The Architecture of Administrative Justice in Ethiopia: An Analysis of Proclamation No. 1183-2020

Introduction: A New Dawn for Transparency

On April 7, 2020, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia marked a significant milestone in its legal and democratic evolution with the enactment of the Federal Administrative Procedure Proclamation No. 1183/2020. Published in the Federal Negarit Gazette, this landmark legislation represents the nation’s most comprehensive effort to codify the principles of administrative justice, transparency, and public accountability. Rooted in the constitutional mandate for a transparent government, the Proclamation establishes a binding legal framework governing how administrative agencies—the engines of the executive branch—create rules and make decisions that directly impact the lives of citizens. It aims to transform the culture of governance from one of administrative discretion to one of legally guided procedure, public participation, and judicial oversight. This chapter will delve into the core tenets of Proclamation No. 1183/2020, examining its procedural requirements for rulemaking, its principles for fair decision-making, and its robust mechanisms for judicial review, which collectively forge a new architecture for administrative justice in Ethiopia.

The Constitutional Mandate for Open Government

The philosophical underpinnings of the Proclamation are explicitly drawn from the 1995 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The preamble unequivocally states, “WHEREAS, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution provides that the working procedure of the Government is to be transparent, and that any Public Official is held accountable for failure in his duties.” This constitutional imperative serves as the foundation upon which the entire legislative structure is built. One of the Proclamation’s primary objectives is to translate this constitutional ideal into actionable law, seeking to “guarantee administrative justice by promoting a culture of transparency and accountability through legally establishing a system of judicial review.” It fundamentally recasts the relationship between the state and the citizen, positioning the public not as passive recipients of government action, but as active participants with enforceable rights.

Scope and Application: Defining the Boundaries of Authority

The Proclamation casts a wide net, asserting its applicability to “all Administrative Agencies” of the federal government. This broad definition, found in Article 3(1), encompasses the executive organs of City Administrations that are accountable to the Federal Government, such as Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa. An “Administrative Agency” is defined as any “Executive Organ of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia duly established by law.”

However, the law carves out specific and notable exemptions. Primarily, it does not apply to the core functions of law enforcement and national security, exempting the “Prosecutor and Police when they perform duties administered by the Criminal Procedure Law and Military and Security Institutions” (Article 3(1)). Yet, this exemption is not absolute. When these same bodies engage in regulatory or service provision functions—such as issuing licenses or setting administrative rules—they are bound by the Proclamation’s procedures for issuing directives and making decisions (Article 3(2)).

A further nuanced exemption is granted to the National Bank of Ethiopia. Recognizing the sensitive and time-critical nature of monetary policy, the Proclamation exempts the Bank from the public notice and comment requirements (Articles 7-10) when it formulates directives concerning the “exchange rate, interest rate of the country and other similar secret issues” (Article 3(3)). This pragmatic exception highlights the law’s attempt to balance the ideals of transparency with the practical necessities of governance.

The Life Cycle of a Directive: From Proposal to Proclamation

A central innovation of the Proclamation is its detailed and rigorous procedure for the issuance of directives—the legislative documents through which agencies exercise power delegated to them by Parliament.

Key Definitions:

• Directive: A “legislative document that is issued by an administrative agency based on delegation of Power…which affects people’s Rights and Interests” (Article 2(2)).
• Administrative Decision: A decision made in an agency’s “day-to-day function” relating to a person’s rights or interests, distinct from the issuance of a directive (Article 2(3)).

The Proclamation establishes a clear, multi-stage process for creating and implementing directives, designed to ensure legality, public engagement, and clarity.

1. Legal Basis and Timeliness: An agency can only issue a directive where it has been explicitly granted the “Power Delegated to it by Law” (Article 4). The law mandates efficiency, requiring that directives which are obligatory be adopted within three months, and all others within a “reasonable period of time” (Article 5).

2. Public Petition and Participation: In a significant move to empower citizens, any person can petition an agency in writing to adopt a directive if it has failed to do so in a timely manner. The agency must then either initiate the process within 30 days or provide a reasoned denial (Article 6). The Proclamation introduces a robust framework for public participation:

• Public Record: Agencies must maintain an accessible public record of all draft directives, public comments, and official responses (Article 7).
• Public Notice: Before adopting a directive, an agency must publish a notice in widely circulated newspapers and on its website, detailing the legal basis, subject matter, and the methods for public participation (Article 8).
• Soliciting and Hearing Comments: Agencies are required to solicit written comments from stakeholders for at least 15 working days (Article 9) and subsequently “organize a public forum open for all interested persons” to gather oral feedback (Article 10).

3. Review, Ratification, and Publication:

• Consideration of Input: Agencies are legally bound to consider all submitted comments and must provide a written justification if they choose to reject them (Article 12).
• Attorney General Review: Before ratification, all draft directives must be sent to the Federal Attorney General for a legal opinion (Article 12).
• Substantial Variance Rule: An agency cannot ratify a directive that is “substantially different” from the draft that was publicized. A major change in scope or the introduction of new obligations necessitates restarting the public consultation process (Article 13).
• Explanatory Statement: Every final directive must be accompanied by an explanatory note detailing its purpose, legal basis, and a summary of public comments and the agency’s response (Article 14).
• Filing and Enforceability: Directives must be registered with the Federal Attorney General to be assigned a serial number. Crucially, a directive “may not be enforced” if it has not been properly filed and posted on the agency’s website (Article 18).

This meticulous process ensures that rulemaking is no longer an opaque, internal affair but a transparent, consultative, and legally grounded procedure.

The Principles of Just Administrative Decision-Making

Beyond rulemaking, the Proclamation establishes a set of core principles to govern the day-to-day administrative decisions of agencies. These principles function as a bill of rights for individuals interacting with the administrative state, ensuring that decisions are fair, reasoned, and lawful.

The Core Principles:

1. Legality: Decisions must not exceed the agency’s legal authority (Article 24).
2. Proportionality: Decision-makers must balance the individual’s interest with the public interest (Article 25).
3. Relevance: Decisions must not be influenced by irrelevant facts or interests (Article 26).
4. Professionalism and Diligence: Decisions must adhere to ethical standards and professional care (Article 27).
5. Right to be Heard: Agencies must provide an “adequate opportunity of hearing” to affected persons (Article 28).
6. Good Faith: Decisions must be made honestly and without improper motive (Article 29).
7. Reasoned Decisions: All decisions must be accompanied by an “adequate reason” (Article 30).
8. Impartiality: Decision-makers must recuse themselves in cases of conflict of interest (Article 31).
9. Equality: Decisions must be free from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, political view, or any other ground (Article 32).
10. Timeliness: Decisions must be made without undue delay (Article 33).
11. Predictability: Similar facts should lead to similar decisions, ensuring consistency (Article 34).
12. Transparency: The decision-making process itself must be open and clear (Article 35).

These principles collectively require that administrative actions be justifiable both in procedure and in substance. Written decisions must be comprehensive, detailing the facts, the law, and the reasoning that led to the final outcome (Article 40), and must be formally communicated to the affected person (Article 39).

The Citizen’s Right to be Heard: Complaints and Judicial Review

The Proclamation’s most powerful enforcement mechanism is its creation of a clear pathway for citizens to challenge administrative actions through internal complaints and, ultimately, judicial review.

Internal Complaints: Any person aggrieved by an administrative decision has the right to lodge a complaint with the agency itself. Each agency is mandated to establish a dedicated “complaint handling division” (Article 44). A key provision is the stay of enforcement: a decision under complaint is automatically suspended until the process is complete, unless a delay would cause “irreversible damage to public interest” (Article 45).

Judicial Review: When internal remedies are exhausted or unduly delayed, the courthouse doors are opened. The Proclamation grants any “interested person” the right to petition the Federal High Court for judicial review of both directives and administrative decisions (Article 48). To handle this new caseload, the court is required to establish “special benches dedicated to handle petitions for judicial review” (Article 49).

The grounds for judicial review are clearly defined:

• For Directives: A court can revoke a directive if it was created without following the proper procedures, if it is ultravires (beyond the agency’s delegated authority), or if it violates a law higher in the legal hierarchy (Article 50).
• For Administrative Decisions: A court can revoke a decision if it was made in violation of the core principles of decision-making outlined in Chapter Three (e.g., lack of a hearing, bad faith, discrimination) (Article 50).

A final but critical rule protects the stability of past actions: if a court revokes a directive, administrative decisions that were made based on that directive before the court’s ruling remain valid (Article 57(4)). This prevents administrative chaos while still correcting unlawful rules for the future.

Conclusion: Institutionalizing a Culture of Accountability

Proclamation No. 1183/2020 is more than a mere procedural manual; it is a transformative legal instrument designed to rebalance power between the administrative state and the people it serves. By mandating transparency in rulemaking, entrenching principles of fairness in decision-making, and guaranteeing a right to judicial oversight, the Proclamation institutionalizes a culture of accountability. It provides citizens, businesses, and civil society with the legal tools to demand that government agencies operate within the bounds of the law, justify their actions with reason, and remain open to public scrutiny. The ultimate success of this ambitious reform will depend on its vigorous implementation by administrative agencies, its vigilant enforcement by the judiciary, and its active use by an engaged citizenry. Nevertheless, its enactment has laid an indispensable foundation for a more just, transparent, and accountable government in Ethiopia.