal of arriving at an
agreement.
b. Under the Codes, the requirement of appointing a conciliator
for the parties by another body is not mandatory. A cursory
look at the wording of the law supports this view. What is of
relevance is that the law allows for the efforts of conciliation
either by the parties themselves or through the help of a third
party. If the parties agree on a conciliator between them then
they shall cooperate likewise in providing him with all the

273
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

information necessary in the carrying out of his duties. They

shall not hide any material fact to the conciliator and should
refrain as far as possible from frustrating the carrying out of
the duties or create circumstances by their actions, words or
conduct which will make his work impossible to accomplish.

Once an enabling environment is created, the conciliator shall embark

on the task of expressing his finding by giving the parties ample
opportunity of stating their facts. Using the facts available at his
disposal the conciliator is expected to draw up what we call
compromise terms, but in case no compromise is achieved he shall
draw up a memorandum of non-conciliation.

It is expected that, whatever the case is, the conciliator is expected to

communicate to the parties his findings or documents. Dispute
resolution is an alternative to court processes, therefore it is expected
that time is of the essence in the task of a conciliator. The parties are
required to give a completion time or in its absence the law provides
that conciliation shall be carried out within six months from the date
of appointment. During the process of conciliation the parties are
expected to perform such acts as are necessary to preserve their rights
and may not bring their case before the court until the expiration of
the time schedule given to the conciliator or if he has not achieved a
compromise, then he is required by law as earlier said to draw up a
memorandum of non- conciliation. In conciliation, the powers of the
conciliator shall be interpreted restrictively because the parties are
bound by his decision unless a contrary intention or agreement has
been reached by the parties. The agreement to be bound must be in
writing signed by both parties. The conciliator’s services shall be pro
bono (free of charge), unless the parties agree to remunerate him. He
is however entitled to re-imbursements for legitimate expenses
incurred in the course of the discharge of his responsibilities. In
conciliation the law does not specify the required number of
conciliator (s). This is left at the discretion of the parties or the
appointing authority. Arbitration as a means of conflict resolution is

274
 Shipi M. Gowok

given a more elaborate analysis under the Ethiopian legal system. It is

a widely used process, but has a blend of other forms of conflict
resolution mechanisms.

Arbitration is defined as “a contract whereby the parties to a dispute

entrusts its solution to a third party, the arbitrator, who undertakes to
settle the dispute in accordance with the principles of law.” Here
arbitration involves a third party, who is required to settle the dispute
in accordance to legal rules. By implication, for an arbitrator to be
appointed he should be knowledgeable in law. The legislator at the
time of enacting this law did not take into cognizance the level of
legal knowledge of the majority of the populace. Over 47 years after
the enactment of Civil Code, the legal system is not very advanced, so
putting the requirement of settling disputes by arbitration in
accordance with the principles of law may be asking too much from a
legally impecunious system. However, Ethiopia is a country given to
adopting indigenous techniques for the solution of its problems;
therefore we may not be wrong to say that any person who has
acquired a particular knowledge whether of custom, trade or practice
can do the work of an arbitrator. Traditional arbitral methods are very
much in use today. For example the abbo – gerreb system used by the
Wejeret and Raya-Azebo communities of southern Tigray to settle
conflicts with their neighbors in the Afar region is active till date.
These conflicts in fact, include homicide cases.

A critical reading of the provisions of Article 221 of the old Penal

Code and certain provisions of the 2004 Criminal Code on the right of
withdrawal of complaint by the plaintiff does suggest arbitration. Who
knows why a plaintiff may want to withdraw. It may be the need to
settle amicably.

The 1965 Civil Procedure Code has tried to ameliorate the defects of
the 1960 Civil Code by giving arbitration some legal clout. The
position now is that where arbitration is required by law or an
arbitrator is appointed by the parties themselves or if agreed by the

275
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

court, it may be either in a clause inserted in the original contract or

subsequently, in which case it may be one or several of the arbitrators
appointed. If no number is specified then it is encouraged that each
party appoints one. But, what happens in the case of a tie in a decision
taking or who heads the arbitration panel the law does not mention. It
is good however, that the arbitrators appoint one of them to head or
appoints a third member. This is for the purposes of achieving results
quickly, fairly and with justice.

The Court has the power to appoint arbitrators on behalf of the parties.
In performing their duties, the arbitrators may be given a term of
reference by either the parties or the Court, but limited to the area for
arbitral consideration. Arbitrators are appointed for a wide range of
cases including family arbitration. Under the law a judge shall not be
eligible for appointment as an arbitrator but may act as a family
arbitrator. The procedure before an arbitration tribunal, including
family arbitration, shall be in conformity with that of the Civil Code.
Arbitral awards shall not be subject to appeal except in certain
circumstances.

Is Alternative Dispute Resolution needed in Ethiopia?

The answer to this question is a capital “YES”. The significant role of
Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms as an extra judicial
settlement, both in the domestic and international realms, cannot be
over-emphasised. The fact that Ethiopia does not yet have coherent
and modern arbitration laws, coupled with the tortoise pace effort at
adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law on Intentional Commercial
Arbitration (1985) and to ratify the New York Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (1958) has created a
doubt as to whether it is committed to arbitration. In most enactments,
the word arbitration and conciliation are used interchangeably, as if
they are the same. It is to be noted that going by the wording of most
of the legislations, the practice of compromise leading either to means
of arbitration, conciliation, negotiation or mediation is commendable.
More importantly, arbitration is recommended as compulsory for the

276
 Shipi M. Gowok

settlement of certain disputes. Before we see the need for having ADR
strongly entrenched in the legal system of Ethiopia, it is worthwhile
looking at its advantages.

The primary advantage of conflict resolution is that it is cheaper and

faster to terminate disputes. In a society where the majority of the
populace is poor with widespread illiteracy culminating in lack of
access to justice and the high cost and scarcity of lawyers, ADR
stands out as the best method of conflict resolution.

Secondly, in embarking on mediation as a means of conflict

resolution, the privacy of the parties is assured. The process of
mediation by the parties and their lawyers is generally confidential, so
also are any documents exchanged in the process. On the overall the
outcomes of mediation are not for public knowledge.

Thirdly, in mediation the parties have control over the outcome of the
compromise. They do not need a judge, or jury to determine the fate
of their dispute. They need not worry whether their witnesses will tell
the truth or their evidences will be admissible or inadmissible. In
short, the parties in mediation are each other’s bridge builders leading
to permanent friendship. Take your friend to court and see what will
happen.

Fourthly, in ADR there is not always a victor and a vanquished. All

the parties need do is to resolve matters peacefully; no one is to be
placed in an advantaged position over the other. The situation is “win-
win” neither “loses”. This however does not mean that the parties will
walk away happy at the outcome the dispute, but at least the bone of
contention is softened. In conflict resolution we hear maxims like
‘even a poor settlement is better than the best fight’ ‘ each side needs
to be at least a little bit unhappy with the result as each side gave up
something of value to the other “ and ‘closure and certainty are
everything.’

277
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

With these merits of conflict resolution mechanism, let us now turn to

seeing how it can be an alternative to civil litigation in Ethiopia. It is
to be noted that civil adjudication in Ethiopia like any other sovereign
nation is fraught with criticisms. Law is regarded as a normative value
and its interpretation and enforcement is in the hands of judges and
lawyers. In some societies where there is high incidence of corruption
and also high cost of hiring lawyers, phobia of the unknown makes it
extremely hard for any poor person to embark upon law suits. It is a
common saying that the bench and bar is a society of men brought up
in the art of changing black into white and white into black according
as they are paid. Therefore the fear of how the law turns against a
litigant is an obstacle to seeking justice.

Secondly, economic factors play a great role in the denial of access to

justice in Ethiopia. The ordinary citizen barely has three square meal
on his table, you do not expect him to file a suit, hire a Lawyer, go to
courts all seasons etc? God forbid. He has no such time to waste, but if
an alternative means of resolution of a case is offered to him be sure
he will jump at it.

Thirdly, the procedural requirements of law are a scare to litigants.

What with the cost, procedural formality, which may not even bring
about vindication of rights? This then necessitated the search for
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes which are cheaper,
quicker and less formal.

Two major arguments are advanced in support of ADR in Ethiopia.

First, ADR is quantitative, caseload reducing with ultimate good
management. The processes of ADR are wide but give in quickly to
conclude.

Secondly, ADR process is qualitative in that both steps we aimed at

achieving results and the results are good breed of action. This is
premised on the fact that it is all inclusive as more parties are involved
and they control the means of resolution without any man (Judge)

278
 Shipi M. Gowok

sitting up there with a bunch of people (witnesses and/or juries) that

determines the dispute. ADR processes also serve the interest of
parties as the solutions are more flexible and not arrived at in a tailor
made form.

The problems associated with formal court processes are deeply

rooted in Ethiopia. The Constitution is federal in character. With a bi-
legal structure at the Federal and state levels, this hierarchical
arrangement evidently will produce bureaucracy and red-tapism in the
adjudication of cases. A similar problem associated with the above is
the workings of the legal system. In Ethiopia, the administration of
justice is entrusted into the hands of courts whose jurisdiction extends
to customary dispute settlement with a civil procedure which is
common law oriented. The common law adversarial system rather
than the civil law inquisitorial method, which the system would have
adopted, present a litany of problems. In an adversarial system,
examination and cross examination of witnesses is in vogue and this is
carried on by the parties with the judge playing only a listening and
recording role. Despite the fact that the constitution provides for equal
access to justice as a human right issue, in practice this is not
happening. This is as result of a plethora of problems which we have
highlighted such as economic, geographic, and psychological
pessimism on the part of the citizens. Also the judges are not well
trained. More worrisome is the fact that they are not free from
executive or social pressures and corruption, so they usually pass
judgments to the highest bidder. With all these limitations, the
traditional court systems are becoming an eye sore to the people. Thus
the rise of ADR is being embraced firmly.

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A leap forward?

We have noticed that negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration
and Ombudsman do remain as the primary sources of conflict
resolution processes in Ethiopia. The big question is, are these
processes given legal recognition to. After observation of the practice
and facts on the ground it is to be concluded that they do have legal

279
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

effect. But the irony is that they have not been recognized,
institutionalized or professionalized to complement court processes as
is the obtainable practice in some western countries and the United
States of America. The great leap forward in this direction is that all
stakeholders in Ethiopia do have a contribution to make.

The Role of the government

The government of Ethiopia should be in the lead in promoting ADR.
The role of government at all levels here should be multi-dimensional:

i. It should embark on the active sponsorship of Alternative

Dispute Resolution processes as a measure of reducing case-
load on the conventional courts. The practice in Ethiopia is
that in most civil and criminal cases legal aid is not provided
to indigent members of the society.
ii. The government must embark on concrete judicial reforms
with the ultimate objective of removing barriers to justice
and improving the efficacy of ADR institutions like the
Ombudsman. The government needs to reform the persons
and institutions of its legal system.
iii. ADR courses should be incorporated in universities curricula.
The Universities, both public and private, must be
encouraged in this regard. The reasoning here is that once
law graduates are conversant with ADR processes some of
them who will be private practitioners can set up ADR
consultancy services.
iv. The government should establish intuitions that provide ADR
services so that if the courts need to refer cases for
arbitration, conciliation, mediation, etc, they can do so.
v. The government must quicken its space in ratifying or
acceding to international conventions, e.g. UNCITRAL and
other regional ADR instruments so that disputes arising
between nationals and expatriates (persons and business
outfits) can be resolved amicably.

280
 Shipi M. Gowok

The Role of the Judiciary / Judges

For ADR to move forward in Ethiopia, the role of the judges and the
judiciary itself cannot be ignored. Flowing from the concerted efforts
of government in establishing ADR institutions and encouraging
referral of cases to them, a judge with the knowledge of ADR will
now know cases to be referred to the institutions concerned. In
Ethiopia, most judges are burdened with caseloads incorporating all
shades of matters and, thus it will be a welcome idea if an ADR
conscious judge reduces his work load by surrendering some matters
for ADR adjudication.

The Role of Lawyers

A lawyer with the knowledge of ADR stands in a better position than
that with none. The traditional role of the lawyer is to handle matters
in court and in the process it is expected that he will have a lot of
cases before the courts. It will be a welcome development for him if
he reduces the workload by settling other cases through ADR
processes. In so doing, his productivity would be increased and thus
boost his career development.

An exclusively ADR lawyer is better than the workaholic advocate.

Therefore it is suggested that persons qualified to practice law should
opt for ADR practice taking into account its less strenuous advantage.
It is, however, disheartening to note most lawyers in Ethiopia are not
interested or at most not knowledgeable in ADR. So, with this gloomy
picture, cases that need to be encouraged to be settled through
arbitration are left until much later when there is no way out that a
lawyer finally resorts to peaceful resolution method.

Qualities of Good ADR Personnel / Conflict Resolution

Mechanisms
We have noticed that ADR stands a good alternative to civil
litigation due to its numerous advantages. The next question may be
“Do I need some qualities to be able to negotiate, conciliate, mediate,
arbitrate, etc?” The requirements may be summarized as follows:

281
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

i. One has to acquire an in-depth or at least a minimum

knowledge of ADR processes. You do not jump into doing
something without knowing its rules. If you do not know the
rules, it will just be like someone who wants to participate in
a football competition but does not know that he needs a
ball, a field of certain meters, 11 people on both sides, a
central and assistant referees, two goal posts facing each, 90
minutes (45 minutes apiece) with a 15 minutes’ break, etc.
Therefore knowledge of the rules of ADR is a sine qua non
for conflict resolution.
ii. You need to use humour as a negotiation strategy. It is said
that humour has a way of uniting even the most diverse of
people. If you are an Arbitrator, the parties to the dispute are
before you, and you have a stone- like face and go about the
work grudgingly, next time, no one will come to you.
iii. You need to listen well, that means you must be a good
listener or you have to develop such skills to enable you help
the parties. If the parties understand that you listen to them
attentively, they will be encouraged to speak themselves out
and as they speak out you will understand and resolve the
matter well. Ask them questions when you do not understand
them. Encourage them to be free. In these ways you can give
yourself and the parties’ confidence in the conflict resolution
outcome.

Implications of Embracing ADR in Ethiopia

The implication of the embrace of alternative dispute resolution in
Ethiopia cannot be over emphasized. As we have noted, this practice
has long usage in Ethiopia but it has not been elevated to any higher
pedestal. The government, the academia, the judiciary, social and
professional bodies are all aware that the courts can not be the only
means of conflict resolution. There is now a shift to alternative means
of conflict resolution in all fields. The Labour
Proclamation encourages the settlement of labour and industrial
relations dispute through peaceful means rather than by the courts.

282
 Shipi M. Gowok

On the 28th December 2007, the Minister of Justice, Mr. Asefa

Kesito, at a workshop, said strengthening Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) mechanisms and institutions would have positive
impact not only on Ethiopia but also on the interests of all
development partners of Ethiopia. This means that the government is
concerned about ADR as means of strengthening and reforming its
judicial system. The Minister went further to reiterate the intention of
the government in working out modalities for the institutionalization
of ADR to provide fast and effective alternative conflict resolutions
that will serve the interests of both nationals and foreigners. The
Minister concluded that strong ADR mechanisms and institutions
would benefit the country in its efforts to attract investment, facilitate
commerce and enhance its conduct of international relations.

In the academic world, the current syllabi of most public and private
universities have incorporated Alternative Dispute Resolution as a
course. This move is commendable as it marks a departure from the
old order. One reason for the lack of the awareness and progress of
ADR in Ethiopia has been the neglect of its delivery as a course in the
universities. With the proliferations of Universities, we look forward
to seeing the impact of ADR in the system.

The elements of the traditional methods and practices of conflict

resolutions are being incorporated or used alongside modern forms. It
is gratifying to note that the political logjam in Ethiopia that arose out
of the 15th May 2005 general elections was eventually settled by the
intervention of the Committee of Elders. The report of the elders was
used as the term of settlement by the government and the opposition
leader at the Federal High Court in Addis Ababa.

One cannot be wrong to assert that ADR, as an alternative to court

processes, has formed a veritable means of conflict resolution in
Ethiopia. ADR is generally accepted and used by the government, the
civil society (traditional and modern), the academia, legal
practitioners, the judiciary, etc.

283
 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia – A Legal Framework

Conclusion
Alternative Dispute Resolution in Ethiopia is as old as memory can
tell. The various ethnic groups have used this method to settle family
disputes, matrimonial conflicts, wars between communities and many
other problems. Complementary to the communal settlement of
disputes there existed and still exist other forms of conflict resolution
through religious leaders, the courts and modern ADR methods like
negotiation, mediation, arbitration, conciliation, the ombudsman.

However, as old as the ADR institution is in Ethiopia, we still see

situations where it is not been utilized fully by the citizens. Legal
effect is finally being given to the processes now. The importance of
ADR as an alternative to court processes cannot be over-emphasized.
ADR is in vogue today in the western legal system as a means of
conflict resolution because it is cheaper, faster and has built bridges of
friendship. If the western world with its high level of development and
multitude of lawyers has now shifted emphasis to ADR, Ethiopia and
other countries with lesser developed legal system should not waste
time in institutionalizing

284
 Shipi M. Gowok

References
Vinod Agarval (2000) “Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods,” A
paper presented at a UNITAR sub regional workshop on
Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (Harare, Zimbabwe, 11-15
September)
Civil Code of the Empire of Ethiopia (1960) Birhanena Selam,
(Government) Printer
Civil Procedure Code of Ethiopia (1960; 1965) Birhanena Selam,
(Government) Printer, 1960
Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1995)
Cappeletti, M., (1993) Alternative Dispute Resolution within the
Framework of the World –Wide Access to Justice Movement,the
Modern Law Review, Vol. 56, No.3 may 1993.
Edosa, Desalegn Chimdesa et al, African Water Laws: Plural
Legislative Frameworks for Rural Water Management in Africa,
Indigenous systems of conflict Resolution in Oromia, Ethiopia.
Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Journal Vol.1 No.1 January 2004.
R.D Smock, R. D (1997) “The Creative Approaches to Managing
Conflicts in Africa” Findings from USIP funded projects- Building
on Locally-Based and Traditional Peace Processes, U.S Institute
for Peace
http//www.sfhgroup.com/blogs/news, accessed on 29/12/2007

285