The Ratified Eritrean Constitution is the Best Unifying Common Factor

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

The article “A Call for Unity” pasted below was first published in July, 2004. The main message is that the ratified constitution can be used as a unifying common factor for all liberal democratic Eritreans to effectively change the despotic political order in Eritrea. The important concepts of the article are still relevant, hence for reposting.

These days some in the opposition have become so arrogant that they are writing a new constitution for Eritrea from scratch. To such people the ratified constitution does not exist. If things proceed as they seem to be then definitely such people are on a course to irrevocably burn the only bridge, the ratified constitution, which realistically connects them with the majority of the Eritrean people inside Eritrea. This is if not foolishness a display of a sort of dictatorship at its height.

The major stumbling block in Eritrea is the absence of the rule of law. (See The Rule of Law in Eritrea.)   If the ratified Eritrean constitution were to be implemented, Eritrea for the most part will be in harmony with the rule of law. Our significant problem is not that the ratified constitution is weak on concepts of the rule of law; rather it is that it is not implemented.

There is a dictatorship of the PFDJ variety that we are all aware of. However oblivious to many there is another type of despotism that is lurking in the shadow. This is a kind of tyranny that eventually will come to fruition if not appropriately   and timely checked. The group that ostensibly has arrogated to itself the power to write a new constitution for Eritrea is nothing but a dictatorship in the making in front of our own very eyes. The sad part is that these would be tyrants are wearing a mantle of the opposition.

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

                                                                                                       

A Call for Unity

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

July 9, 2004

Introduction

It is almost five years since some Eritreans sympathetic to the PFDJ openly started to question its wisdom about its management of the war with Ethiopia and its administration of Eritrea. Prior to it, there were Eritreans with rich experience in ELF who questioned the authority and legitimacy of the PFDJ rule, but they were given deaf ears. Since 2000, many incisive and groundbreaking articles have been written.  At times, such upright Eritreans were given all kind of unsavory names in order to discourage others from stepping up to the plate and doing the same. It did not work, the avalanche of ideas has not stopped and the momentum continued at a tremendous speed.

Then came the G-13 and the G-15. They gave tremendous weight to the ideas that were propagated by simple citizens. The G-13 and the G-15 are courageous Eritreans. It is very rare in history where groups or individuals challenge a despotic regime from within its own den, since one’s fate is assuredly the dungeon or death.

The G-15 was in a position of power and prestige. It could have ignored the plight of Eritreans, and continued to live in a relative comfort within a sea of misery. It decided otherwise. This is extremely noble. Some may quarrel with the tactics and methods of struggle that the G-15 employed but strategically its contribution towards the struggle for the establishment of the rule of law in Eritrea is immense, and I believe history will record it as such.

I have my qualms with some of the leaders of the traditional opposition. For the life of me, I cannot understand the wisdom of boycotting the referendum, though they have a fundamental right and liberty not to partake in the process, and not participating in the drafting of the constitution. Still I give them tremendous credit for consistently seeing the top leadership of the PFDJ for what they are – despotic leaders of a cruel regime. It is a very humbling experience.

The Eritrean people and the opposition should be very proud of their achievements. It took them a mere five years to expose the real nature of the PFDJ - an unreconstructed communist and collectivist entity that abrogates individual Eritrean liberties and that has no respect for the rule of law.  It took almost seventy years for the people of the old Soviet Union to come to grips with such devilish monstrosity. The opposition should not sit idle on its laurels, but on the other hand it has to be proud of its great achievements so far.

All the articles penned in the last five years, despite the fact coming from different viewpoints and experiences, have two salient features.

First, it is the management of the recent war with Ethiopia. Views differ on many aspects of the war. Still, the majority agrees on one major point: the peaceful and legal channels should have been exhausted. Finally, the Delimitation Decision is a victory for both the Eritrean and Ethiopian peoples. The issue is not which side was awarded more territory. Rather, the issue is the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia is finally sealed through an international legal ruling. The rule of law will eventually prevail.

Second, it is the emphasis that there has never been the rule of law in Eritrea under the PFDJ. The PFDJ has been ruling Eritrea through decrees, and there are no liberal institutions that check its power. The PFDJ takes the Eritrean people for granted and ultimately it abuses its unfettered power. Hence, first and foremost, Eritrea needs the rule of law.  There is almost absolute unanimity on this issue among all Eritreans: Yes, by many supporters of the PFDJ and those who are opposed to it. The only difference is the mechanism that one employs to start the process of the reign of the rule of law in Eritrea.  This paper will deal with this issue, but before we go there I need to point out phases of struggle, as I understand them.

I categorize the last five years of the struggle as a phase of exposing and describing the real nature of the PFDJ regime. Hence, it was the stage of awareness and exposition. For all intents and purpose, this struggle was spontaneous; no sneer intended on the opposition, since the opposition itself was part of the spontaneous movement.  This has been accomplished with so much ease. Imagine ardent supporters of the PFDJ like Dan Connel and Thomas Keneally, and international entities like the USA, EU and human rights organizations are now dancing to the tunes of the opposition and the Eritrean people: the need for the rule of law in Eritrea. These are telling signs of the victory of the first phase.

I believe we are entering the second phase where maintaining unity of ideas and consolidation and institutionalization of what has been achieved so far become important. By unity or unifying factor, I do not mean organizational unity. The opposition seems to confuse the unity of ideas within the Eritrean people with organizational unity among the opposition.  I have no intention to discount the importance of organizational unity. Though beneficial, I do not believe organizational unity is as crucial. Unity of ideas is crucial. In this respect kudos to all Eritreans who are in the forefront of the struggle since there is unity among all Eritreans of all political persuasion of the need to establish the rule of law in Eritrea. How we reach there is not clear, though. In fact, there is a lot of confusion on how to go about it.

I believe the ratified constitution can help us bring the rule of law in Eritrea. It will help us to unite all Eritreans. It will give us a great leverage internationally and with foreign friends of Eritrea. The only requirement is only a little compromise and humility. If we concentrate on the positive aspects of the ratified constitution, and there are plenty for those who read it with open minds, then we can salvage it in order to enable us to have a common platform.

The notes below, slightly revised, were originally presented to colleagues and compatriots in a bullet format around September 2003, in a brainstorming session to come up with a common factor that may unify the Eritrean people in their quest for the establishment of the rule of law in Eritrea.  I have benefited greatly from their inputs, criticisms and advice. Also, lest I be accused of plagiarism, I confess that I have liberally incorporated ideas and concepts advanced by other Eritreans that are to my liking.

Currently, we observe that the opposition is going in all kind of directions squabbling among itself and not debating the core unifying issue, and each creating its own programs and charters. These programs and charters though necessary for the organizations may become big hindrances towards the creation of a united loyal opposition, if they are not rooted in a one unifying factor. I believe the organizations will need one theme that is unifying. For example, during the colonial period the Eritrean people irrespective of their political affiliations had a single unifying factor: independence. Similarly, I believe we need one unifying factor, and that could be the implementation of the ratified constitution with all its imperfections.  For the sake of discussion I characterize this as the common political platform.

Who is the political platform for?

Political power is either delegated or usurped. A representative authority is a delegated power through the consent of the people. Different groups at times pervert the term democracy. Yet the aim of the majority of Eritreans is to establish a representative government that could enforce constitutional rules on behalf of the people. Thus, the Eritrean people are the sovereign and must own the political platform. The platform should reinforce basic human dignity and guide to bring about two contending forces – a Government-in-office and a Government-in-waiting, and a peaceful transfer of power. It is also for the majority of the Eritrean people; it should try to satisfy their wishes while respecting the rights of minorities.  It must be the least common denominator that unites the people and it should not deviate from this fundamental principle.

There is a possibility that the majority of the Eritrean people may have only formal and not effective association with the major political organizations.  Simple membership in the PFDJ, for example, cannot be equated with endorsements of all the PFDJ policies. One can assume that the majority members of the PFDJ may not earnestly believe in all its politics and principles. Some are members because they believe that membership may endow them with a privilege to earn a living inside Eritrea, or visit Eritrea from the Diaspora, or have the use of the monopolized state land. In short to engage in productive economic and social endeavors without raising any eyebrows from the state and the ruling party. This is normal in nations whose economies, politics, and social life are monopolized by the state and by a single party.

Likewise, the fact that many Eritreans reject the PFDJ's polices and principles does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that such Eritreans have endorsed the oppositions’ polices. In other words, rejection of the PFDJ does not necessarily automatically translate into support for the oppositions.  To think otherwise is delusional; the opposition has to realize its capability and limitation.

Until there is free and secret ballot election, we cannot conclusively affirm which organization has the majority (or pluralistic) backing of the Eritrean people.  Even in highly developed societies, support for any organization cannot be conclusively determined and decided through opinion polls. Only free elections decide that. There has not been a real test in a competitive political arena in Eritrea to date.  Thus, it is very presumptuous for any organization to assume that it represents the Eritrean people, just because it has appropriated the state apparatus for the sole use of its organization, or that some have come together as political organizations.  Only the Eritrean people through the exercise of their democratic right can decide who represents them.

The Eritrean Political Fronts

Both the EPLF and the ELF conducted the national armed struggle for independence; the EPLF consumed the independence struggle to its fruition, while the ELF started it.  We have to acknowledge the fact that the independence victory is a collective achievement of the Eritrean people and of the two fronts. The independence struggle was a process that had the participation of the overwhelming majority of the Eritrean people at one time or another.  It is a cumulative victory.  But, like everything in life some may have contributed more than others may.

Individuals are endowed with different skills and attributes.  Organizations being the works of human beings also display and reflect positive and negative human characteristics and sentiments. We have to accept the fact that individuals associated with the two fronts have varied experiences and different interpretations of these histories.  Even within the same organization it is impossible to have the same understanding and interpretation of past history. Otherwise it is to deny individualism and freedom and it is to impose collectivist mentality.

Since the strategic goal of the historical political organizations had already been achieved through the independence of Eritrea from colonial rule, we should curtail the various interpretations of the liberation war from being brought to the forefront, as they might become divisive.  We should leave historical interpretations to historians and other social scientists.  These varied interpretations of history should not be issues for contest, nor should they be issues of a common political platform.  These lingering varied views should be individualized with the assumption that they will be varied, rich and multi spectrum, rather than collectivized by any organization and thus forced to conform to a single interpretation.   We should disallow these histories from becoming issues on a forward-looking common political platform.

The ratified constitution can be the common political platform

The ratified constitution can be the common political platform. The ratified constitution has many similarities with other written democratic constitutions. The constitution enshrined some of the fundamental principles of individual liberties.  It incorporated the separations of powers.  The fundamental liberties and the separation of powers if implemented properly, guarantee limitation of power. These checks and balances ensure limited government, thereby curtailing the potential abuse of power. It is readymade and workable. It can be used to unify the Eritrean people and be used as a springboard to bring qualitative changes within the Eritrean political arena.

Eritreans are entitled to criticize the procedural mechanism of the drafting of the constitution as well as its contents. But these by themselves should not be causes to reject it outright.

As the work of human beings, the constitution is not perfect.  There is no perfect constitution that satisfies all sectors of a society all the time. A constitution is a living document and it is only through implementation that comes to life and addresses societal concerns. The worst that can happen to a constitution is to ignore or suspend it and rule by decrees in an arbitrary manner.  No matter what, we will never achieve perfection; to expect otherwise is to go against the grains of the nature of human beings. The constitution has provisions for amendments and improvements. It is neither static nor inflexible and within its rules it has dynamics to update and improve certain rules that do not conform to contemporary situation. It only requires persuasion of the overwhelming majority of the Eritrean people.  This can be accomplished legally, democratically and peacefully.

Is it wise to reject the ratified constitution?

The PFDJ has neither implemented the constitution nor rejected it officially. Some organizations within the opposition have preliminarily accepted the constitution as a stepping-stone for a democratic Eritrea.

The majority of the organizations in the opposition have rejected the constitution. They feel they were not represented. They have a valid point. I have no intention to belittle the concept of representation.  Procedural representation is needed in order to solicit the widest possible input and interest of the Eritrean people. Not being procedurally represented amounts to the fact that certain inputs and interests of the Eritrean people may not have been incorporated. It is understandable that some organizations may have reservations and oppositions to some provisions and rules in the constitution. But this is true also with individuals associated with the PFDJ or independent individuals who have no formal organizational association.  If one ignores organizational affiliations, it may very well be true that many followers of the ELF, EPLF and independents may have similar views regarding the pros and cons of the ratified constitution.  It is wrong to assume or expect that all members of the PFDJ have identical views on all the provisions of the constitution. Otherwise it is to deny individuality, originality and liberty, which all human beings are naturally endowed with, and it is to impose collectivism.  The same is true with the opposition.

Constitution writing is not an easy task. Some wrongly assume that a group of people with no real professional knowledge or experience of various fields of social sciences can come up with a prefect constitution by simply copying and pasting from various written constitutions of the developing and advanced nations. They wrongly believe it is a cakewalk. And then bingo, they assume that they will have a “perfect” constitution for Eritrea. Thus, they insinuate why even bother at all with the already ratified constitution of Eritrea.

Others assume that elections are the most significant part of the constitution. They emphasize elections and not the rule of law; so much so, the very PFDJ is imitating their infatuations with elections and is doing exactly what they incessantly lecture on. It is conducting all kind of elections without implementing the ratified constitution.

In my opinion, elections, though important, in the scheme of bigger things, are secondary. I believe the most significant part of any constitution is the existence of the rule of law. Among the most significant ones are:

1. The respect of property rights, for example a strict reading of a just rule of law would not allow a state to sell land without the consent and market price compensation of the real owners of the land, the “Dekebat” villagers in the Eritrean “Adi.”
2. The enforcement of contractual obligations ensures trust in the open economy and a smooth and honest operation of the market. For example, the Government of Eritrea not honoring the redeeming of its bond obligations as stipulated when it sold the bonds discourages investment in Eritrea.  Not enforcing and honoring all kind of business licenses, contracts and transactions among different entities is counter to the creation of a prosperous society.
3. Respect of property rights and enforcement of contractual obligations are the linchpin of a market economy; without them one cannot create a significant middle class in a nation and; without a middle class one cannot have a prosperous and a viable liberal democratic society. For example, the monopolization of significant economic activities in Eritrea by the PFDJ under the guise of equality and other nice sounding socialist slogans effectively will hamper the creation of a middle class.   
4. The existence of due process of law, for example, the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty; the concept of writ habeas corpus – “the right to be brought before a court to determine whether one has been lawfully detained.”
5. The respect of the freedom of press, religion, organization and movement.
6. In short, civil liberties that guarantee the individual to enjoy constitutional liberty and constrain the government from abuse and arbitrary power.

Constitution writing requires the guidance of people endowed with wisdom, experience and some schooling (formal or self-taught) in law, sociology, economics, anthropology, history and other fields of study. No wonder it took a considerable time for the Eritreans who were tasked to come up with a draft of the Eritrean constitution.  Recognizing this seemingly simple fact will help the opposition in winning half the battle of the establishment of the rule of law in Eritrea.

The opposition has to recognize that its mission is to help the Eritrean people to transition towards a constitutional government. What I know for sure is that the majority of the Eritrean people have not rejected the ratified Eritrean constitution. I also know that in practice the top echelon of the PFDJ and formally some in the opposition have rejected the constitution. It appears that both are in a match to prove to the Eritrean people how far removed they are from the ratified constitution, and thus in essence one is not off the mark if one concludes that both have little respect for the rule of law.

The most difficult thing to overcome is inertia, and it appears that some are still living in the inertia and era of the armed struggle. At least the opposition should try to fight the top leadership of the PFDJ with a powerful weapon that the Eritrean people and the international community can easily intimate, understand and rally under: the ratified constitution. 

The most crucial question is how can we bridge the gap between the varied views of the Eritrean people: those who are associated with the PFDJ, those who are with the opposition and those who are with neither? I believe the ratified constitution can play that role if handled with a lot of tact.

Incidentally, it is necessary to highlight and not to forget those Eritreans who for one reason or another are still associated with the PFDJ. Disregarding the top echelon of the PFDJ, in reality the rest of the PFDJ are in support for the rule of law. Effective change will only come from inside Eritrea. And thus we should not underestimate the latent and manifest forces of change that are within the PFDJ.  Some of us may hate anyone associated with the PFDJ because of the insults that have been coming to our side from some irresponsible uncouth loudmouths.  This is shortsighted.  The actions of some rogues should not cloud our thinking. 

The ratified constitution as the supreme law of the land belongs to the Eritrean people. The PFDJ as the ruling party may have influenced its outcome to a major degree. This is normal and is unrealistic to expect otherwise. Still, no organization can claim sole possession of it. Some may mistakenly believe that the ratified constitution belongs to the top echelon of the PFDJ or the president of Eritrea. 

The opposition has to show compromise, some mutual respect and basic understanding of rights. No one is expected to claim fundamental rights and deny the rights of others. Leadership requires courage, and it is a sign of wise leadership to go against the incorrectly held taboo in the Eritrean political arena - that something that does not originate from within one’s own group or organization should be automatically rejected irrespective of its merit. We will never be able to build a liberal democratic and prosperous society with that kind of mind set. We should avoid reinventing something that already exists and that has something good in it.  I believe the constitution fits this depiction.  Accepting the ratified constitution as a common platform will be a milestone in the creation of a united opposition. I believe this will enable us to be in synch with the views of the majority of the Eritrean people and the international community.

The problem is not that the ratified constitution is worthless. The problem is that the PFDJ ignores this important document and still wants to rule Eritrea without a constitution and rule of law, as if Eritrea is still conducting the armed struggle for independence.  The opposition has to take the PFDJ to task, and should be wise enough to use the very weapon, the constitution, that was ratified under the guidance of the very same PFDJ, to bring good governance in Eritrea. Both domestically and internationally, it is foolhardy for the opposition and for that matter the government of Eritrea to run away from the constitution. At least, the opposition should be wise enough to realize this, and steal the thunder from the PFDJ and challenge it to implement the very constitution that it ratified. 

This does not mean organizations have to abandon their charters, programs and visions for Eritrea, far from it. Rather, they can use the ratified constitution as a common platform of the majority of the Eritrean people, until we establish a constitutional government.  Organizations have political rights to have charters and programs that will enable them to implement their visions within the boundaries of the ratified constitution or to request for amending the constitution in order to expand or contract its boundaries legally and peacefully.

What if the PFDJ promises to implement the constitution?

The PFDJ is under pressure to have good governance in Eritrea.  The forces include the Eritrean people – inside and outside Eritrea, the EU, the USA, human rights organizations, international newspapers, and goodwill friends of Eritrea, international institutions and many others. In other words, it is called upon to implement the constitution. Under such circumstances, it is not farfetched to imagine that the PFDJ may implement a truncated application of the constitution.

If the PFDJ announces that it will implement the constitution, what will be the likely response of the opposition? Observing the behavior and actions of the opposition from the sidelines, one may logical assume and predict that the opposition will be caught flatfooted, with no coherent and responsible response that the Eritrean people and the international community can easily intimate, comprehend and sympathize with. The international community will react negatively against the opposition if they are not willing to participate.

Under such a scenario, I believe the following are the minimum requirements that the PFDJ has to accomplish to prove to the Eritrean people and the international community that it is sincere:

1. Release all prisoners of conscience;
2. Restore the private (free) press;  
3. Announce and allow opposition organizations to operate inside Eritrea without any hindrance and retribution;
4. Set up an independent electoral commission; and
5. Set up a body that will oversee the proper implementation of the constitution (constitutional court etc.).

Can any organization disallow any other Eritrean organization from participating in free and fair elections?

The PFDJ bluntly charges that some of the opposition organizations have some sort of relation with the present Ethiopian leaders, hence are not loyal opposition.  In other words, it implies that at a minimum they cannot participate in Eritrean politics.

We should wish good relations with all our neighbors. I believe it is wrong to assume that our neighbors are inherently bad natured and only wish us ill will and thus are our permanent enemies. True, too much blood has been shed, and enormous enmity has been created between the two brotherly sovereign nations, Eritrea and Ethiopia.  Still we have to do our utmost to avoid war, enmity, vendetta and hatred.

I am optimistic that it is just a matter of time that if not out of pure good natured heart but at least out of pure selfish national interest, all our neighbors would opt, at the minimum, for a normal peaceful relationship with Eritrea. In this enterprise, it is in our advantage and national interest that we, Eritreans, be in the forefront to lead and show our neighbors the ways and methods of a peaceful relationship through displays of simple examples of decent behavior and good gestures.

We should not meddle in the internal affairs of our neighbors, nor should we allow our neighbors to interfere in ours. At all times, our relationship has to be rooted in the rule of law, and this includes that Ethiopia accepts the Delimitation Decision concerning the geographical boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia as final and binding. In this respect, we have a problem with Ethiopia, and we hope Ethiopia will reconsider its position and accept the rule of law. That said, as a small nation, it is also imperative that we should always be on our toes to manage the relationship with our neighbors properly and not be caught off guard. We also have to be cognizant of the fact that at times, big nations have a bad habit of flexing their muscles including violation of international law to guarantee their narrow “national” interests. In the final analysis though, we need to have a policy with no regional ambitions and based on core maxim to maximize the interests of our people considering our size.

Then the issue becomes who determines whether one is a loyal or disloyal opposition? The president of Eritrea said, words to the effect, that that there is no legitimate opposition in Eritrea. When a government is not creating an atmosphere for loyal opposition to operate within the nation, then the legality issue speaks about the government and not about the loyal opposition. Just because the president said so, the opposition cannot be defined as a disloyal or illegitimate opposition. Loyal opposition cannot be gauged by a government and its party that are in power but by constitutional laws.

If there are violations of the spirit of the constitution and there are any treasonous acts committed by individuals, then only an independent court, established under the guidelines of the constitution, can determine that.  Otherwise, organizations are deemed to be loyal opposition.  Only the Eritrean people decide whether such organizations are fit to serve their interest or not, through their direct secret ballot voting. In my humble opinion, the requirement of a loyal opposition may include the following:

1. Acceptance of the constitution of Eritrea (some may think this is too restrictive, but I believe it is important that we start from some fundamental base);
2. Willingness to come to power through fair election and not through usurpation, and accept to remain a loyal opposition if defeated in a fair and free election; and
3. Believes in the sovereignty of Eritrea and accepts the territorial integrity of Eritrea as stipulated by the Delimitation Decision of the Eritrean-Ethiopian Boundary Commission (EEBC) in The Hague, since one cannot be for the rule of law internally and opposes the rule of law externally.

The PFDJ does not have any legal right to disallow Eritreans from establishing organizations, political parties and civil societies in accordance with their wishes and desires. Likewise, no one can disallow the PFDJ from participating in Eritrean politics provided it abides by the Eritrean constitution and accepts to be a loyal opposition if displaced from power through fair and square election.

Our desire and struggle is to level the political playing field and to disallow monopolization of politics and economics of Eritrea by a single entity, and allow the Eritrean people be the ultimate judge. The people decide the growth and decline of political organizations. Political organizations will have lives in a free and democratic Eritrea only if they meet the aspirations of the people and the Eritrean people is willing to vote for them and also support them. Otherwise their memberships dwindle and eventually they die a natural death, not because some omnipotent force decided so, but because the people through their free will said so. By the same token, it is similar for those who become vibrant and strong.

What to do for past errors or crimes? Clemency and reconciliation

It needs to be emphasized that opinions should not be put on a par with crimes.  Diversity of opinions has to be accepted and tolerated, and it is a mandatory requirement of a liberal democratic society.  Opinions become a crime only in despotic regimes. In nations with just rule of law, exchange of opinions and debates are encouraged.  The law protects people from any retribution for voicing their opinions and speaking their minds.

Do we allow the constitution to be applied prospectively from the time it is implemented, or retroactively from the time of ratification? There could be tremendous ramifications to the point of contribution towards disorder in Eritrea, if the constitution were to apply retroactively. We have to admit some of the activities of the top leadership of the PFDJ are nothing but illegal. Examples include imprisoning Eritreans without due process of law, confiscation of Eritrean properties without due compensation etc. Applying the constitution prospectively may save us from a vicious circle of blaming and counter blaming and it may give us an opportunity to avoid “cornering” the top echelon of the PFDJ for misadministration. This could be one of the exit strategies for a peaceful transition to a constitutional government in Eritrea.  Along with this, other strategies have to be developed to avoid “cornering.”  The disorder that is going in Iraq and the blunders the USA initially made by blanket accusation of the whole Baath party as no good should be an object lesson to all us.

I believe some type of rehabilitation and reconciliation forum should handle crimes and past errors.  Otherwise, it may become a hindrance to crafting a common political platform. Our immediate task should not deviate from establishing a constitutional government based on the ratified constitution.  Later, the constitutional government may establish a commission of reconciliation that may bring a peaceful closure for past ills of Eritrea.  If South Africa with its ugly history of the apartheid system is able to overcome vendettas, there is no valid reason why we, Eritreans, cannot do it either. Some may retort back that Eritrea does not have a saint-like and a very conciliatory figure like Mandela. I beg to differ. I honestly believe we have little Mandelas all over our nation: the Eritrean people are a very generous and forgiving people. We only have to look within ourselves and find the little angels.

abrahamgg@gmail.com

The Eritrean Constitution

Preamble

We the people of Eritrea, united in a common struggle for our rights and common destiny, standing on the solid ground of unity and justice bequeathed by our martyrs and combatants: With Eternal Gratitude to the scores of thousands of our martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the causes of our rights and independence, during the long and heroic revolutionary struggle for liberation, and to the courage and steadfastness of our Eritrean patriots;

Aware that it is the sacred duty of all Eritreans to build a strong and developed Eritrea on the bases of freedom, unity, peace, stability and security achieved through the long struggle of all Eritreans, which tradition we must cherish, preserve and develop;

Realizing that in order to build a developed country, it is necessary that the unity, equality, love for truth and justice, self-reliance, and hard work, which we nurtured during our revolutionary struggle for independence and which helped us to triumph, must become the core of our national values;

Appreciating the fact that for the development and health of our society, it is necessary that we inherit and improve upon the traditional community-based assistance and fraternity, love for family, respect for elders, mutual respect and consideration;

Convinced that the recognition, protection and securing of the rights and freedoms of citizens, human dignity, equality will guarantee a balanced development; lay down the groundwork for satisfying the material and spiritual needs of citizens; usher in a democratic order that is responsive to the needs and interests of citizens, guarantees their participation and brings about economic development, social progress and harmony;

Noting the fact that the Eritrean women's heroic participation in the struggle for independence and solidarity based on equality and mutual respect generated by such struggle will serve as an unshakable foundation for our commitment and struggle to create a society in which women and men shall interact on the bases of mutual respect, fraternity and equality;

Desirous that the Constitution we are adopting will be a covenant between us and the government we will be structuring by our free will and serve as a means for governing in harmony this and the future generation; and for bringing about justice and peace, founded on democracy, national unity and the rule of law; today ..., on this historic date, after active popular participation, approve and solemnly ratify officially, through the Constituent Assembly, this Constitution as the fundamental law of our Sovereign and Independent State of Eritrea.

Chapter I General Provisions

Article 1 The State of Eritrea and its Territory
(1) Eritrea is a sovereign and independent State founded on the principles of democracy, social justice and the rule of law.
(2) The territory of Eritrea consists of all its territories,
including the islands, territorial waters and airspace, delineated by internationally recognized boundaries.
(3) In the State of Eritrea, sovereign power is vested in the people, who shall exercise such power through their representatives, duly elected pursuant to the procedures authorized by the provisions of this Constitution.
(4) The State that is to be established by a democratic process to represent the people's sovereignty shall have strong institutions, capable of accommodating people's participation and of serving as foundation of a viable democratic and political order.
(5) The State of Eritrea shall have a unitary government divided into units of local government. The powers and duties of these units shall be determined by law.

Article 2 Supremacy of the Constitution

(1) This Constitution is the legal expression of the sovereignty of the Eritrean people.
(2) This Constitution enunciates the principles on which the State is to be based and guided by and determines the organization and operation of government. It is the source of government legitimacy and the guarantor for the protection of the rights, freedoms and dignity of citizens and of just administration.
(3) This Constitution is the supreme law of the country and the source of all laws of the State, and all laws, orders and acts contrary to its letter and spirit shall be null and void.
(4) All organs of the State, all public and private associations and institutions and all citizens shall be bound by and remain loyal to the Constitution and shall ensure its observance.
(5) Pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution and other laws, the conduct of the affairs of government and all organizations and institutions shall be accountable and transparent.
(6) This Constitution shall serve as a basis for instilling constitutional culture and for enlightening and ensuring that organizations of the State and citizens respect fundamental human rights and duties.

Article 3 Citizenship

(1) Any person born of an Eritrean father or mother is an Eritrean by birth.
(2) Any foreign citizen may acquire Eritrean citizenship pursuant to law.
(3) The details concerning citizenship shall be regulated by law.
Article 4 National Symbols and Languages
(1) The Eritrean Flag shall have green, red and blue colors with golden olive leaves located at the center. The exact description of the Flag shall be determined by law.
(2) Eritrea shall have a National Anthem and a Coat of Arms appropriately reflecting the history and the aspiration of its people. The details of the National Anthem and the Coat of Arms shall be determined by law.
(3) The equality of all Eritrean languages is guaranteed.

Article 5 Gender Reference

Without consideration to the gender wording of any provision in this Constitution, all of its articles shall apply equally to both genders.

Chapter II National Objectives and Directive Principles

Article 6 National Unity and Stability

(1) As the people and government struggle to establish a united and developed Eritrea, within the context of the diversity of Eritrea, they shall be guided by the basic principle Unity in diversity.
(2) The State shall strengthen the stability and development of the country by encouraging democratic dialogue and national consensus through participation of all citizens; by building strong political, cultural and moral foundation; and by promoting national unity and social harmony.
(3) The State shall ensure peace and stability by establishing appropriate institutions that encourage people's participation and by creating the necessary conditions capable of guaranteeing, hastening and engendering equitable economic and social progress.

Article 7 Democratic Principles

(1) It is a fundamental principle of the State to guarantee its citizens broad and active participation in all political, economic, social and cultural life of the country.
(2) Any act that violates the human rights of women or limits or otherwise thwarts their role and participation is prohibited.
(3) There shall be established necessary institutions to encourage and develop people's participation and initiative in the areas where they reside.
(4) Pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution and laws enacted pursuant thereto, all Eritreans, without distinction, are guaranteed equal opportunity to participate in any positions of leadership in the country.
(5) The organization and operation of all political and public associations and movements shall be guided by the principle of national unity and democracy.
(6) The State shall create the necessary conditions for establishing a democratic, political culture defined by the development of free and critical thinking, tolerance and national consensus.

Article 8 Competent Justice System

(1) The justice system of Eritrea shall be independent, competent and accountable pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and laws.
(2) Courts shall work under a judicial system that is capable of producing fast and equitable judgments and that can easily be understood by and is accessible to all the people.
(3) Judges shall be free from corruption or discrimination and, in rendering their judgment, they shall make no distinctions among persons.
(4) The State shall encourage out-of-court settlement of disputes through conciliation, mediation or arbitration.

Article 9 Competent Public Administration

(1) Eritrea shall have an efficient, effective and accountable public service.
(2) All administrative institutions shall be free from corruption, discrimination and delay in the delivery of services.

Article 10 Economic and Social Development

(1) The State shall endeavor to create opportunities to ensure the fulfillment of citizens' rights to social justice and the economic development and to fulfill their material and spiritual needs.
(2) The State shall work to bring about a balanced and sustainable development throughout the country, and shall use all available means to ensure all citizens to improve their livelihood in a sustainable manner, through their development.
(3) The State shall have the responsibility to regulate all land, water and natural resources and to ensure their management in a balanced and sustainable manner and in the interest of the present and future generations; and to create the right conditions for securing the participation of the people to
safeguard the environment.

Article 11 National Culture

(1) The State shall have the responsibility of creating and maintaining the necessary conditions for enriching national culture, which is the expression of national identity and unity and progress of the Eritrean people.
(2) The State shall encourage the values of community solidarity and the love and respect of family.
(3) The State shall promote the development of arts, sport and science and technology and shall create an enabling environment for individuals to work in an atmosphere of freedom and manifest their creativity and innovation.

Article 12 National Defense and Security

(1) Defense and security forces of Eritrea shall owe allegiance to and defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country, the Constitution and the government established pursuant thereto.
(2) Defense and security forces are an integral part of society, and shall be productive and respectful of the people.
(3) The defense and security of Eritrea are rooted on the people and on their active participation.
(4) The defense and security forces shall be subject and accountable to the law, shall be competent and pass these requirements for posterity.

Article 13 Foreign Policy

The foreign policy of Eritrea is based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of countries and on promoting the interest of regional and international peace, cooperation, harmony and development.

Chapter III Fundamental Rights, Freedoms, and Duties

Article 14 Equality under the Law

(1) All persons are equal before the law.
(2) No person may be discriminated against on account of race, ethnic origin, language, color, sex, religion, disability, political belief or opinion, or social or economic status or any other factors.
(3) The National Assembly shall, pursuant to the provisions of this Article, enact laws that can assist in eliminating inequalities existing in the Eritrean society.

Article 15 Right to Life and Liberty

(1) No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.
(2) No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

Article 16 Right to Human Dignity

(1) The dignity of all persons shall be inviolable.
(2) No person shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
(3) No person shall be held in slavery or servitude or required to perform forced labor not authorized by law.

Article 17 Arrest, Detention and Fair Trial

(1) No person may be arrested or detained save pursuant to due process of law.
(2) No person shall be tried or convicted for any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it was committed.
(3) Every person arrested or detained shall be informed of the grounds for his arrest or detention and the rights he has in
connection with his arrest or detention in a language he understands.
(4) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be brought before the court within forty-eight (48) hours of his arrest, and if this is not reasonably possible, as soon as possible thereafter, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond such period without the authority of the court.
(5) Every person shall have the right to petition the court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Where the arresting officer fails to bring him before the court of law and provide the reason for their arrest, the court shall accept the petition and order the release of the prisoner.
(6) Every person charged with an offence shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a court of law; provided, however, that such a court may exclude the press and/or the public from all or any part of the trial for reasons of morals, the public order or national security, as is necessary in a just and democratic society.
(7) A person charged with an offence shall be presumed to be innocent, and shall not be punished, unless he is found guilty by a court.
(8) Where an accused is convicted, he shall have the right to appeal. No person shall be liable to be tried again for any criminal offence on which judgment has been rendered.

Article 18 Right to Privacy

(1) Every person shall have the right to privacy.
(2) No person shall be subjected to unlawful search, including his home or other property; there shall be no unlawful entry of his premises and no unlawful seizure of his personal possessions; nor shall the privacy of his correspondence, communication or other property be violated.

Article 19 Freedom of Conscience, Religion, Expression of Opinion, Movement, Assembly and Organization

(1) Every person shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief.
(2) Every person shall have the freedom of speech and expression , which include freedom of the press and other media.
(3) Every citizen shall have the right of access to information.
(4) Every person shall have the freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice.
(5) All persons shall have the right to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peaceably.
(6) Every citizen shall have the right to form organizations for political, social, economic and cultural ends; and to practice any profession, or engage in any occupation or trade.
(7) Every citizen shall have the right to move freely throughout Eritrea or reside and settle in any part thereof.
(8) Every citizen shall have the right to leave and return to Eritrea and to be provided with passport or any other travel documents.

Article 20 Right to Vote and to be a Candidate to an Elective Office

Every citizen who fulfills the requirements of the electoral law shall have the right to vote or to campaign to be elected to any office of leadership in government.

Article 21 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Responsibilities

(1) Every citizen shall have the right of equal access to publicly funded social services. The State shall endeavor, within the limit of its resources, to make available to all citizens health, education, cultural and other social services.
(2) The State shall secure, within available means, the social welfare of all citizens and particularly those disadvantaged.
(3) Every citizen shall have the right to engage freely in any economic activity and to pursue a livelihood.
(4) The State and society shall have the responsibility of identifying, preserving, developing, when necessary, and bequeathing to succeeding generation historical and cultural heritage; shall lay the necessary groundwork for the development of arts, sport, science and technology; and shall encourage citizens to participate in such endeavors.
(5) The National Assembly shall enact laws that guarantee and secure the social welfare of citizens and other rights and responsibilities listed in this Article.

Article 22 Family

(1) The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to the protection and special care of the State and society.
(2) Men and women of full legal age shall have the right, upon their consent, to marry and to found a family freely, without any discrimination and they shall have equal rights and duties as to all family affairs.
(3) Parents have the right and duty to bring up their children with proper care and affection; and, in turn, children have the right and the duty to respect their parents and to sustain them in their old age.

Article 23 Right to Property

(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-Article 2 of this Article, any citizen shall have the right, any where in Eritrea, to acquire, own, and dispose of all property individually or in association with others and to bequeath to his heirs or legatees.
(2) All land, water and natural resources below and above the surface of the territory of Eritrea belongs to the State. Usufruct rights of citizens shall be determined by law.
(3) The State or any of its organs authorized by law may expropriate property in the national or public interest, subject to the payment of just compensation and in accordance with due process of law.

Article 24 Administrative Justice

(1) Any person with a complaint shall have the right to be heard respectfully by administrative officials and to receive appropriate and quick answer from them.
(2) Any person whose rights or interests are interfered with or threatened shall have the right to seek due administrative redress.

Article 25 Duties of Citizens

All citizens shall have the duty to:
1. owe allegiance to Eritrea, strive for its development and promote its prosperity;
2. be ready to defend the country;
3. complete one's duty in the National Service;
4. advance national unity and the well-being of the people;
5. know, respect and defend the Constitution;
6. respect the rights and freedoms of others;
7. respect the rule of law and comply with the requirements of the law.

Article 26 Limitation Upon Fundamental Rights and Freedoms

(1) The fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under this Constitution may be limited only in so far as is necessary in a just and democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, health or morals, for the prevention of public disorder or crime or for
the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(2) Any law providing for the limitation of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in this Constitution must:
a) be consistent with the principles of a just and democratic society; b) be of general application and not negate the essential content of the right or freedom in question; c) specify the ascertainable extent of such limitation and identify the Article or Articles hereof on which authority to enact such limitation is claimed to rest.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-Article 1 of this Article and other Articles of this Constitution to the contrary, the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under Articles 14 (1) and (2), 17 (2), 19 (4) of this Constitution shall not be limited.

Article 27 State of Emergency

(1) At a time when public safety or the security or stability of the State is threatened by external invasion, by civil disorder or by natural disaster, the President may by a proclamation published in the Gazette of Eritrean Laws declare that a state of emergency exists in Eritrea or any part thereof.
(2) A declaration under Sub-Article 1 hereof shall not become effective unless approved by a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority votes of all members of the National Assembly. In the case of a declaration made when the National Assembly is session, the declaration shall be presented within two days after its publication, or otherwise the National Assembly shall be summoned to meet and approve the publication within thirty days of its declaration.
(3) A declaration approved by the National Assembly pursuant to Sub-Article 2 hereof shall continue to be in force until the expiration of a period of six months after such approval. The National Assembly may, by a resolution of two-thirds majority votes of all its members, extend its approval of the declaration for periods of three months at a time.
(4) The National Assembly may by resolution at any time revoke a declaration approved by it pursuant to the provisions of this Article.
(5) Any measures undertaken or laws enacted pursuant to a declaration of a state of emergency shall not: a) suspend Article 26 (3) of the Constitution; b) grant pardon or amnesty to any person or persons who, acting under the authority of the State, have committed illegal acts; or
c) introduce martial law when no external invasion exists or civil disorder prevails.

Article 28 Enforcement of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms

(1) Save in so far as it may be authorized to do so by this Constitution, the National Assembly or any subordinate legislative authority shall not make any law, and the Executive and the agencies of government shall not take any action which abolishes or abridges the fundamental rights and freedoms conferred by this Constitution. Any law or action in violation thereof shall be null and void.
(2) Aggrieved persons who claim that a fundamental right or freedom guaranteed by this Constitution has been denied or violated shall be entitled to approach a competent court to enforce or protect such a right or freedom. Where the court ascertains that such fundamental right or freedom has been denied or violated, the court shall have the power to make all such orders as shall be necessary to secure such applicants the enjoyment of such fundamental right or freedom, and where such applicants suffer damage, to include an award of monetary compensation.

Article 29 Residual Rights

The rights enumerated in this Chapter shall not preclude other rights which ensue from the spirit of this Constitution and the principles of a society based on social justice, democracy and the rule of law.

Chapter IV The National Assembly

Article 30 Representation of the People

(1) Any Eritrean citizen, of eighteen years of age or more, shall have the right to vote.
(2) The National Assembly shall enact an electoral law, which shall prescribe for and ensure the representation and participation of the Eritrean people.

Article 31 Establishment and Duration of the National Assembly

(1) There shall be a National Assembly which shall be a supreme representative and legislative body.
(2) The National Assembly shall be composed of representatives elected by the people.
(3) Members of the National Assembly shall be elected by direct and secret ballot by all citizens who are qualified to vote. (4) Members of the National Assembly are representatives of the Eritrean peoples as a whole. In discharging their duties, they are governed by the objectives and principles of the Constitution, the interest of the people and the country and their conscience.
(5) The first session of the National Assembly shall be held within one month after a general election and its term shall be five years from the date of such first session. Where there exists a state of emergency which would prevent a normal general election from being held, the National Assembly may, by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds vote of all its members, extend the life of the National Assembly for a period not exceeding six months.
(6) The qualifications and election of the members of the National Assembly and the conditions for vacating their seats shall be determined by law.

Article 32 Powers and Duties of the National Assembly

(1) Pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution: a) The National Assembly shall have the power to enact laws and pass resolutions for the peace, stability, development and good governance of Eritrea; b) Unless, pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution or authorized by law enacted by the National Assembly, no person or organization shall have the power to make having the force of law.
(2) The National Assembly shall be bound by the objectives and principles of the Constitution, and shall strive to realize the objectives stated therein.
(3) The National Assembly shall approve the national budget and enact tax law.
(4) The National Assembly shall ratify international agreements by law.
(5) The National Assembly shall authorize government to borrow money pursuant to law.
(6) The National Assembly shall approve a state of peace, war or national emergency.
(7) The National Assembly shall have the power to oversee the execution of laws.
(8) The National Assembly shall have the power to elect, from among its members, by absolute majority vote of all its members, the President who shall serve for five years.
(9) Pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Article 6(a) and (b) of Article 41 hereof, the National Assembly, by a vote of two-thirds majority of all its members, shall have the power to impeach and charge the President before the end of his term of office.
(10) The National Assembly may approve the appointment of any person or persons pursuant to this Constitution.
(11) The National Assembly may pass such resolutions and undertake such measures as are necessary and establish such standing or ad hoc committees as it deems appropriate for discharging its constitutional responsibilities.

Article 33 Approval of Draft Legislation

Any draft law approved by the National Assembly shall be transmitted to the President who, within thirty days, shall sign and have it published in the Gazette of Eritrean Laws.

Article 34 Chairman of the National Assembly

(1) In its first meeting, the National Assembly shall elect, by an absolute majority vote of all its members, a Chairman for five years.
(2) The Chairman of the National Assembly shall convene session of the National Assembly and preside at its meetings, and shall, during the recess, coordinate and supervise the operations of standing and ad hoc committees of the National Assembly.
(3) The Chairman of the National Assembly may be replaced by an absolute majority vote of all the members of the National Assembly.

Article 35 Oath

Every member of the National Assembly shall take the following oath: "I, ..., swear in the name of the Eritrean martyrs that I will be faithful and worthy of the trust the Eritrean people placed on me; that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of Eritrea; and that I will endeavor to the best of my ability and conscience for the unity and development of my country without seeking or being enticed by private gain."

Article 36 Rules of Procedure in the National Assembly

(1) The National Assembly shall have regular session and shall determine the timing and duration of its regular session.
(2) At the request of the President, its Chairman or one-third of all its members, the National Assembly shall have emergency meeting.
(3) The quorum of the National Assembly shall be fifty percent of all the members of the National Assembly.
(4) Except as otherwise prescribed by this Constitution or other laws, any question proposed for decision of the National Assembly shall be determined by a majority vote of those present and voting, and in case of a tie of votes, the Chairman may exercise a casting vote.
(5) The National Assembly shall issue rules and regulations concerning its organization, tasks, operations and internal processes and those of the standing and ad hoc committees, including the rules governing the code of ethics of its members and transparency of its operations.

Article 37 Office and Committees of the National Assembly

(1) The National Assembly shall have a secretariat under the direction of its Chairman and committees for various fields of interest, as circumstance may dictate.
(2) The various committees established pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Article 1 of this Article shall have the power to call any person to appear before them to give evidence or to submit documents.

Article 38 Duties, Immunities and Privileges of Members of the National Assembly

(1) All members of the National Assembly shall maintain the high image of the National Assembly. They shall regard themselves as humble servants of the people and maintain close contact with them.
(2) No member of the National Assembly or of its committees may be arrested or charged for any crimes he commits during the session of the National Assembly, unless he be apprehended in flagrant delicto. Nevertheless, where the National Assembly, by a majority vote of those present and voting, revokes his immunity, the member may be charged.
(3) No member of the National Assembly may be arrested or charged for words uttered or written statements submitted by him at any meeting of the National Assembly or any meeting of its committees or any utterance or statement made outside the National Assembly in connection with his duty as member thereof.
(4) The duties, responsibilities, immunities and compensation of the members of the National Assembly shall be determined by law; and all members shall be entitled to the protection of such immunities and shall perform the duties enumerated therein.

Chapter V The Executive

Article 39 The President: Head of State and Government

(1) The President of Eritrea is Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Eritrea.
(2) The executive authority is vested in the President, and shall be exercised, in consultation with the Cabinet, pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution.
(3) The President shall ensure the respect of the Constitution; the integrity of the State; the efficiency and effectiveness of the public service; the interests and safety of all citizens, including the enjoyment of their fundamental rights and freedoms recognized under this Constitution.

Article 40 Qualifications to be a Candidate to the Office of the President

Any member of the National Assembly to be elected President of Eritrea shall be a citizen of Eritrea by birth.

Article 41 Election and Term of Office of the President

(1) The President shall be elected from amongst the members of the National Assembly by a vote of the majority of its members. A candidate for the office of the President must be nominated by at least 20 percent vote of all the members of the National Assembly.
(2) The term of office of the President shall be five years, equal to the term of office of the National Assembly that elects him.
(3) No person shall be elected to hold office of the President for more than two terms.
(4) When the office of the President becomes vacant due to death or resignation of the incumbent or due to the reasons enumerated in Sub-Article 6 of this Article, the Chairman of the National Assembly shall assume the office of the President. The Chairman shall serve as acting President for not more than thirty days, during which time, the National Assembly shall elect another President to serve the remaining term of his predecessor.
(5) The term of office of the person elected to serve as President under Sub-Article 4 of this Article shall not be considered as a full term for purposes of Sub-Article 3 of this Article.
(6) The President may be removed from office by two-thirds majority vote of all members of the National Assembly for the
following reasons:
a) violation of the Constitution or grave violation of the law;
b) conducting himself in a manner which brings the authority or honor of the office of President into ridicule, contempt and disrepute;
c) being incapable of performing the functions of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity.
(7) The procedures for the election and removal of the President from office shall be determined by law.

Article 42 Powers and Duties of the President

The President shall have the following powers and duties:
1. once every year, deliver a speech in the National Assembly on the state of the country and the policies of his government; 2. subject to the provisions of Article 27 hereof, declare state of emergency, and when the defense of the country requires, state of war; 3. summon the National Assembly to an emergency meeting and present his views to it;
4. sign and publish in the Gazette of Eritrean Laws draft laws approved by the National Assembly;
5. ensure the execution of laws and resolutions of the National Assembly;
6. negotiate and sign international agreements and delegate such power;
7. appoint with the approval of the National Assembly, ministers, commissioners, the Auditor-General, head of the National Bank, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and any other person or persons who are required by any other provisions of this Constitution or other laws to be appointed by the President;
8. appoint justices of the Supreme Court upon proposal of the Judicial Service Commission and approval of the National Assembly;
9. appoint judges of the lower courts upon proposal of the Judicial Service Commission;
10. appoint and receive ambassadors and diplomatic representatives;
11. appoint high ranking members of the Armed and the Security Forces;
12. pardon, grant amnesty or reprieve offenders;
13. establish and dissolve such government ministries and departments necessary or expedient for the good governance of Eritrea, in consultation with the Public Service Administration;
14. preside over meetings of the Cabinet and coordinate its activities;
15. present legislative proposals to the National Assembly;
16. confer medals or other honors on citizens, residents and friends of Eritrea in consultation with relevant persons and institutions;
17. pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution, remove any person appointed by him.

Article 43 Immunity from Civil and Criminal Proceedings

Any person holding the office of the President may not be sued in any civil proceedings or charged for a crime, save where such proceedings concern an act done in his official capacity as President or proceedings involving Sub-Article 6(a) and (b) of Article 41 hereof.

Article 44 Privileges to be Given to Former Presidents

Provisions shall be made by law for the privileges that shall be granted to former Presidents.

Article 45 Oath

Upon his election, the President shall take the following oath: "I, ..., swear in the name of the Eritrean martyrs that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of Eritrea and that I will strive with the best of my ability and conscience to serve the people of Eritrea."

Article 46 The Cabinet

(1) There shall be a ministerial Cabinet, which shall be presided by the President.
(2) The President may select ministers from among members of the National Assembly or from among persons who are not members of the National Assembly.
(3) The Cabinet shall assist the President in:
a) directing, supervising and coordinating the affairs of government;
b) conducting study on and preparing the annual budget;
c) conducting study and preparing draft laws to be presented to the National Assembly;
d) conducting study on and preparing policies and plans of government.
(4) The President may issue rules and regulations for the organization, functions and operation of his office, the Cabinet or other government institutions, and for the code of ethics involving officials of the executive branch of government.

Article 47 Ministerial Accountability

(1) All ministers shall be accountable:
a) individually to the President for the administration of their own ministries; and
b) collectively to the National Assembly, through the President, for the administration of the work of the Cabinet.
(2) The National Assembly or its committees may, through the Office of the President, summon any minister to appear before them to question him concerning the policies or operation of his ministry.

Chapter VI The Administration of Justice

　

Article 48 The Judiciary

(1) The judicial power shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in such other lower courts as shall be established by law and shall be exercised in the name of the people pursuant to this Constitution and laws issued there under.
(2) In exercising their judicial power, courts shall be free from direction, control and supervision of any person or authority. Judges shall be subject only to the law, to a judicial code of ethics determined by law and to their conscience.
(3) A person exercising judicial power shall not be liable to any suit for any act or omission in the course of exercising that judicial power.
(4) All organs of the State shall accord to the courts such assistance as they may require to protect their independence and dignity so that they may exercise their judicial power appropriately and effectively pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution and laws issued there under.

Article 49 The Supreme Court

(1) The Supreme Court shall be the court of last resort; and shall be presided by the Chief Justice.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power of:
a) sole jurisdiction of interpreting this Constitution and the constitutionality of any law enacted or any measure undertaken by government; b) sole jurisdiction of hearing and adjudicating upon charges against a President who has been impeached by the National Assembly pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Article 6 (a) and (b) of Article 41 hereof; and c) hearing and adjudicating cases appealed from lower courts pursuant to law.
(3) the organization and operation of the Supreme Court shall be determined by law.
(4) The tenure of justices of the Supreme Court shall be determined by law.

Article 50 Lower Courts

The organization, jurisdiction and the procedures of lower courts and the tenure of their judges shall be determined by law.

Article 51 Oath

Every judge shall take the following oath: "I, ..., swear in the name of the Eritrean martyrs that I will adjudicate in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and laws enacted there under and I will exercise the judicial authority vested in me, subject only to the law and my conscience, without seeking or being enticed by any private gain."

Article 52 Removal of Judges from Office

(1) A judge may be removed from office before the expiry of his tenure of office by the President only, acting on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Sub-Article 2 of this Article for physical or mental incapacity, violation of the law or judicial code of ethics.
(2) The Judicial Service Commission shall investigate whether or not a judge should be removed from office on grounds of those enumerated in Sub-Article 1 of this Article. In case the Judicial Service Commission decides that a judge should be removed from office, it shall present its recommendation to the President.
(3) The President may, on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, suspend from office a judge who is under investigation.

Article 53 The Judicial Service Commission

(1) There shall be established a Judicial Service Commission, which shall be responsible for submitting recommendations for the recruitment of judges and the terms and conditions of their services.
(2) The powers, organization and duties of the Judicial Service Commission shall be determined by law.

Chapter VII Miscellaneous Provisions

Article 54 Auditor General

(1) There shall be an Auditor General who audits the revenues and expenditures and other financial operations of government and who reports annually his findings to the National Assembly.
(2) The Auditor General shall be appointed for five years by the President with the approval of the National Assembly. He shall be accountable to the National Assembly.
(3) The detailed powers, duties and organization of the Auditor General shall be determined by law.

Article 55 National Bank

(1) There shall be a National Bank, which performs the functions of a central bank, controls the financial institutions and manages the national currency.
(2) The National Bank shall have a Governor appointed by the President with the approval of the National Assembly. There shall be a Board of Directors presided by the Governor and whose members shall be appointed by the President.
(3) The detailed powers, duties and organization of the National Bank shall be determined by law.

Article 56 Public Service Administration

(1) There shall be established a Public Service Administration, which shall be responsible for recruitment and selection of civil servants as well as for determining the terms and conditions of their employment including their rights and duties.
(2) The detailed powers, duties and organization of the Public Service Administration shall be determined by law.

Article 57 Electoral Commission

(1) There shall be established an Electoral Commission, operating independently , without interference, which shall, on the basis of the electoral law, ensure that free and fair elections are held and manage their implementation; decide on issues raised in the course of the electoral process; and formulate and implement civic educational programs relating to elections and other
democratic procedures.
(2) An Electoral Commissioner shall be appointed by the President with the approval of the National Assembly.
(3) The detailed powers, duties and organization of the Electoral Commission shall be determined by law.

Article 58 Amendment of the Constitution

(1) A proposal for the amendment of any provision of this Constitution may be initiated and tabled by the President or 50 percent of all the members of the National Assembly.
(2) Any provision of this Constitution may be amended as follows:
a) where the National Assembly by a three-quarters majority vote of all its members proposes an amendment with reference to a specific Article of the Constitution tabled to be amended; and
b) where, one year after it has proposed such an amendment, the National Assembly, after deliberation, approves again the same amendment by four-fifths majority vote of all its members.

An index of African governance

An index of African governance

A rum old mix

The Economist

From happy islands to the swamps of misery

Oct 7th 2010 | Nairobi

ONCE again Africa’s worthiest and perhaps happiest countries, according to Mo Ibrahim’s latest measure of all-round governance, scrutinising data gathered for last year, are offshore. Mauritius is the runaway winner, followed by the Seychelles in second place and Cape Verde fourth (see table). On the African mainland, Botswana, with the advantages of ethnic homogeneity, a small population, diamonds and good leaders, does best, in third place, with South Africa, by far the weightiest country in Africa, fifth. At the other end of the scale, the most wretched land is Somalia, with Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe competing for Africa’s wooden spoon.

[Editor's Note: The worst nations in a chronological order are as follows: 53, Somalia; 52, Chad; 51, Congo; 50, Zimbabwe; 49, Eritrea; 48, Sudan; 47, Central African Rep.; and 46, Equatorial Guinea. For a display of the table visit: The Economist.]

There are no big changes in the pecking order. The yardsticks applied by Mr Ibrahim, a Sudanese-born British telecoms magnate and philanthropist, judge countries on a mix of four main criteria: “safety and the rule of law” (looking at the murder rate and corruption, among other things); “participation and human rights” (that little matter of being able peacefully to chuck out a bad government); “sustainable economic opportunity” (including such things as fiscal management, free markets and inflation); and “human development” (in essence, education and health care).

Some countries do surprisingly well despite their lack of democracy. Tunisia, which is run by a dictator but gives its people a decent life in other respects, comes eighth; Libya, which has one of the nastiest human-rights records in Africa but gives its people loads of welfare, is a respectable 23rd. Others, despite wealth and civil vibrancy, do notably badly. Nigeria is down in 40th place and Angola, though it oozes oil, comes a dismal 43rd. Two countries favoured by many development buffs, Rwanda and Ethiopia, do badly because of their deteriorating human-rights records: Rwanda is in 31st place and Ethiopia in 34th.

In regional and religious terms, it may be noted that Muslim and Maghreb countries do badly on the democracy and human-rights index. Green-minded advocates also think Mr Ibrahim should think of applying a new criterion for managing natural resources and tackling climate change. Urban planning and innovation could also usefully be measured. Particularly pleasing, for Mr Ibrahim and for Africa’s well-wishers at large, is that governments across the continent are taking the table seriously. There is nothing like a bit of naming, shaming and praising.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/17209794?story_id=17209794

Sometimes a “Draw” is Good

Abraham G. Ghiorgis ***

(*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)

On September 21, 2010, the International Crisis Group (ICG) issued its report on Eritrea titled “Eritrea: The Siege State.” The ICG succinctly summarized the Eritrean history in its glories and its failings. To speak for myself, this is the best summary of Eritrea‘s history that I have read. This is an outstanding primer, which one can consume in a single sitting of reading and I could confidently recommend as a worthwhile reading to anyone who wants a quick grasp of the complexities of Eritrea including my college-educated children. That is how valuable I consider this document.

On September 29, 2010 Saleh Younis gave his critical appraisal of the “The Siege State.” I believe Sal did an admirable job; the following major highlights are some of my misgivings on his appraisal.

The Eritrean regime is up to arms against “The Siege State.” This in itself speaks volumes of how the Eritrean regime considers damaging the article is to its persona. Remember, the international community will care about Eritrea if many organizations such as the ICG expose the atrocities of Isaias - the authoritarian leader of Eritrea. If the exposition of the wrongdoings of the Eritrean regime is limited only to that of Eritreans, it will amount to nothing, and no one will take us, democratic Eritreans, seriously. It is also naive to assume that the views of the ICGs and other outsiders will invariably align one hundred percent of the time with the views of the Eritrean liberal democratic opposition. Sad to state but it is a fact that our own Eritrean opposition itself does not have a coherent message and a simple solution to our problems that is acceptable to the overwhelmingly majority of the Eritrean people. This being the case it is not fair to demand such exactitude from non-Eritreans. If we do not recalibrate our views realistically, we will consistently be disappointed and will unnecessarily alienate forces that can be of use for the good of the Eritrean people. I believe the ICG is a formidable force that the Eritrean opposition can make to good use. The ICG has a lot of credibility within the power movers and shakers in the United Nations.

Essentially, the ICG has almost taken the banner of the opposition in exposing the gross abuses of human rights that are taking place in Eritrea under the rule of Isaias in its “The Siege State.” That the ICG views the Eritrean problems in almost exact fashion as democratic Eritreans do should at least entitle us to congratulate ourselves that someone else is also listening to the appeals of the sufferings and pains of the Eritrean people.

Fundamental solutions to Eritrea’s agony can only come from the Eritrean people. Outsiders can only be facilitators. Thus, we should not be discouraged of any solutions that the ICG is proposing if it happens to be to our dislike; instead we should concentrate on their good points at elucidating the fundamental problems of Eritrea -- which undoubtedly “The Siege State” does admirably. If we do that, our mindset will take “The Siege State” as a win for the Eritrean people. To reiterate, the findings of solutions to our problems are up to us Eritreans. No NGO worth its salt proposes a solution that is a win-lose result from the protagonists’ viewpoint. By its very nature an NGO is not in a position and business to directly and bluntly shame one group and elevate the prestige of another group. A good proposal will always be either a draw or a win-win situation, an impossibility in Eritrea. In the current circumstances of the Eritrean liberal democratic opposition, a draw is not bad.

In some instances, I believe that as a rule it is unwise to guess a hazard as to whose pen is behind the contents of an article. This may unwisely bias people against an article despite its excellence, which I believe “The Siege State” is. I hope we are aware of the powerful lessons “Common Sense” played during the American Revolution. That pamphlet was signed "Written by an Englishman." Though unknown to the majority of the “Common Sense” readers at its time of publication, Thomas Paine wrote the pamphlet. The American people read the pamphlet with an open mind, and they gave their verdict based on the merits of the ideas it espoused and not based on the personality of the author behind it.

It sounds that some are suddenly opposed to the concept of “dialogue,” despite the fact that they were at one time messengers of dialogue. This was even when it was clear that the Ethiopian regime was in the wrong for outright rejection of the Eritrean-Ethiopian Boundary Commission’s verdict when it was issued the first time. More Eritreans died in the Eritrean-Ethiopian wars than in the internecine fighting among Eritreans themselves. It is very astounding that they enthusiastically support dialogue with Ethiopia and I might add rightly so, but on the other hand, it seems they oppose certain dialogues among Eritreans. This is either hypocrisy or lack of deep knowledge of the power of dialogue. By any measure, dialogue does not free the Eritrean leadership from any wrongdoing it committed, if one wants to be vindictive and not forgiving. It is foolish to be allergic to the concept of dialogue when outsiders propose it, since invariably that is what they will propose. The wise thing to do is not to out rightly reject dialogue but to come up with creative mechanisms to overcome it in order to make it work for the welfare of the Eritrean people. NGOs are supposedly in the business of peace and thus they see dialogue as a solution. This does not mean they are not doing other things. They are and a perfect example is the UNSC’s sanctions on Eritrea. There are many documents incorporated within the sanctions orders that finally will incriminate Isaias and his lackeys in a court of law for their illegal actions outside Eritrea. This is on top of their lawless activities inside Eritrea. All tools are necessary to dismantle the authoritarian Eritrean regime. If Mandela was able to use dialogue as one of his tools to take to pieces the Apartheid regime, why should one deny the Eritrean people this powerful instrument if used wisely?

Many democratic Eritreans played a bad role during the 1998-2000 war. Some were cheerleaders of the war. This includes some of the top leadership of the PFDJ -- the G15. In essence, the G-15 was a mouthpiece of Isaias. Finally, the G15 publicly recanted its serious errors and seriously apologized to the Eritrean people. Among other things, it appealed for the restoration of the rule of law in Eritrea and it paid a heavy price for its heroic repentance and defiance.

In the Diaspora, the majority of educated Eritreans was for the war and this included some members of the Awate Team itself. Now, after the fact it is not good to self-righteously demand from others to repent for their past sins when one knows for sure that the accusers who try to wear a saintly mantle are not holy themselves. It is about time that the Awate Team practices what it preaches. Otherwise it is hypocrisy and immoral. The Diaspora cheerleaders of the past war were outside the leadership of the Eritrean regime; their cheerleading gave Isaias an undeserved legitimacy and a blank check in his disastrous war with Ethiopia. There is no need to be more saintly and more self-righteous than others are. If people recant for past mistakes, not through mere words as the Awate Team is demanding, but through concrete good deeds then that is priceless in my book. In that regard, as far as I am concerned, no Eritrean has been able to write as an excellent article as “The Siege State”. If the Awate Team so desire then I personally take “The Siege State” as an apology to the Eritrean people, since this mere short pamphlet is a powerful weapon in the domains of those who hold power in the world. We have to have big hearts to help our people who are still supporting Isaias to mend their erroneous ways, and more importantly, we have to forgive, forget, and move positively forward.

The ICG appears to be indecisive on the UNSC’s sanctions on Eritrea, and criticisms on this issue are valid. In fairness however, we also know who was insipid on this very issue when the United Nations imposed sanctions on Eritrea. The Awate Team is on record for opposing the arms embargo part of the sanctions. In fact, I obtusely reprimanded the Team on my article “The UNSC’s Sanctions on Eritrea Revisited.” In fact, I do not see that much of a difference on the position of the sanctions on Eritrea between that of the ICG and that of the Awate Team. It is within the realm of possibility that the Awate Team may have wrongly influenced the ICG to take an ineffective position on the sanctions. You reap what you sow.

Eritrea: The Siege State ***

Eritrea: The Siege State

Africa Report N°163 21 Sep 2010

International Crisis Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Eritrea has been deeply troubled since independence in 1991. Following the devastating war with Ethiopia (1998-2000), an authoritarian, militarised regime has further tightened political space, tolerating neither opposition nor dissent. Relations are difficult with the region and the wider international community. At African Union (AU) behest, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions in 2009 for its support of the Somali Islamic insurgency. It has become, in effect, a siege state, whose government is suspicious of its own population, neighbours and the wider world. Economically crippled at birth, it is a poor country from which tens of thousands of youths are fleeing, forming large asylum-seeking communities in Europe and North America. But Eritrea is an extreme reflection of its region’s rough political environment, not its sole spoiler. More effort to understand the roots of its suspicions and greater engagement rather than further isolation would be a more promising international prescription for dealing with the genuine risks it represents.

The militarism and authoritarianism which now define the political culture have their roots in the region’s violent history. The 30-year war of independence was part of a network of conflicts which devastated north-east Africa. The real significance of that legacy has only become clear in the last decade, as President Isaias Afwerki and a small cohort of ex-fighters have strengthened their grip on power, while suppressing social freedoms and economic development in favour of an agenda centred on an obedient national unity and the notion that Eritrea is surrounded by enemies. Isaias’s supporters, diminishing in number, assert that only he has the vision to guide it through difficult times; the growing ranks of his critics argue that he has hijacked the nation-building process; betrayed the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands who achieved and defended independence, and brought ruin to the country.

Conditions are worsening dramatically. Since the 2001 crackdown that ended a brief period of public debate, jails have been filled with political prisoners and critics, religious dissidents, journalists, draft evaders and failed escapees. Isaias uses the standoff with Ethiopia to justify severe internal discipline and military adventures across the region. Ethiopia has reneged on part of the Algiers Agreement that ended the war, in particular by not accepting what was to have been a special commission’s binding decision on the border. The Security Council’s failure to compel compliance reinforced the sense in Asmara that the international community is inherently hostile. Eritrea subsequently placed restrictions on UN peacekeepers that led to their withdrawal in 2008 from the demilitarised zone between the belligerents, citing total lack of cooperation. Isaias’s foreign policy became even more fixated on forcing Ethiopia to accept the border decision, with proxy warfare rather than conventional diplomacy the favoured tool.

Militarised politics has spilled into foreign policy, the latter frequently involving armed responses and aggressive adventurism at the expense of conventional diplomacy. To date, Eritrea has fought, directly or indirectly, with Ethiopia, Yemen, Djibouti and Sudan and involved itself in various ways in the conflicts in eastern Sudan, Darfur and Somalia. While it asserts that it is pursuing legitimate national security interests and lambasts the U.S. in particular for intervening in the affairs of others, the aggressive approach and abrasive tone have left it increasingly isolated. The willingness of potential friends to consider the legitimacy of at least some of its concerns is diminished by Eritrea’s unwillingness to demilitarise its foreign policy and to make concessions on any level.

The economy has been shattered by the vagaries of regional rainfall, the state’s destruction of the private sector and the huge costs of military mobilisation. Society more broadly is under enormous strain. Remarkably, there have not yet been serious protests, but pressure is building, both inside the borders and in the extensive diaspora, whose remittances have been a major financial support. A range of external opposition groups – though still deeply divided – are lining up against the regime.
To avoid a fresh crisis in the Horn of Africa, the international community and the Eritreans alike will need to demonstrate a new level of imagination and flexibility. It is vital that the international community engages with Eritrea, politically and economically, and rigorously assesses the country’s internal problems as well as its external pressures. Development assistance and improved trade links should be tied to holding long-promised national elections and implementing the long-delayed constitution. At the same time, in particular the UN Security Council should pressure Ethiopia to accept the border ruling. All this is necessary to prevent another failed state from emerging in the Horn. That outcome is otherwise distinctly possible given the widespread lack of support for the government within the country and the deteriorating state of the army, whose ability to either sustain Isaias Afwerki’s regime or to successfully manage regime transition is increasingly questionable.

Nairobi/Brussels, 21 September 2010

Source: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/ethiopia-eritrea/163-eritrea-the-siege-state.aspx

_______________________________________________________

***Note: For a full PDF Report please visit: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/horn-of-africa/ethiopia-eritrea/163%20Eritrea%20The%20Siege%20State.ashx

Praise and Criticize

Abraham G. Ghiorgis
(First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)




First and foremost, I congratulate Mejlis Ibrahim Mukhtar for taking the initiative of amending the Eritrean constitution using a mixture of the 1952 Eritrean Federal constitution and the ratified 1997 Eritrean constitution in his The Eritrean Accord contribution. Rightly you deserve a great praise on this one. Hopefully, others will follow you.

I for one am on record for advocating the use of the ratified 1997 Eritrean constitution to unify the Eritrean people in their quest for establishing the rule of law in Eritrea. See the Rule of Law in Eritrea. This is assuming that it is amended to remove provisions that violate the rule of law such as the allowance of the sole ownership of land by the state. I am not infatuated with the 1997 ratified Eritrean constitution; if the rule of law can be established in Eritrea using an amalgam of the 1952 Eritrean federal constitution and the ratified 1997 constitution so much the better.

Still, I need to stress the fact that on this item, a major one in my book, you are one of the first groups who have finally seen the daylight and the wisdom that using the constitution as a unifying factor is the best method to struggle against the PFDJ. Moreover, only those kinds of constitutions are the solutions to Eritrea's problem – the need to create a state that is governed by a constitutional liberalism. This seems to me a paradigm shift that is a thinking that swings away from the fight for group rights (highlanders versus lowlanders) to the fight for the respect of the rights of individual citizens and the respect of the rights of minorities of all kinds and the fight for the rule of law. The route is the constitution.

Now to the major blunders you committed. At times you seem to personalize issues and view items from highland versus lowland dichotomy and inter-Kebessa conflict (Hamsien v Seraye v Akelguzai) and not examine policies and ideologies in their historical contexts. If you delve into personalities, you will do major errors, and thus lose all credibility you may have and thus you will be unable to convince Eritreans on the major project, for example the harmonizing of the constitutions.

To speak bluntly, most of your points highlighted in bullet items eight to twelve are rubbish, unsubstantiated rumors, and in some instance pure lies and conjectures in order to propagate false theories. These are unworthy to come out from the pens of educated and assuming ethical and rational Eritreans. You assert you are for the rule of law, but on the other hand maybe unconsciously, you propagate fanaticism of regions and religions that are not in tune with the current sociological factors of Eritrea. You also violate rights of privacy and the protection of property rights. Let me bring to your attention two major blunders and pure lies. Unfortunately I will delve into accomplishments of individuals to prove my points, and show you that in essence you have not fully grasped the concepts of the rule of law and the respect of the rights of individual citizens. That includes the respect of the rights of individuals who are not in your group and I might add that includes also people who you may even consider your enemies. The rule of law has to be applied equally to all. Mind you it is not only the state that violates the rights of individuals, many non state actors do so such as you have done in my following examples. The only reason we concentrate on the state is that when the state violates those rights it is worse since the state can go the extra mile and use violence.

First, on item #10: You presented that the firing of so many teachers from Asmara University in mid 1990s is because of the “conflict” between Hamasien and Akleguzai. This seems to me that you are copying the playbook of Isaias Afwerki. I never imagined such an utterance to come out from an opposition group and a liberal one at that. To substantiate your argument, you claim that Andebrhan Woldegiorgis is from Akeleguzai. Nothing is far from the truth; this is a lie of the highest order. I know for a fact that Andebrahan is from Seraye, a village not far from Mendefera. (Disclosure: I myself am from Seraye, from Adi Quala.) In addition, you claim that Andebrahn does not have the academic credentials to run the Asmara University. I have no clue about the academic credentials of the members of your group. What I know is that Andebrhan has a graduate degree from the University of Colorado. At one time he was a lecturer at the Business School at Haile Selassie University. He was a PhD candidate at Harvard University before he joined the EPLF in the field. What more do you want?

Branding a person of something he is not is equivalent to the approbation of his property which is a violation of the rule of law. Property rights do not deal only with land and houses or other tangible properties, but they also deal with intangible properties like once being, intellect and once origin. Spreading falsehood about a person is tantamount to the violation of his property rights and the violation of his privacy. This applies also to people who you may consider are in the “enemy camp,” including Isaias himself. What are the points of the lies then?

Truth be told, Isaias is anti educated Eritreans and thus in order to demolish the Asmara University; he does not need someone from “Akeleguzai,” nor does he need someone with a PhD from Yale University. Isaias only needs an errand boy. I am not here to defend Andebrahn, the least of my concern, I have no idea what his role was in the demolition of the university. I also know the university was demolished much later under a different administrator. I am here to expose a lie despite the fact that it carries the banner of an opposition. I firmly also believe in the concept of the due process of law and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This has nothing to do with Andebrahn being an “Akeleguzetai” or not having “academic credentials” – both counts false. As far as Isaias is concerned that messenger assigned to demolish the university can be from Keren or Agordat or Massawa. If one were to take your analysis to its logical conclusion then one would wrongly characterize it as a conflict between the highlanders and the lowlanders and not face the truth that Isaias is anti high caliber education. And we have seen a lot of that kind of shoddy analysis.

Isaias does not care about Hamasien, nor does he hate Seraye or Akelguzai or Keren or whatever. He cares only about his power, and he will use regionalism or provincial attachments to pursue his interests. I do not believe the Eritrean people are in the game that Isaias plays. Just examine the intermarriages between the highland provinces in your area. The problem is that if you view items through the lens of regionalism or religion you will always fall into the very traps of Isaias – an Eritrean society divided along religious and region lines. If you view it from the point of view of individual citizen rights and not group rights (in this case Akeleguzai and Hamsien) and the rule of law you will not fall into that trap.

Second, on Item 11. You falsely assert that the Eritreans for Liberation in North America (EFLNA) was established when the Ethiopian Army started massacring highland Christians. This is a deliberate lie to falsely accuse that educated Christian highlanders never cared about the plight of their fellow Eritrean lowlanders. EFLNA was established in 1970 when a major massacre took place around Keren when an Ethiopian Army general was ambushed and killed by the ELF. The last time I checked Keren is in the lowlands. The massacre of Christian highlands started around 1975 when the Derg was in full control, about five years after the establishment of the EFLNA. What is the point of the lie? Your mind seems to be so clouded with viewing all issues through the prisms of religion and region that you have become so audacious to distort and falsify facts that are well known to all.

It seems in certain instances you are unable to do a simple fact check. The point is if you are not careful with such simple facts and disseminate such falsehood to the whole world, how can I trust you with other earth shattering and consequential facts to the Eritrean people? Once these untruths are exposed some of your analysis about the so called dichotomy of the Christians and Muslims and the inter-Kebessa squabbling you yourself created in your writing to fit your assumptions that are hinged on falsehoods will crumple down like a house of cards.