Introduction: Language, Clarity, and Judicial Accessibility
The language of judicial decisions is paramount to ensuring clarity, accessibility, and public trust in the justice system. In a multilingual nation like Ethiopia, where Amharic is the federal working language and the primary language of judicial proceedings, the role of other languages, particularly English, in legal texts becomes a critical point of discussion. This chapter examines the pervasive use of English words and phrases in the judgments, commentaries, and analyses of the Ethiopian Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench. It will critically assess the impact of this linguistic intermingling on judicial clarity, litigant comprehension, and the fundamental principles of statutory interpretation, especially when discrepancies arise between Amharic and English versions of laws.
The judgments, commentaries, and analyses of the Cassation Bench are often replete with English words. Some decisions resemble graduate theses with interspersed Amharic phrases. In a few instances, English appears to dominate the majority of the judgment, as if Amharic is included merely for reference.
Clarity is one of the foremost principles of judicial writing. This demands adherence to the grammatical rules of the language and the use of simple expressions that litigants can understand. Mixing English with Amharic in judgments does little more than compromise clarity. When English is added, the ideas that litigants understood from the Amharic sentences become confusing. They are left grappling with doubt and ambiguity, wondering, “What could this mean?”
English is used in Cassation Bench decisions in two main ways: sometimes, a clear Amharic sentence or phrase is followed by its English equivalent in parentheses. At other times, the English term is included as part of the judgment without an accompanying Amharic definition. The first creates redundant messages, while the second results in incomplete messages, both undermining clarity.
Unnecessary and Obscuring English Usage
In several Cassation Bench decisions, the English expressions are not only superfluous and unnecessary but also, in some instances, distort the Amharic meaning.
- Cassation File No. 42239, Volume 10: “It is evident that one of the primary objectives of the cassation system is to ensure the existence of a uniform interpretation and application of the law (Uniform interpretation and application of the law) within a country.”
- Critique: The English phrase “Uniform interpretation and application of the law” merely repeats the preceding Amharic phrase in a different language, adding no new meaning and potentially distracting the reader.
- Cassation File No. 45548, Volume 13: “When we connect this to the case at hand, as long as they are considered two wives, by operation of the law (by operation of the law), they shall have the right to share equally the property they acquired with their husband.”
- Critique: Similar to the above, “by operation of the law” is a direct translation of the Amharic phrase and adds redundancy without enhancing clarity.
- Cassation File No. 35946, Volume 8: “However, in the present case, issuing an order for the opponent to appear after witnesses have been heard restricts the opponent’s right to confront witnesses (The right to confront witnesses) and indicates a significant procedural defect.”
- Critique: The English phrase “The right to confront witnesses” is a legal term that is well-understood in Amharic in this context. Its inclusion in parentheses is unnecessary and can be seen as an academic flourish rather than a tool for clarity.
- Cassation File No. 08751, Volume 6: “Furthermore, the newly discovered evidence must substantially affect the merit of the case (Substantially affects the merit of the case).”
- Critique: Again, the English phrase is a direct translation and adds no substantive value. The Amharic alone is sufficient.
These examples demonstrate a tendency to insert English equivalents even when the Amharic expression is perfectly clear and adequate. This practice can be perceived as an affectation that, rather than aiding comprehension, introduces an element of academic pretension that detracts from the plain language ideal of judicial pronouncements.
English Without Amharic Equivalents: A Barrier to Comprehension
A more problematic practice is the inclusion of English phrases or sentences without any accompanying Amharic definition or explanation. This creates an incomplete message, leaving Amharic-speaking litigants and even some legal professionals bewildered.
- Cassation File No. 65930, Volume 12: “When experts (Experts) and lay witnesses are presented and heard in a civil case, the principle of evidence appraisal ‘In the civil context… lay evidence should not be preferred to expert evidence without good reason’ should be followed.”
- Critique: The entire English sentence is inserted without an Amharic equivalent, leaving a significant portion of the legal reasoning inaccessible to Amharic-only speakers.
- Cassation File No. 11924, Volume 3: “If the employer is the one who presented the argument that enabled the issue to be framed, then it is imperative that they first explain this argument. This will be consistent with the expression ‘the one who alleges in the affirmative shall prove it.'”
- Critique: The Latin maxim, rendered in English, is a fundamental principle of evidence. While legal professionals might understand it, its direct insertion without an Amharic explanation makes the judgment opaque to the common litigant.
- Cassation File No. 36730, Volume 9: “This interpretation is not only adopted by us but also by countries with developed legal systems, which follow the interpretation that ‘Limitation periods are to be construed strictly so as not to take away the right of the plaintiffs.'”
- Critique: Similar to the previous example, a key principle of statutory interpretation is presented entirely in English, limiting its accessibility.
When these decisions are read in court, it is not difficult to imagine the thoughts of an Amharic-speaking plaintiff or defendant, whose ears are not accustomed to English, with their eyes fixed on the five judges. They would be confused on the day of the decision, the day of truth, when they should feel relief, whether in joy or sorrow (as the saying goes, “nothing like knowing the definite”). Since they do not know English, they remain bewildered. This practice undermines the fundamental right to understand the judgment in one’s own language and compromises the transparency of the judicial process.
Amharic and English Copies of Laws: The Challenge of Discrepancy
Article 2, Sub-article 4 of the Federal Negarit Gazeta Establishment Proclamation No. 3/1987 stipulates that all laws issued by the Federal Government must be published in the Federal Negarit Gazeta in both Amharic and English languages. The reason for the inclusion of an English version alongside the Amharic in Ethiopia differs from the necessity of bilingual legislation in other countries (e.g., Canada). Consequently, the legal interpretation approach we follow when discrepancies arise between the two versions is not similar to that of such countries.
In Canada, all laws issued by the federal government, Quebec, and two other provinces must be prepared and published in both English and French. This is because the population speaks one of these two languages. Therefore, great care is taken to prevent discrepancies in content between the two versions. Even if a discrepancy occurs, the law is interpreted without preferring one version over the other. To maintain an equal balance between the versions, courts follow an interpretive approach called the “Shared Meaning Rule.” According to this rule, the interpretation shared by both languages is given effect. If there is no shared interpretation, the primary objective of the law and the policy it intended to achieve, and if necessary, external references (legislative history, explanations and discussions during the legislative process, scholarly works, and international laws) are taken into account, and only the interpretation of one version may be applied.
In Ethiopia, however, laws are not drafted in two languages; they are merely published in two languages. All public discussions on laws and debates conducted by the legislature are carried out in Amharic. The English version serves no more than to translate the Amharic. Its necessity stems from the fact that legal education in the country is conducted in English, and incidentally, to make it accessible to foreign nationals. Consequently, the interpretive approach we follow, as clearly stipulated in Article 2, Sub-article 4 of Proclamation No. 3/1987, is the “Paramountcy Rule” of the Amharic version. Therefore, when a discrepancy in content arises between the two versions, the Amharic version shall prevail.
At this point, an argument might be made that if the content of the Amharic version makes no sense or is confusing, the English version should be applied. However, this argument is inconsistent with the clear language of the Amharic Paramountcy Rule stipulated in Proclamation No. 3/1987. A law requires interpretation when it lacks clarity. In the process of interpretation, various interpretive methods assist the interpreting body in reaching a conclusion. Through this approach, a provision deemed to make no sense is interpreted to acquire meaning. A confusing provision is made to acquire a comprehensible content. The finding reached at the end of the process might align with the content of the English version. However, this does not mean that English has been given supremacy. Rather, it is a convergence of interpretations. Therefore, when there is a difference between the versions, only the Amharic version needs and should be interpreted. When it is said that Amharic shall prevail, it means not only when it is clear but also when it lacks clarity. Therefore, the content that emerges when the defect is rectified and read shall prevail.
However, in the three files mentioned above, as well as in other files, when the English version has a different content from the Amharic, the English content is accepted. Yet, there is no convincing legal reason for this type of legal interpretation. It is difficult to assert that such an interpretation has binding force on lower courts. This is because just as the Cassation Bench rendered decisions by stating, “When we look at the English version…”, lower courts would have no satisfactory reason to prevent them from rendering decisions by stating, “When we look at the Amharic version…”. This practice directly undermines the legislative intent behind the paramountcy rule and introduces significant uncertainty into the application of law.
Conclusion: The Imperative for Linguistic Discipline
The extensive and often undisciplined use of English in the Cassation Bench’s judgments poses significant challenges to judicial clarity, accessibility, and the consistent application of law in Ethiopia. While English plays a role in legal education and international engagement, its integration into judicial pronouncements must be carefully managed to avoid confusing litigants and undermining the primacy of Amharic as the language of the court.
To address these issues, the Cassation Bench should:
- Prioritize Plain Amharic Language: Strive to use clear, concise Amharic that is readily understandable by the general public, avoiding unnecessary English insertions.
- Limit English Usage to Essential Terms: If English terms are absolutely necessary (e.g., for technical legal concepts without direct Amharic equivalents), they should always be accompanied by clear Amharic explanations.
- Strictly Adhere to the Paramountcy Rule: In cases of discrepancy between Amharic and English versions of laws, the Cassation Bench must consistently apply the Amharic Paramountcy Rule as stipulated in Proclamation No. 3/1987, providing clear legal reasoning for its interpretation of the Amharic text.
- Avoid Implicit Preference for English: The practice of implicitly favoring the English version without explicit legal justification must cease, as it creates ambiguity and undermines the hierarchy of legal texts.
By adopting a more disciplined and principled approach to language use, the Cassation Bench can enhance the transparency and accessibility of its decisions, thereby strengthening public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the Ethiopian justice system.