Case Details
Cassation Case NO. 204410
Date: June 29, 2021 (Sene 29, 2013 Ethiopian Calendar)
Applicant: Ato Dejene Melesse Bayisa
Respondent: Oromia Attorney General
The wheels of justice often turn on complex legal questions. While many court cases focus on the facts of a specific incident, some delve into the fundamental structure of the legal system itself. Recently, Ethiopia’s highest court, the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, handed down a significant ruling that clarifies which level of government – federal or regional – has the authority to prosecute certain crimes, particularly those related to the country’s vital coffee trade. This decision is not just about one individual’s case; it sets an important precedent regarding the division of powers in Ethiopia’s federal system.
Background of the Case
The case began when Mr. Dejene Melese Baissa was charged in the Oromia Regional State. The charge alleged that he violated the Oromia Regional Government’s Proclamation No. 160/2002, which regulates coffee trade and quality control. Specifically, he was accused of illegally transporting a substantial amount of “Jenfel” coffee (over 300 kg) without a license, caught while traveling by public vehicle.
Mr. Dejene, who was the driver, admitted transporting the coffee but claimed he was told the cargo was corn. Despite his plea of not guilty, the initial regional court (Woreda court) found him guilty based on evidence presented by the prosecution and his inability to present a defense. He was sentenced to 3 years of simple imprisonment and a hefty fine of 50,000 Birr.
He appealed the decision to the Buno Bedele Zone High Court, which upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 2 years imprisonment and a 1,000 Birr fine. Mr. Dejene then appealed to the Oromia Regional Supreme Court, which dismissed his appeal. He further appealed to the Regional Supreme Court’s Cassation Bench, which, by a majority vote, upheld the lower courts’ decisions, although a minority opinion highlighted a potential issue with the original court’s authority.
Arguments Presented
Undeterred, Mr. Dejene brought his case to the Federal Supreme Court’s Cassation Bench. His core arguments focused on fundamental legal errors he believed the lower courts had made and which the regional appeal courts failed to correct.
His primary claim was that the original regional court (Woreda court) lacked the legal authority, or jurisdiction, to hear the case in the first place. He argued that offenses related to coffee trade regulation should fall under federal law and be heard by federal courts, not regional ones lacking specific federal delegation. He also raised concerns about the fairness of his initial trial, alleging it was rushed and that his right to fully defend himself, including cross-examining witnesses, was not adequately protected.
The Cassation Bench’s Decision
The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench examined the case, focusing intently on the jurisdictional question. After reviewing the arguments and relevant laws, the Court delivered a definitive ruling.
The Supreme Court Cassation Bench overturned and annulled the decisions of all the regional courts that had previously heard the case – the original Woreda court judgment, the Zonal High Court’s appeal ruling, and both the Regional Supreme Court’s initial appeal and Cassation decisions.
The Bench concluded that the regional courts did not have the proper legal authority (subject matter jurisdiction) to hear and decide the case.
Reasoning Behind the Verdict
The Court’s reasoning hinged on the fundamental principles of Ethiopia’s federal system as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution divides legislative, executive, and judicial powers between the Federal Government and the Regional States. It also emphasizes the importance of respecting this division.
Crucially, the Court noted that the power to enact criminal law is primarily vested in the Federal House of Peoples’ Representatives. Regional states are empowered to enact criminal laws only on matters not covered by federal criminal legislation.
In this case, both the Oromia Regional Government and the Federal Government had enacted laws concerning coffee quality control and marketing, including provisions for criminal offenses. The Oromia law (Proc. 160/2002) under which Mr. Dejene was charged granted jurisdiction to regional Woreda courts. However, the Federal Government’s law (Proclamation No. 1051/2009) also regulates coffee trade and quality control, includes criminal penalties, and specifically grants jurisdiction for these offenses to the Federal First Instance Courts.
Since the Federal law covered the subject matter of the charge and designated specific federal courts to handle such cases, the Supreme Court reasoned that the Federal law takes precedence. Therefore, the regional Woreda court that originally heard the case lacked the necessary subject matter jurisdiction because the offense, properly considered, falls under the Federal law. The higher regional courts erred by not identifying and correcting this fundamental jurisdictional defect.
The Court clarified that the case concerns the Federal Coffee Quality Control and Marketing Proclamation (No. 1051/2009), not the Oromia Regional Proclamation.
Potential Impact
This ruling provides significant clarity in areas where federal and regional laws might overlap, particularly concerning criminal matters. It reinforces the principle that federal criminal law is paramount when it covers a specific field.
For Mr. Dejene, the immediate impact is considerable: the Court ordered his release from prison upon posting a 20,000 Birr bail, overturning his conviction and sentence. The Court’s order also directed that if the prosecution wishes to pursue the case, the charge must be amended to reflect the applicable Federal proclamation and the case must be handled by the appropriate court with subject matter jurisdiction (likely a regional court exercising delegated federal authority, as permitted by the Constitution). This decision underscores the importance of courts correctly identifying the governing law and possessing the proper jurisdiction before proceeding with a case, ensuring that individuals are prosecuted under the correct legal framework and in the competent court.