Law of criminal procedure Lecture Notes

1. CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL OVERVIEW
 Definition of Criminal Procedure
 The rules governing the mechanisms, under
which crimes are investigated, prosecuted,
adjudicated, and punished.
 It includes the protection of accused persons'
constitutional rights.
 What makes it different from civil procedure?
 Public Nature
 Parties involved
 Its end result( Penalty Vs compensation)

2. Functions of Criminal procedure
1.Enforcement of the Criminal Law
 The purpose of the Criminal law is to protect
peace, order and security of the state.
 In order to achieve this, the criminal law
prescribe acts which are punishable.
 These punishable acts are meaningless if they are
not enforced.
 Cr. Pr., therefore, Serves as a means to such ends.

3. 2. Independent Functions
 Allocating power among the actors
 The police
 The judge
 The Prosecutor
 Limiting the State power( fair process)
 It also prescribes the rights of the Suspect and
the duties of the actors.
 By doing so, it protects the helpless suspect from
the mighty force of the state.

4. The Question is?
 Are the two functions Complementary?
 For which we should give priority, if not?
 The enforcement of the substantive law may neglect
the fairness process.
 The fairness principle may harm enforcement of the
substantive law. So What?
 Which must be prioritized? What is the way out?

5. Models of Criminal Justice Systems
 Criminal justice system has dual purposes.
 Protection of the public against criminal harm.
 Protecting the accused against unfair treatment.
 It is not easy to reconcile theses two competing and, at
times, conflicting values.
 A state is expected to strike the balance between the
two.
 But, it is unthinkable to achieve absolute balance.
 The balance could tilt towards one over the other.
 Depending upon the approach of the state towards
the two interests, two models of criminal justice
system have been developed. due process model and

6. The Crime Control Model
 According to the crime control model priority must be given to
the law enforcement purpose over the fairness purpose.
 Repression of the criminal conduct is very important.
 The investigation is conducted to get plea of guilty.
 The police should strive to extract confession.
 The police plays a central role in investigation due to,
 Resource are very limited.
 There are challenges to the Governments case.
 According to the model
 Mistake may be committed while identifying the guilt.
 Conviction of the innocent person is not seen as a problem.
 It would be better to convict one innocent rather than letting
free ten guilty individuals

7. The due process model
 The Due process model give priority to the fairness of
the proceeding.( independent function)
 The due process model is distinguished for its
emphasis on the avoidance of convicting innocent.
 It tolerates the escape of criminals for the sake of not
harming innocents.
 This may affect the public interest as offenders are
sent free.
 Ten guilty men should escape rather than one
innocent man should suffer.

8. Comparing the Two
 Crime Control Model
 More efficient in
repression.
 Poorly protect rights
 Poorly bring equality
 More conviction of
innocent
 Less likely to let the
guilty free
 Due Proceeds Model
 Less efficient in
repression.
 Better to protect rights.
 Better to bring equality.
 Less conviction of
innocent.
 More likely to let the
guilty free.

9. So What?
 Herbert Packer “The Polarity between the two models
is not absolute and that the ideology of one is not the
converse of the other and, therefore, it would be
wrong to support one to the exclusion to the other.”
 Smith “Crime control model is concerned with the
fundamental goal of the criminal justice system,
where as due process is concerned with setting limit to
the pursuit of this goal. Therefore due process is not a
goal in itself.”
 Awtosh “ The two models can be reconciled in such
manner that crime control is the underlining purpose
of the system. But the pursuit of this purpose should
be qualified by respecting the due process.”

10. Systems of Criminal procedure
 Every state wants to apprehend and adjudicate those who
violated the criminal law.
 There are two major criminal procedure systems: adversarial and
inquisitorial.
 Their difference lies in the selection of the appropriate
procedures and processes for effectively detecting and
prosecuting criminals.
 Generally, common law systems follow the
adversarial(accusatorial) and civil law countries follow the
inquisitorial approach.
 Advocates of the adversarial systems of justice believe that the
competition between the two parties is the best process for
obtaining truth.
 Advocates of the non-adversarial system believe that judicial
control of the investigative process is the best way to uncover the
truth.

11. Their differences
 Adversarial
 Emphasize the screening phase & Judges are referee
 The defendant is not expected to be cooperative.
 There is written and codified evidence law
 They focus on oral evidence and heavily allow cross examination
 One can be a witness for his case
 Allow hearsay evidence
 Inquisitorial
 Emphasize the trial phase, & The Judges directly involve.
 The defendant is expected ( though not required) to cooperate.
 That cooperation includes supplying information to investigators
and answering questions at trial.
 Their evidence rules are scattered in different laws
 They focus on documentary evidence
 One cannot a witness for his case.

12. The reality?
 In reality it is not possible to find a purely adversarial
or a purely inquisitorial system.
 The U.S system a purely adversarial system required
the accused to assist the government in the truth
finding process
 No jurisdiction with an inquestoral system expressly
authorize compulsory self incrimination.
 In practice, therefore, the question is not whether the
criminal justice system is an adversarial or
inquisitorial rather it is whether it is more of one of
the other.

13. The reality…..
 John Merryman.
 “In a sense, it can be said that the evaluation of
criminal procedure in the last two centuries in the
civil law world has been away from the extremes
and abuses of the inquisitorial system, and that
the evolution in the common law world during the
same period has been away from the abuses and
excesses of the adversarial system.
 The two systems, in other words, are converging
from different directions toward roughly
equivalent mixed systems of criminal procedure.”

14. The reality…
 Besides, it is mistaken to conclude that one is apt to
favor suspects or accused and the other society.
 Each system has mechanisms to strike a balance
between the interest of individuals and the public.
 The efficiency and effectiveness of a system has to be
seen on a case by case basis.
 Ascertaining the system opted by a country is not
simple.
 The laws and practices of the justice sectors have to be
explored.
 It also depends on the resource we allocate for
investigation.

15. What about Ethiopia?
 Ethiopia seems also to follow the mix of both
 Our substantive laws seems to derived from the
continental legal system
 The procedural laws are mainly from the common
law legal system.
 So we can say that Ethiopia criminal system is the
mix of both criminal justice systems.

16. Fundamental Principles of
Criminal Procedure.
 The fundamental principles encountered in a
modern criminal justice system include
presumption of innocence, freedom from self-
incrimination, fair trial, speedy trial, public trial,
the right to defense counsel, equality, legality,
rule of law, due process of law, etc.
 These are universal values to be incorporated in
any modern criminal justice system. They are also
part of the UDHR and ICCPR.

17. Presumption of innocence
 It requires agents of the state to treat a suspect or
defendant in the criminal process as if he were in
fact innocent.
 It applies only to agents of the state, and only
during the criminal process.
 It does not determine the amount of evidence
necessary to find a defendant guilty.
 It protects suspects and defendants from specific
dangers inherent in the criminal process.

18. Freedom from self-incrimination
 The privilege against self-incrimination confers
immunity from an obligation to provide
information tending to prove one’s own guilt.
 A person is not bound to answer any question or
produce any document or thing if that material
would have a tendency to expose that person to
conviction for a crime.

19. Fair Trial
 This principle dictates that criminal trails be fair
to both contesting parties.
 Both parties must have the opportunity to
 Be heard in the criminal Proceeding
 Present their evidence,
 Cross examine their opposing parties.
 Especially this principle dictates that the suspect
rights must be respected from the mighty force of
the government in using the rights stated here in
above.

20. Speedy trial
 Once a person is suspected to have committed a
certain crime, there is a public interest in ascertaining
the validity of the suspicion with out an necessary
delay.
 This is commonly referred to as the right to speedy
trail.
 The speedy completion of a criminal proceeding is
justified by substantive and procedural grounds.
 The completion of the proceeding without
unnecessary delay serves both the public as well as the
individual suspected interest.
 Speedy trail allows the convicted to be punished

21. Public Trial
 This principle calls for the trail to be conducted
publicly in the presence of all the interested groups.
 Publicity gives an opportunity to the public to check
whether the court is satisfied with the competent
judges and functions impartially and independently.
 It makes the judges conduct their business carefully.
 Publicity of the hearing ensures the transparency of
the proceeding and thus provides an important
safeguard for the interest of the individual and of the
society at large.

22. The right to defense counsel
 This principle facilitate the opportunity to
consult a lawyer to the accused.
 Where the interest of justice so requires the
accused has the right to assigned legal assistance.
 If he find a lawyer himself and covers the
expense, he is always free to do so
 But when the accused is not in the position even
to find a lawyer, the state has a duty to find one of
him where the interest of the justice so requires.

23. Equality & legality
 Criminal law applies to all alike without
discrimination based on persons, social conditions,
race, nation, nationality, social origin, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion,
property, birth or other status.
 Criminal law specifies the various crimes, and the
penalties and measures applicable to criminals.
 The Court cannot treat as a crime and punish any act
or omission which is not prohibited by law.
 The Court cannot impose penalties or measures other
than those prescribed by law.
 The Court cannot create crimes by analogy.

24. Due process of law
 Pursuant to this principle every thing must be conducted
according to the established laws and procedures.
 Substantive due process refers to the content or subject
matter of a law. It protects people against unreasonable
and arbitrary laws or acts of government.
 Procedural due process is concerned with the procedures
that are required before the life, liberty, or property of a
person may be taken by the government.
 Procedural due process requires the following:
 Notice of the proceedings
 A hearing
 Opportunity to present defense
 An impartial tribunal
 An atmosphere of fairness

25. CHAPTER TWO
Setting Justice in Motion: Starting Investigation
and Prosecution.
 Setting Justice in Motion in the Criminal procedure refers
to making the justice machinery start operating with
respect to a particular offence.( Art 11, 13,19,20,21 Cr. Pr.)
 So the justice will be set in motion when citizens report a
criminal acts to the police.
 Such a report could be a right or duty.(Art 11)
 Under normal circumstance reporting is a right.
 There are times when reporting is a duty as per the
following provisions of the Criminal Code.
 Art. 254( crimes against the constitutional order)
 Art. 335 ( Crime of mutiny)
 Art.443(Any crime punishable by death or rigorous
impressments for life.)

26. The question is
 Art. 11 of the Cr. Pr. impose a duty to report while Art.
446& 447 of the Cr.co. criminalize false accusation.
 Then How such conflict will be solved?
 Art. 446& 447 of the Cr. Co. And Art.18 Cr. Pr. are
punishable for only intentional false accusations.
 Therefore, if citizens report to the police in the
absence of intended false accusations, they will not be
punished.
 The Justice will be set in motion in three ways
 Formal Complaint
 Accusation
 Flagrant offences

27. Formal Complaint(Art13)
 These are offences punishable only when the victim
or his relatives lodge complaint to the police.
 Such offences are considered not against the wider
public interest( Defamation, intimidation, Insulting
and etc.)
 For such provisions the Cr. Co. itself says that they are
punishable upon formal complaint.
 Can the parties stop once the investigation started by their
agreement?
 The period of limitations for such offences is Three month
and in no way the victim lodge complaint after two years.

28. Accusations
 For all cases which are out of the Private interests
the justice is set in motion when the accusation is
logged before a police officer or when the police
officer or any other individual witnessed a
flagrant offences.
 Art 11.accusation in general
 Art.12. anonymous accusation
 Art 15. accusation against unknown offender

29. Flagrant Offences( Art.19 & 20)
1. Flagrant offences.( Art.19(1)
 The normal case of flagrant offence will happen when the
offender is found
 Committing
 Attempting to commit the offence or
 Has just committed the offence.
2. Quasi-flagrant Art (2)
 The offender who has escaped is being chased by witnesses or
 When a hue and cry has been raised.
3. Assimilated cases.( Art. 20)
 The police are immediately called to the place where the
offence has been committed; or
 A cry for help has been raised from the place where the
offence is being or has been committed.

30. Accusation unnecessary( Art 21)
 When the offence is flagrant accusation is not
necessary to set the justice in motion.
 But when the flagrant offence is punishable upon
formal complaint the victim must first lodge the
complaint.
 Even any individual witnessing the commission of
the offence could arrest the suspect with out
warrant in the case of flagrant offence.

31. Duty to Investigate
 Whenever the police know or suspect that an
offence has been committed, they shall proceed
to investigate .( Art. 22)
 Investigating police officers shall carry out their
duties notwithstanding that they are of opinion
that the accusation, complaint or information
they may have received is open to doubt. (Art. 23)

32. Recording of Statement (Art. 24.)
 After having recorded an accusation or complaint in
the manner laid down in Art. 14,the investigating
police officer shall elicit from the person making the
accusation or complaint all relevant facts and dates,
the name or description of the offender.
 The names and addresses of principal witnesses and
all other evidence which may be available and be
recorded.
 Where the investigating police officer has reason to
believe that a person has committed an offence, be
may by written-summons require such person to
appear before him. (Art. 25.)

33. Procedure after arrest( Art 29&
30)
 The police shall bring him before the nearest court
within forty-eight hours of his arrest.
 The time taken in the journey to the court shall not be
included.
 The court may make any order it thinks fit.
 The investigating police officer may, where necessary,
summon and examine any person likely to give
information.
 Such a person shall be bound to answer truthfully all
questions put to him.
 He may refuse to answer any question the answer to
which would have a tendency to expose him to a

34. Diary& report of investigation
 Investigation diary shall have( Art 36)
 The day on which he started and closed his investigation
 All the steps taken in the course of the investigation
 The circumstances which the investigation disclosed
 All the means of evidence which may have been collected.
 Any order received from a court or the public prosecutor.
 The investigation shall be completed without unnecessary
delay.
 The investigating report shall have( Art37)
 The name of the parties;
 The nature of the information;
 The names of all persons who appear to be acquainted with the
case;
 All evidence which have been collected.

35. Arrest ( Art.26 & 49)
 Where the accused or the suspect has not been
arrested and the offence is such as to justify arrest
or where the person summoned under Art. 25 fails
to appear, the investigating police officer shall
take such steps as are necessary to effect his
arrest.
 Where the arrest cannot be made without
warrant, the investigating police officer shall
apply to the court for a warrant of arrest in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 53.

36. Substantive requirement for Arrest
 For the liberty of a person to be restricted there is
certain level of suspicion that the Cr. Pr. Co and
other relevant laws require.
 The central requirement for all arrest with or with
out warrant is the existence of” reasonable
suspicion” or “ having a reason to believe” that a
person to be arrested has evolved in the
commission of a crime to be investigated.

37. Objective or Subjective criteria?
 Under Art.51(1)a of the cr.pr and Art. 19 of the Anti-
terrorism proclamation the arresting police
officer must believe that the person to be arrested
has committed a crime. This is subjective criteria.
 In Art. 25 and 51(1) e, g &h of the Cr. Pr. Co. and Art
6(1) of the Vagrancy control proclamation the
suspicion or believe that a person has committed
a crime must be reasonable. This is an objective
criteria.

38. Procedural requirements
 Arrest could be made either with or without warrant.
 Under normal circumstances a suspect is to be
arrested with prior authorization by court. (Art. 49)
 Arrest as a restriction to the right to liberty.
 Arrest as the exception to the right to liberty
 Arrest without warrant as exception to the exception.
 No one will be deprived of his or her liberty except.
(Art 17 FDRE constitution)
 On procedure as established by law.
 A charge or conviction against him.

39. Arrest With Warrant
 Arrest with warrant is required when two conditions are
fulfilled( Art 54)
 The attendance of a person is absolutely necessary
 There is no another option.
 It would be absolutely necessary for
 Interrogation
 Physical examination
 Forensic investigation
 There is no other options if the available options are
exhausted such as arresting through summon and other
peace full submissions.
 The problem of Article 54 is that it takes the attendance of
the accused before the court rather than before the
Investigative police.

40. Arrest Without Warrant
 A police may arrest a suspect in two ways without
warrant
 By issuing a summon(Art.25)
 By going directly to the place where the suspect is
found.( art.56)
 Arrest with summon( Art. 25 & 54)
 The police may by written-summons require the suspect
to appear before him.
 The reason for summon is to arrest the suspect.
 Once a person appears he his treated as an arrested
person.

41. Arrest without summon
 Flagrant offences( Art 21(2) and Art. 50
The two requirement that must be fulfilled in
addition to flagrancy are:
 Non complaint offences
 Punishable for not less than three months
 Non- Flagrant cases
 when the police has a reason to believe that the
offender has committed an offence stated in
 Art.51(1) Cr. Pr.
 Art.19(1) of the anti terrorism proclamation
 Art.6(1) of the Vagrancy Control Proclamation.

42. Effecting Arrest( Art 56)
 The police officer making an arrest shall first
establish the identity of the person to be arrested.
 Where the arrest is made with a warrant the officer
shall,
 Read out the warrant to the person to be arrested and
 Show it to the person arrested if he so requests.
 Actually touch or confine the body of the suspect if
there no submission.
 Use proportionate force to effect the arrest if resisted.
 The problem of this article is that it assumes that the
police is the only person empowered to arrest.

43. Release on bond by the
investigating police(Art.28)
 The investigating police officer can relies the suspect on
bond if
 The offence is not punishable with rigorous imprisonment as a
sole or alternative punishment.
 It is doubtful that an offence has been committed or
 It is doubtful that the summoned or arrested person has
committed the offence.
 The same conditions are laid in Art.4(2) Of Anti
corruption special rules of evidence proclamation( pro
434/ 235.
 If not the suspect can apply to the court as per Art. 64.
 But what if the police officer is fully convinced that the
suspect did not commit the said offence? Can he release

44. Right of Persons Arrested
 The Rights of Arrested Person( Art.19 of the FDRE Co.)
 The right to be informed the reasons for their arrest.
 The right to remain silent and to be informed that.
 The right to be brought before a court within 48 hrs.
 The right to petition to order their physical release
 Not be compelled to make confessions.
 Be released on bail except some case .
 This rights have also been recognized in ICCPR Art.
9(1)

45. Interrogation
 A person is arrested when he is reasonably
suspected to have committed a crime.
 One of the reason for arresting a suspect is to
obtain evidence from him.
 The most common means of obtaining evidence
from the suspect is interrogation.
 After that the police is directed to extracting
confession.
 Confession is considered the queen of evidence if
given voluntarily and Legally.

46. Interrogation by the police(
Art.27)
 Any person summoned will be asked to answer
the accusation or complaint.
 He has the right.
 Not be compelled to answer
 Be informed that he has the right not to answer
 Be informed that the statement will be used as
evidence.
 be supplied with a competent interpreter.
 Any statement will be recorded.

47. Confession or statement in court
( Art.35)
 Any court may record a confession made to it
 Such record must only be made voluntarily.
 A note to this effect shall be made on it.
 It must be recorded, read ,signed and dated.
 It shall be signed by the president of the court.

48. The Question is?
 What is the suspect deny before a court what he
admitted in interrogation?
 Then can we only use the confession of the
suspect as evidence?
 What is the experience of different states in this
regard?
 What about the draft evidence rule?

49. The supreme court cases
 P/Prosecutor Vs Tamratlayne et al(F.N 001/1989)
 In this case the accused persons were charged with
corruption and other related crimes.
 Among the evidence presented there existed a
statement of confession made to the police.
 The defense lawyers raised that confession made to
the police is not admissible under the Ethiopian
law.
 The court rejected the objection saying that “there
is no clear cut law that prohibit the confession
made to police and there is procedural as well as
constitutional provisions which support the

50. P/Prosecutor Vs Leykun
(A.N.6359/1994
 The Suspect denied before the court what he
confessed to the police but the p/prosecutor
corroborated by other evidence.
 The supreme court convicted the accused saying
“The accused simply changed his mind and there
is also additional evidence.’’

51. P/Prosecutor Vs Sisay (A.N. 17739/1997)
 The Suspect denied before the H/court what he
confessed to the police.
 The court ordered the accused to defend only
based on the police confession.
 The defendant produced his denial before the
court. But the court convicted him only on the
confession to the police.
 But the Supreme court reversed the judgments
saying, “The denial of the accused before the court
is sufficient.”

52. Rights related to Interrogation
Right to silence and to be informed that
 The law want to serve two purposes by
guarantying the right to remain silent.
There is high chance that the Arrestee will not
know they have such rights and the effects of
their words could have on their cases. The law
ensures that they will not be victims of their own
ignorance of the law.
When the suspect hears the officer telling him
that he has the right to remain silent, he will have
confidence that the officer is ready to respect his
right.

53. Experience of other countries.
 In France, although the suspect is not bound to
answer all the questions they do not have the
right to be informed of their right to remain silent
at any stage of police investigation.
In China the law requires the suspect to answer
truthfully the question posed by the investigative
officers.

54. The right against self-
incrimination (Art 27(2)) and to
counsel
Right against self-incrimination (Art 27(2))
 The suspect shall not be compelled to answer and
shall be informed that he has the right not to answer
and testify any statement he may make may be used in
evidence.
Right to counsel and role of counsel
 Both the FDRE constitution and the Cr. Pr recognized
the right of the accused to be assisted by lawyer.
 Art 19 of the constitution which provides for the right
of the arrested person does not include the right to
consult lawyer.
 Art. 61 of the Cr. Pr. Recognize the right of the arrestee
to consult lawyer upon request.

55. Experience of other countries.
 In U.S.A. the right to council before interrogation
is of one of the necessary condition to ensure that
the confession given by the arrestee is voluntary.
 In Germany their criminal Procedure code ensure
the right to council before the interrogation but
not during the interrogation.
 China do not allow the suspect to consult a lawyer
before the interrogation. But it is allowed after
the interrogation.

56. Right to be informed and prohibition
of inducement
Right to be informed of consequences of
statement(Art.27(2))
 He shall not be compelled to answer and shall be
informed that he has the right not to answer and that
any statement he may make may be used in evidence.
Inducement to-be offered prohibited (Art. 31. )
 Inducement, threat, promise or any Other improper
method to any person examined by the police are
prohibited.
 Improper method refers that any method that may
influence the suspect to confess against his free will.

57. The Question????
 It is said that confession is queen of evidence if given
voluntarily.
 What weight is to be given to evidence obtained
through confession?
 Can the suspect be convicted only based on such
evidence?
 Is there the possibility of false confession even, if it is
based on free will of the suspected?
 Is it appropriate to convict the suspect based on only
confession?
 If not what appropriate measures must be taken?

58. Risk of false confession
 This happen because the suspect admit to the
police even in the absence of illegitimate pressure
because of
 Immaturity or mental disorder
 Detention factors such as lack of sunlight,
overcrowding and poor ventilations.
 Social pressures such as to get fame, to cover for
friends and financial rewards.

59. Should the suspect, then, be
convicted based on only such
confessions?
 There are two arguments in relation to this
 Argument for. There are times when
corroborating evidence are impossible.
Requesting additional evidence in such cases
would have the effect of releasing real offenders
who have confessed.
 Argument against. Taking the risk of false
confession, it is better to let free thousands than
convicting one innocent based on confession
only.

60. The experience of other countries
in relation to confession.
 In Israel, there is a need to corroborate .
 In U.S.A. ,there is a need to corroborate
 In Ethiopia there is no clear cut provision in
relation to this issue.
 But the majority of courts decided that there is a
need to corroborate confession.

61. Tsegaye Korch Vs P.Prosecutor
( A.N. 27720/1999)
 Tsegaye was charged because of armed rebellion.
 The FH court convicted the suspect based on the
confession and one witness.
 The suspect challenged the judgment saying the
conviction is based on exclusively on the
confession he gave forcefully to the police.
 The court held the lower judgment only by
changing the crime from armed rebellion to that
of terrorist activity saying, “The confession was
corroborated by witness.”

62. Zembelachew Vs P. Prosecutor
(A.N.026686/98)
 The suspect was accused of damage to property. The pp
presented the confession of the suspect and one witness.
 The trial court ordered the accused to defend and the
defense witness proved that the suspect was somewhere
else by the time of the commission of the offence.
 But the trial court convicted him saying that the accused
can not defend his own confession.
 But the Federal Supreme court reversed the judgment
saying “Confession with out other corroborating evidence
is not adequate to prove the guilt of the accused.”

63. Sisay Danye Vs P. Prosecutor
( A.N.17739/1197)
 The public prosecutor in this case produced the
confession of the accused two witness.
 The trial court disregarded the witnesses and
ordered the accused to defined. Finally the trail
court gave judgment on the confession only and
the defendant appealed.
 The FS court finally reversed the judgment saying,
“Confession only is not adequate to prove the
prosecutors case beyond reasonable doubt.”

64. The way out!!!!
 Because there are no detailed rules of evidence in
Ethiopia, there is no express provision dealing with
the weight of confession.
 Then the question is whether one’s confession is
adequate to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt
 This inter depends on the trustworthiness of the
confession which can be verified in to two ways.
 Showing that there is no reason for false confession and
 Production of independent evidence that the crime was
committed by the accused.

65. The way out…..
 As there is no way of ruling out the possibility of
false confession, the feasible method of verifying
the reliability of confession is to produce
corroborative evidence
 In the essence of corroborative evidence it is
difficult to conclude that the confession is true
and that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond
a reasonable doubt.
 This makes that convicting the accused based
only his confession very much difficult.

66. Consequences of coercion and
other irregularities
 Coercion in the case of confession result in
Criminal, civil and administrative liabilities
besides the exclusion of the evidence.
 Criminal liability (Criminal Code)
 Art 424 , Any public servant charged with
interrogation who improperly induces or gives
promise, treat the person concerned is
punishable with rigorous impressments not
exceeding ten years and fine.

67. Civil and Administrative
Liabilities.
 Civil Liabilities( Civil Code)
 Art 2028, whosoever causes a damages to another by an
offence shall make it good.
 Art 2035. Any person commit a fault when he infringes
any specific and explicit provisions of law.
 Administrative liability, federal police proclamation,
 Art 9(4) & 11(3), un lawful discharge of responsibility
may result in dismissal of the member of the police
in charge of the investigation.

68. Exclusionary rule
 Art 19(5) of the FDRE constitution strictly
requires exclusion of confession obtained by
coercion.
 The message is that the person arrested must
not be compelled to make confessions which
could be used as evidence against them.
 This applies whether the evidence obtained
through coercion is very important or not.
 In Ethiopia, therefore, the means does not
justify the end.

69. The experience of other countries.
 In U.S.A before the case of Arizona Vs Illuminate
the confessions which are obtained through
coercion will be excluded irrespective of the
relevancy of the evidence but since this time on if
the government proves through other means as
to the truthiness of the evidence secured
through such coercion it will no be excluded.
 Here the end justifies the means.

70. The experience of……..
 In Argentina, the confession obtained through
such coercion will not be admitted regardless of
it’s the relevancy of the evidence. In Argentina,
therefore, the means does not justify the end.
 In Canada, admissibility of the coerced
confession depends on the reliability or not.
Though involuntary confessions are inadmissible
as a matter of principle they can be used in
evidence to the extent that they are confirmed as
true by subsequent tangible evidences. Here the
end justifies the means.

71. The fruit of poisonous tree is
Poisson?
 The fruit of poisonous tree is Poisson If another article
important as evidence is discovered based on the forced
confession is rejected regardless of its relevancy.
 The experience of different countries.
 In Ethiopia the law is clear. The reading of Art.19(5)
indicate that he fruit of poisonous tree is Poisson.
 General Taxeq advice, “ if the accused by his initiative show
some material evidences( Articles) by which he commit the
offence the court must accept it even if the confession is
obtained through coercion.”
 In Germany, The fruit of poisonous tree is not Poisson.
 In Argentina, The fruit of poisonous tree is not Poisson.

72. Search and Seizure: Definition,
Scope, & Types
 In addition to the statements or confessions, oral
testimonies of third parties other type of evidence
may be used as evidence in a criminal trail.
 Such type of evidence include, but not limited to,
tools which are used to commit a crime and fruits of a
crime.
 These type of evidences are obtained through the
restriction of the right to privacy by searching the
suspects person, his premises or interception of
communications.
 Seizer refers to the actual possesation of a thing
obtained through search to be used as evidence.

73. The right to Privacy ( Art. 26
FDREC)
 Everyone has the right to privacy and no one
should violet the rights over,
His home, person or property,
Any property under his personal
possession.
Notes and correspondence including
postal letters,
Communications made by means of
telephone,
 Telecommunications and electronic

74. No restrictions may be placed
except
 No restrictions may be placed except,
 In compelling circumstances and
 In accordance with specific laws whose
purposes shall be
 The safeguarding of national security
or
 Public peace,
 Prevention of crimes or
 Protection of health,
 Public morality or Rights and

75. Search with warrant in
Criminal Procedure Code
No premises may be searched
unless the police officer or member
of the police is in possession of a
search warrant ( Art. 32(2)
No search warrant shall be issued
unless the court is satisfied that the
purposes of justice or of any
inquiry, trial or other proceedings

76. The police must show three things
to get the warrant.
 The police must show and the court must verify
three things(Art.33(1).
 Reasonable possibility that the items sought to be
seized, are found there
 The items if found and seized will be used in
evidence.
 The items to be seized are so important that the
case would fail if not.

77. The Anti- terrorism proclamation
(Pro. No.652/2009)
Art. 17( Covert search Warrant)
 It require the police officer to request a covert(Secret)
search warrant from the court when he has reasonable
ground to believe that two conditions exist.
 A crime has been or is likely to be committed.
 There is plan or preparation to commit the crime.
 The search is essential to prevent or take action.
Art. 18, The court would give the covert search warrant
by testing;
 The nature or gravity of the terrorist act or
 The extent the measures to be taken assist to prevent
the act.

78. The Question then????
 All terrorist acts are by nature illegal, serious in
consequence and that similar punishment are
prescribed for all terrorist acts. It is unclear, therefore
, for the court how to distinguish among the terrorist
acts in allowing covert search warrant for some and
not for others.
 Art.14 :The National Intelligence Service may, up on
getting court warrant:
 Intercept or conduct surveillance on the telephone,
fax, radio, internet, electronic, postal and similar
communications of a person suspected of
terrorism;

79. Which court is competent to issue the warrant?
 When a police officer wish to search a given
premises, he must apply to a court of law
which will decide whether to accept the
application and grant the warrant
 Art 33(1) Cr. Pr. Co. provides that any court may
issue a search warrant.
 However there are two exception,
 Search warrants related to corruption offences
must be collected from the court which has
jurisdiction over the corruption offence.( Art.
7(4) the revised ant- corruption rules of

80. The case of Addis Courts
 Similarly Art 33(1) of the Cr. Pr. provision is not
applicable to searches to be conducted in the
territory of the city of Addis Ababa.
 Art 2(2) of the AA city government revised
charter(proclamation no.408/2004) vested Addis
Ababa city courts with the sole jurisdiction over
cases brought within the city with out the
prejudice of the federal courts jurisdiction.

81. Search without warrant( Art. 32(2)
Search of Premises
1. The case of hot pursuit( Art. 32(2)a Cr.Pr.
 An offender is followed in hot pursuit and
 Inters premises or
 Disposes of articles there;
2. Exigent Circumstances (Art. 32(2)b) Cr.Pr.
 Information is given to an investigating police officer;
 Material as evidence in respect of an offence are
concealed;
 Accusation or complaint has been made previously;
 The offence is punishable with more than three years;
and
 By reason of delay the articles are likely to be removed.

82. The Question is????
 What if the information is not given by third party
but seen by the investigating officer?
 What if the person following the hot pursuit is
not Police officer? What will happen?
3.Interception of Correspondence( Art 46(1) pr.
No.434/2005
Head of the head of the Anti-corruption
commission may order the interception of
correspondence by telephone,
telecommunications and electronic devices as
well as by postal letters.

83. Search of persons
 Person. A police of the same sex can search
arrested person where it is reasonably
suspected that he has about his person any
articles which may be material as evidence in
respect of the offences suspected to have
committed(Art.32).
 Physical Examination. where an investigating
police officer considers it necessary to make
physical examination of the accused he may
require a registered medical practitioner to
make such examination.(Art 34).

84. Sudden Search, .( Art. 16 Anti-
terrorism Proclamation.
 Where a police officer has reasonable suspicion
that a terrorist act may be committed, with the
permission of the Director General of the Federal
Police, may stop vehicle and pedestrian in an area
and conduct sudden search at any time, and seize
relevant evidences.

85. Other Articles than mentioned in
search warrant.( Art. 33)
 Every search warrant issued shall specify the property
to be searched for and seized.
 No investigating police officer may seize any property
other than that specified in such warrant. ( Art. 33(2)
 The list of the property seized must be made.
 The list must be checked and signed by an
independent person.
 Any property seized which is required for the trial
shall be preserved until trail.
 Any property not required may be returned(Art. 33(3)

86. Illegal Search & Seizure and
Remedies
 Criminal liability ( Art.422, Criminal Code)
 Any public servant who, without legal
authority, executes acts of search, seizure or
sequestration of a person's property, is
punishable with rigorous imprisonment not
exceeding seven years.
 Civil Liability ( civil Code)
Art 2053 , Tress pass
 A person commits an offence where, without
due legal authority, he forces his way on the

87. Civil Liability………
Art. 2035. - Infringement of a law.
 A person commits a fault where he infringes any
specific law.
 Exclusion of evidence
There is no specific law dealing with the exclusion
of Illegally searched and seized articles
But the cumulative reading of Art 26(3), 9(1)
and13(1) FDRE constitution, calls for the exclusion
of such Evidences.

88. Chapter Three
Remand, Bail, and Habeas Corpus
 Introduction
 After a person is arrested it will take some time for the
court to decide whether the suspected person has
committed the crime or not.
 Whether the arrestee should remain in custody or be
released pending the decision of the court is one of
the central question in any criminal proceedings.
 Release on bond and bail are introduced as a response
to this questions.
 In both cases the suspect is released on condition that
he will appear where he is needed.
 But release on bail is not an absolute right in that

89. Remand in Custody
Procedure after arrest( Art 29)
 Where a suspect has been arrested he or she must be
brought before the nearest court within forty-eight
hours or so soon.
 Detention( Art. 59)
 The court before which the arrested person is brought
(Art. 29) shall decide either
 Such person be kept in custody or
 Be released on bail.
Where the investigation is not completed
 The investigating officer may apply for a remand.
 No such remand shall be granted for more than
fourteen days on each occasion.

90. Release on Bail: Purpose
Bail serves two Purposes: individual and public
interest.
The interest of suspected( by allowing bail)
 Presumption of innocence
 Preparation of evidence
Public interest( served by denying bail)
 Probability Punishment if found guilty
 Probability Make witness change their mind
 Probability Intimidation of witness
 Probability Destroy evidence.

91. Release on Bail: Principle
 There are three major factors that influence the decision to grant
bail.
 The status of the Investigation( Art 29 and 59)
 The type of the offence committed( Art 63)
 The behavior of the suspect( Art 67)( bail not allowed)
 Art. 63 indicate that one can be released on bail if the offence
with which he is charged is not punishable with,
 Death penalty or
 Rigorous imprisonment for15 years or more or
 The victim is dead or
 There is the possibility of death.
 Even if the criteria stated under Art. 63( the punishment and the
status of the victim) are cumulative, accontrario reading makes
it alternative criteria for the public prosecutor.

92. The Question is…
Are the courts allowed to ask whether the
prosecutor has a Prima Facie case evidencing the
commission of the crime and require evidence
warrant the arrest of the suspected person? Can
the courts weigh evidence?
The experience of different countries show that
the courts must check the weight of the evidence.
USA Canada, Israel and Italy do weigh the
evidence to check the alleged offence.

93. When can bail be denied?(Art. 67):
Preventive Detention.
 Bail will not be allowed when
Unlikely that he/ she will comply
with the condition
Likely to commit other offences
Interfere with witnesses or tamper
with evidence.
 There are argument on preventive detention.

94. The Argument
 The Argument Against preventive detention
It is against the presumption of innocence
It wrong to imprison a person on the basis of
what the society fears the they will do in the
future rather than what they have done in the
past.
 The Argument For preventive detention
There are people who may relay on their
wealth to flee the country.
There are individuals who are motivated to
commit other crimes.

95. Amount of bail (Art. 69)
 The choice of the guarantors and the amount to
be guaranteed shall be in the discretion of the
court.
 The court shall decide such matter having regard
to:
 The seriousness of the charge; and
 The likelihood of the accused’s appearance: and
 The danger to public order which his release may
occasion: and
 The resources of the accused and his guarantors.

96. Review of bail by the lower court
 New facts(Art. 74.)
 Where. certain facts are disclosed which were
unknown when bail was granted the court may at
any time of its own motion or on application
reconsider the conditions on which bail has been
granted and may order the released person to
produce new sureties or to be remanded.
 But can the P/P cause such a revision when he get
stronger evidence?
 Can the court require such a revision on behave
of the accused?

97. Review of bail by Appeal(Art.75)
 Where bail has been refused by a court, the
accused may appeal in writing within twenty
days.
 After considering the application the court shall
dismiss the application or grant bail.
 No appeal shall lie against a decision given by the
court of appeal under this Article.
 The question is
 Is appeal on interlocutory mater possible?
 Can the prosecutor appeal ?

98. Appeal for bail as exception?
 The principle of appeal is provided under Art.181
of the code, which allow an appeal from a
judgment, conviction, discharging or acquittal of
an accused person.
 This article expressly prohibit appeal on
interlocutory matters of any kind, indicates that
appeal is possible when a case is finally deiced.
 Art 75 which authorizes appeal from a bail ruling,
can be taken as exception to the principle
governing appeal in criminal case.

99. Can the Prosecutor appeal?
 Mekonnen Negash Vs P/ Prosecutor(A.N
35627/2000
 The defendant was accused of negligent homicide
 The lower court refused to grant bail on the
ground that the offence is not bailable
 The defendant appealed to the zonal high court of
the Amhara region and the high court reversed
the ruling of the lower court.
 The p/p appealed to the Regional supreme court
but the supreme court rejected saying the right to
appeal is exhausted.

100. Can the Prosecutor appeal?.....
 The p/p appealed to the cassation bench of the federal
supreme court.
 The federal supreme court rejected the decision of the
regional supreme court and ordered to entertain the case
by deciding two issues,
 Firstly, the Federal Supreme court decided that the p/p has the
right to appeal by analogy even if Art. 75 of the Cr. Pr. deals
with the right of the accused only
 Secondly, the supreme court decided that the P/P is not
prevented when the appellate court reversed the lower court
decision but the accused is not allowed.
According to Art 5 of Anti- corruption rules of evidence
proclamation, Anyone aggrieved by the decision of the
lower court on the issue of bail has the right of appeal

101. Habeas corpus
 Habeas corpus simply mean you have the
body. It refers to the judicial determination of
the legality of a person’s detention.
 The essence and purpose of the right to
habeas corpus is related with preferential
freedom.
 The right to Habeas corpus could be described
as preferential freedom because it is
equipped with two instruments of protection
which the other right contained in the
international treaties dos not enjoy: the right

102. Available for any person?
 Under Art.9(4) of the ICCPR any one who is deprived
of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled
to take proceedings before a court, in order that the
court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of
his detention and order his release if the detention is
not lawful.
 Thus the guarantee is available to any arrestee or
detainee irrespective of the lawfulness of the arrest or
detention.
 Art. 19(4) FDRE Constitution
 “All persons have an inalienable right to petition the
court to order their physical release where the

103. Application for habeas corpus (Art. 177 civ. Pr)
 An application for habeas corpus may be made to a
Court by any person arrested illegally
 The application shall be accompanied by an affidavit
by the applicant stating the name of the person under
whose custody he is, the nature and place of the
restraint and the name of the persons, if any, who can
testify to the facts alleged in the application.
 Where the person restrained if for whatever reason
unable to make the application any person on his
behalf can apply to the competent court.

104. summon to appear (Art. 178)
 On receiving an application the Court shall
forthwith issue a summons directing the person
under whose custody the arrested person is to
appear together with the arrested person and to
show cause why the person restrained should not
be released
 Summonses shall also be issued for the
appearance of such persons as may be able to
testify to the facts alleged in the application.

105. Hearing and decision On the
application( Art. 179)
 Where the court is satisfied that the restraint is
unlawful, it shall order the immediate release of
the person restrained.
 Where the court is in doubt as to the truth or
otherwise of the facts alleged in the application, it
may order the release of the person restrained on
his executing a bond, with or without sureties.

106. Domestic Law: Only Physical
release?
 Under Art. 177(1) of the Civ. Pr. only a person whose liberty is
restrained otherwise than in pursuant of an order of dually
made in accordance with the Civil or Criminal procedure may
apply for habeas corpus.
 Art.19(4) of the FDRE constitution recognizes the arrestees' right
to petition to the court to order his physical release only where
the arresting police officer fails to bring him before a court
within forty eight hours and to provide reasons for his arrest.
 Under the domestic law, then, the right to habeas exist only for
arrests that are made illegally. Those who are arrested legally are
not entitled to apply.
 Under Art. 19(4) of the FDRE constitution the arrestee's petition
the court to order their physical release not to obtain court
review of lawfulness of the arrest intended for payment of
compensation.

107. Is habeas corpus applicable after
judgment is rendered?
 The provisions of the Civ.Pr. related to habeas
corpus exclude the opportunity for the convict
to challenge the judgment on the basis of
which he is detained.
 The constitution seems also to follow similar
stand.
 Habeas corpus in criminal proceeding,
therefore, is to be exercised as a pretrial right
that an arrestee but not a convict may use to
demand his physical release.
 Once a person is convicted, therefore, appeal

108. Is habeas corpus applicable after
judgment is rendered?............
 There is no institution of collateral attack by
which the convicted challenge a final court
judgment just like that of U.S.A.
 Treshel believe that while it is certainly correct to
say that habeas corpus proceedings cannot lead
to reexamination of a judgment, a number of
other issues could arise through habeas that
constitute grounds to challenge the detention
such as the identity of the prisoner with the
person sentenced or a statute of limitation.

109. The U.S.A Experience
 In U.S Habeas corpus is a known means of collateral attack
on a detention based on a final judgment rendered by a
competent court.
 It is considered a collateral attack because it is not a
continuation of the criminal process.
 The prisoner may apply for release under habeas corpus on
the ground that his conviction was obtained in violation of
the U.S.A constitution or other laws.
 The most common ground could be
 Ineffective assistance of the legal council,
 Incriminating statement obtained by the police,
 Improper prosecutorial or judicial conduct and
 Insufficient evidence.

110. Chapter Four
Decisions of the Public
Prosecutor
 As stated under Art. 38 and 39 of the criminal
procedure there are four alternatives available to the
public prosecutor once the investigation is completed.
 The criminal justice policy envisages another option
known as alternative solutions available to the public
prosecutor.
 The following laws and policies authorize and require
the public prosecutor to participate at the
investigation stage of a criminal case
 Office of the general attorney establishment
proclamation ( pro. No.39/1993
 The proclamation related to attorneys ( Pro. No.74/1993
 The criminal justice policy.

111. Decisions of the Public
Prosecutor……
 Therefore much of the works stated in Art. 38 and
39 can be done even before the investigation is
completed.
 Therefore there is a rare case of ground of closure
or refusal to institutive proceedings occur after
the investigation is completed.
 This only happens when the decision is to be
made after the investigation is finalized.

112. Prosecutorial Responsibility
 The P/ Prosecutor will have five option
 Prosecutorial Responsibility ( Art 38)
 Order Further Investigation
 Order Preliminary Inquiry
 Decision not to Prosecute
 Decision to Prosecute
 Other Solution( the Criminal Justice Policy)

113. Order Further Investigation
 As stated in the Art 37 the police officer will send the
investigation file to the prosecutor when he believe the
investigation is completed.
 Upon receiving the investigation file the public prosecutor
may discover some gaps in the file.
 When this happens the public prosecutor considers
whether such gaps can be filled through further
investigation.
 If the P/P believe so, he will order further investigation in
accordance with Art. 38(c) of the code.
 If the gap cannot be filled by further investigation the
prosecutor will decide whether to institute or not to
institute a criminal charge depending how crucial the gap
is to the case.

114. Closure of police investigation file(Art. 39)
 The public prosecutor shall close the police
investigation file where the accused:
 Has died; or
 Is under nine years of age or
 Cannot be prosecuted under any special law or under
public international law (diplomatic immunity).
 The provisions of Art. 43-45 shall not apply where the
case file is closed under this Article.( No private
prosecution)
 While doing so the public prosecutor shall send a
copy of his decision to the Advocate general, the
private complainant, if any, and the investigating
police officer.

115. Decision not to Prosecute (Art.42)
 As stated under Art. 42 there are grounds for the
public prosecutor not to institute a charge;
 Insufficiency of evidence
 Absence of the accused in case prosecution in absentia is
not allowed.
 Period of limitation
 Pardon or amnesty and
 Public interest
 Refusing on other ground is prohibited under Art.
42(2)
 The criminal justice policy expressly recognize the
possibility of instituting a criminal proceeding where
new evidence is obtained after the P/P has dropped

116. Absence of the Suspect( Art42(1)
 When the suspect is not found around and trial in
absentia is not possible the Public Prosecutor will not
institute a charge.
 If the public prosecutor is aware of the death of the
suspect, the case will be closed (Art. 39(1))
 When the suspect reside in the foreign country with
which Ethiopia does not have extradition treaty the
public prosecutor will not institute unless in absentia
is possible.
 Trail in absentia is possible in two cases,
 When the crime is punishable not less than 12 years
 Crimes on fiscal and economic interest of the state

117. Period of Limitation
 The criminal code stipulates period within which a
criminal action must be instituted
 There are two types of period of limitations
 Ordinary
 Absolute
 Art 217 the Cr. Co. lists the ordinary period of limitations
from 3 to 25 years.
 Art. 218 Sets the statute of limitation for crimes punishable
upon compliant at two years.
 Once this ordinary period of limitation lapsed neither the
p/p nor the court can proceed with the cases.
 Crimes against humanity and terrorism will not be bared
by period of limitation.

118. Pardon &Amnesty( Art. 42(1) A
 Pardon and Amnesty are related but different concepts.
 There are three major difference between the two
 Pardon is to be granted by the president of the country
while amnesty is to be granted by the legislator.
 Pardon is to be granted only after the conviction while
amnesty is to be granted before, during or after conviction.
 Pardon does not cancel the conviction or the sentence
while amnesty cancel both sentence passed and the legal
consequences and the of the sentence.
 In both cases the public prosecutor shall not proceed with
the case by instituting a criminal charge.

119. Public interest( Art.42(1) D
 Art. 42(1) D empowered the minister of justice to order the
public prosecutor not to institute proceedings where such order
is in the interest of the public.
 This provision opened the door for the public prosecutor to
decide in the public interest not to institute a charge even where
there is adequate evidence.
 The decision is to be made by the minister not by the prosecutor.
 This provision of the code has been repealed by the general
attorney proclamation.
 The criminal justice policy recognize the public interest as a
ground not to file a criminal charge. Accordingly when the public
interest so requires the public prosecutor shall not file a charge
even if there is sufficient evidence.
 The policy empowers the attorney general to decide such cases.
 Which one prevail? A policy or Proclamation?

120. Insufficiency of evidence ( Art.
42(1)A
 If the public prosecutor believe that there is no sufficient
evidence to justify the conviction he shall not institute the
proceedings.
 The evidence would be insufficient to institute a charge when
the public prosecutor believe that the existing evidence would
not prove the case beyond reasonably doubt.
 To this effect, the prosecutor had better take in to account the
relevancy, admissibility and weight of the evidence at hand.
 The prosecutor must make sure that
 All the evidence collected are relevant to prove the case .
 They are collected lawfully
 The weight of the evidence at hand to prove the case
 Once such care are made, the public prosecutor can institute the
charge if confident that conviction will be obtained.

121. Decision to Prosecute
 The other option stated in Art. 38(A) & Art 40(1) is
prosecuting the suspect when the investigative report
is sufficient to do so.
 The prosecutor has sufficient grounds for prosecuting
the accused when the investigation report clearly
shows that a crime has been committed and by the
suspect at hand.
 In such a case Art 40 of The Cr. Pr. Requires the public
prosecutor to institute a criminal charge before a
court of law where none of the grounds listed under
Art. 42 exist.
 Subject to the future implementation of the other

122. Other Solutions
 The criminal Justice policy also come up with the other
option Which is yet to be incorporated by law.
 The criminal justice policy envisaged as an option to be
established in the future.
 This mechanism of dealing with criminal emphasize
letting him accept his guilt and regrets about his
wrongdoing instead of prosecuting him.
 As stated in the policy document this option is to be taken
where the nature of the crime and the behavior of the
suspect it better serves the interest of the public than a
formal prosecution would.
 The policy provide that this option is to be taken when the
crime is not so serious and the suspect is juvenile, a
woman or a person with disability.

123. The Preliminary Inquiry
 The other option available to the public prosecutor
once he receive police reports is to order a preliminary
inquiry.
 As provided in Art. 80(1) of the code, the prosecutor
has an obligation to order a preliminary inquiry to be
conducted in two instances: where the case related to
aggravated homicide or aggravated robbery.
 In principle the prosecutor does not have the power to
bypass the preliminary inquiry in such case.
 However the prosecutor may request the high court
to allow him to file a charge without conducting a
preliminary inquiry.

124. The Preliminary Inquiry…..
 The court will accept the application if satisfied
that the trial can be held immediately.
 The prosecutor has a discretion whether to order a
preliminary inquiry when the case relates to
other offences that are within the firs instance
jurisdiction of the high court.
 In such case the preliminary inquiry can only be
conducted if the high court prosecutor so orders.

125. Function of Preliminary Inquiry
Screening
 The principal function of the preliminary inquiry in other
jurisdiction is screening by which the committal court
decide whether the public prosecutor can charge the
accused or not.
 If the court does not find probable cause, the accused will
be released and the prosecutions case will be dismissed.
 The Ethiopian criminal procedure code does not empower
the committal court to dismiss the case of the prosecutor,
no matter how weak his case may be.
 After the prosecutors witness have been heard and the
suspect is invited to make a statement in answer to the
charge, the court will automatically commit the suspect for
trail.
 Therefore the screening function is not served in the
Ethiopian criminal procedure code.

126. Pretrial Discovery
 In jurisdiction where the committal court has the power to
dismiss the prosecutors case for lack of probable cause, the
prosecutor is obliged to introduce witness sufficient to prevent
dismissal which allow the accused to know in advance the
prosecutors’ witness and the nature of their testimony.
 The committal court in Ethiopia does not have the power to
dismiss the prosecutors’ case no matter how weak the evidence
is.
 In addition there is no requirement that all witnesses of the
prosecutor testify at this stage.
 Under Art. 143(3) expressly allow the prosecutor to call witness
during trail who did not testify at the preliminary inquiry
 The Ethiopian Preliminary inquiry, therefore, has minimal
significance as a means to pretrial discovery.

127. Future impeachment
 When a witness testifies twice, once during the
preliminary inquiry and for the second time during
trail, there is a possibility that he will make
inconsistent statements, there by impeaching
himself.
 The more a witness say during the preliminary inquiry
the more inconsistencies will arise between their
testimony at the preliminary inquiry and trial.
 Hence it is a good strategy for the defense to
extensively cross examine prosecutors witness at the
preliminary hearing so as to be able to impeach the
prosecutors witness at trail stage.

128. Perpetuation of Testimony
 The major function of the Preliminary Inquiry in Ethiopia
is perpetuation of testimony.
 Prosecution testimony who testified at the preliminary
inquiry are required to inter into witness bond binding
themselves to appear and testify during trail.
 Their testimony at the preliminary inquiry may not be used
in lieu of their appearance and testimony at trial.
 Unless it is impossible for the witness to testify during the
trail, the prosecutor is to call them to testify at trial.
 if the witness who testified during the preliminary inquiry
are not available to testify at trail for certain reasons,
including death , mental or physical illness, being out side
of the country or because they cannot be found for any
other reasons their testimony at the preliminary inquiry
can be introduced.( Art. 144(1).

129. The Charge : Introduction
 Upon the receipt of the report of police
investigation, the public prosecutor may
prosecute the accused on a change drawn up
by him pursuant to Articles 108-122 of the Cr C
among others.
 Charge could be defined as a formal document
containing an allegation that a person named
therein has committed a crime by describing
the necessary facts and evidence.
 As stated under Art. 109(1) of the code, when
the public prosecutor decides to prosecute

130. The Charge…..
 The charge is so important that it must be made
in writing.
 Art. 20(2) of the FDRE constitution recognize the
right of the accused to get a charge.
 Art 108 expressly prohibit conduct of a trail
without a charge, except petty offences.
 Even for the petty offences the code requires the
summon to recite the name of the accused, the
circumstance of the offence committed. Art 167(2)

131. Form and Content of a charge (Art. 111)
 Every charge shall be dated and signed and shall
contain:
 The name of the accused;
 The offence with which the accused is charged
 Its legal and material ingredients; and
 The time and place of the offence(where
appropriate),
 The person against whom or the property in respect
Which the offence was committed
 The law and article of the law violated.

132. Form and Content of ……….
 Even if the Cr.Pr. dictates that evidence will be
attached later, the practice reveal that both oral
and documentary evidences are attached to a
charge.
 Even if Art. 111 does not mention the name of the
court, Art 109 provides that the charge must be
filed before a court having jurisdiction.
 The charge shall be in the form set out in the
Second Schedule to this Code or shall conform
thereto as nearly as may be.

133. Function of a charge
 The major function of a charge, as can be inferred
from Art.20(2) of the FDRE constitutional and Art.112
of the criminal procedure is to inform the accused of
the nature of the crime alleged against him.
 There are also secondary functions such as
 It serves as a reference document for the court to use in
deciding whether the given evidence is relevant and
whether the prosecutor proves each element of his
allegation to the required standard.
 In addition the charge will serve as evidence for the
accused to prove that his is being subjected to double
jeopardy in case he is prosecuted a second time for the
same offence.

134. Parts of A charge
 Art 111(2) requires the public prosecutor to follow the
sample form provided in the second schedule of the
code where different forms of charges are stated for
simple, alternative or concurrent charges.
 What ever it may be a charge will have four parts.
 The caption,
 The statement of the Offence,
 Particulars of the offence and
 The evidence part.
 Finally there is the name and the signature of the
Prosecutor at bottom of the charge.

135. Simple Charge
ቁጥር………………..
ቀን…………………..
ለፌደራል ከፍተኛ ፍርድ ቤት
አዲስ አበባ
የፌ/ሥ/ፀ/ሙ/ኮ/መ/ቁ. __
የዐ/ህ/መ/ቁ. _____________
የፖ.መ.ቁ______________
ከሣሽ ………….. የፌደራል የሥነ ምግባር እና የፀረ ሙስና ኮማሽን ዐቃቤ ሕግ
ተከሳሽ……………አቶ እንደፍቃዱ ዋይ
ስራ ………………… የመንግስት ሰራተኛ
አድራሻ ……………..ፒያሳ 02 ቀበለ
ወንጀሉ
በ1996 ዓ.ም የወጣውን የኢ.ፌ.ዴ.ሪ. የወንጀል ሕግ አንቀፅ 32(1)፣411(1) (ሐ) እና 2 ላይ የተመለከተውን በመተላለፋቸው፣
የወንጀሉ ዝርዝር
ተከሳሹ በኢትዮጵያ ገቢዎችና ጉምሩክ ባለሥልጣን ሰራተኛ ሲሆኑ፤ ስልጣንና ኃለፊነቱን በመጠቀም የማይገባ ጥቅም ለራሱ ለማግኘት ለሌሎች ሰዎችም
ለማስገኘት በማሰብ፣ በ26/07/2001 ዓ.ም ጐላጐል ትሬዲንግ ኃ/የተ/የግ/ማኅበር የተባለ ድርጅት ያለቫት ደረሰኝ ግብይት እንደሚፈፅም ለገቢዎችና
ጉምሩክ ባለስልጣን ጥቆማ ቀርቦ እውነተኛነቱን ለማረጋገጥ የባለሥልጣኑ ሠራተኞች ተልከው እንደጥቆማው አቀራረብ እንደሚፈፅም በወቅቱ በተላኩት
ሠራተኞች ከተረጋገጠና ተጠርጣሪዎችም ከተለዩና ምርመራ መዝገቡ ተደራጅቶ እንደሚያስከስስ ከተረጋገጠ በኋላ ተከሣሹ የባለሥልጣኑ የሥራ ኃላፊዎች
በተገኙበት የድርጅቱ ባለቤት አቤቱታ ስላቀረበ ጉዳዩ በድጋሚ መታየት አለበት በሚል ሽፋን ምርመራው እንደገና እንዲጣራ በማድረግ ቀደም ሲል በጉዳዩ
ዙርያ ከተሰጠው የምስክርነት ቃል በተለየ ጉዳዩን ሊያዳክም የሚችል አዲስ ተጨማሪ ቃል እንዲቀርብ በማድረግ መዝገቡ ውጤት እንዳይኖረው ካመቻቸ
በኋላ ምርመራ መዝገቡ እንዲዘጋ በማስደረጉ፣ በዋና ወንጀል አድራጊነት ተካፋይ በመሆን በፈፀመው የመንግስት ሥራን በማያመች አኳሃን መምራት
የሙስና ወንጀል ተከሷል።
ማስረጃ
ሀ. የሰው ማስረጃ
ለ. የሰነድ ማስረጃ
የዐቃቢ ህግ ስምና ፊረማ

136. Different forms of Charges
 If the public prosecutor, due to the nature of the
fact to be established, is not certain what offence
is committed by the accused he must prepare
alternative charges.
 If the accused is suspected of more than one
offence, a concurrent charge must be prepared.
 Where more than one person is involved in the
commission of a crime, the prosecutor must
accuse all of them in one charge, instead of
preparing a separate charge for each of them.

137. Alternative Charges
 When it is doubtful which of several offences the
facts which can be proved will constitute, the
accused may be charged with having committed
the offence which appears the more probable to
have been committed and he may be charged in
the alternative with all other offences. Art.113(1)
 Where the evidence shows that the accused
committed an offence with which he might have
been charged in the alternative he may be
convicted of such offence. Art.(113(2)

138. Concurrent Charges
(Joinder and severance of
offences)
If a person is suspected more than one offence, to save
time and resources, It is advisable that he be tried for
all the offences at one time. Such an approach is
particularly appropriate in cases where the
prosecutors allegations are to be proved by the same
witness, especially when the accused is suspected for
crimes committed at the same time.
A charge may contain several different counts relating
to the same accused described separately. Art116(1)
But where this creates difficulty for the accused , the
court shall order the charges to be tried separately.
Art116(2)
 Are there any prejudicial effects to this effect?

139. Joinder of Defendants (Art. 117)
 Persons participated in offence or offences even
at different times may be charged and tried
together.
 A court may order separate trials where
separation is required in the interests of justice.
 Where several persons have committed different
offences connected with the same criminal
activity even when it is at different times may be
charged and tried together.

140. Aggravated Offences ( Art. 114)
 Where an accused person may be charged with an
aggravated offence by reason of previous convictions,
he shall be charged with the un aggravated offence
and the charge shall be filed in the court having
jurisdiction to try the aggravated offence.
 Where the accused is convicted of the un aggravated
offence the public prosecutor may, after conviction
and before sentence, prove the previous convictions of
the accused which, had they been proved at the trial,
would have resulted in his conviction of the
aggravated offence. The court may sentence him as
though he had been convicted accordingly.

141. Amendment
 The charge framed by the public prosecutor may not comply with
the law. Some thing might have been omitted from the charge or
another type of error might have been committed
 A discrepancy might also arise from the charge and the proof.
These and other factors may call for some sort of amendment to
the charge.
 As stated in Art. 118 errors in stating a fact will be considered as
material and will result in invalidity of a charge if such error is
material and ,
 if they relate to essential point of the accused
 The accused will be mislead
 Justice is likely to be defeated.
 When such essential errors happen the court may by its own
motion or by application can order the charge to be altered or
added to or a new charge to be framed, at any time before

142. Effect of Amendment
 Once the amended charge is brought by the public
prosecutor and explained to the accused, the court has to
ask whether the accused is ready to be tried on the
amended charge.( Art 120)
 If the accused confirms that he is ready, the court shall
proceed with the trial.
 When the accused stated otherwise the court will asses the
reasons of the accused.
 If the court found the reasons of the accused important it
will adjourn the trail but if the court is not convinced, the
trial will continue.
 When there is addition and alteration the public
prosecutor or the accused are allowed to present their
evidence to the extent of such alteration and further
evidence.( Art 121)

143. Withdrawal of a charge(Art 122)
 Sub article 1,2 and 4 of Art. 122. are repealed by
a proclamation of the office of the general
attorney. This proclamation has also been
repealed by later proclamation , even if it does
not have any effect on the revival of the
repealed sub articles.
 The new proclamation then empowered the
ministry of justice to withdraw a criminal
charge according to the law.
 The problem is that such law defining how
and on which type of offences the withdrawal

144. Withdrawal of a charge……
 The recently promulgated proclamation on the definition
of power and responsibilities of the executive organ of the
federal government provides that the ministry of justice
has the power to withdraw a charge for a good cause and in
accordance to the law.
 The criminal Justice policy also empower the public
prosecutor to withdraw a charge by informing the trail
court when the prosecutor is convinced that continuation
of the proceeding is not in the interest of the public.
 So there is no need of waiting for the permission of the
court to withdraw a charge.
 Where no new charge is framed under the provisions of Art.
119 the accused shall be discharged.
 The withdrawal of a charge under the provisions of this
Article is no bar to subsequent proceedings.

145. CHAPTER FIVE
THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AND JURISDICTION OF COURTS
 An Overview of the Court System in the Ethiopian Federal
Set-up
 The 1995 Constitution of the FDRE provides for a federal
state structure with nine member states making up the
federation.
 It has thus brought in to being two layers of administration
i.e. the federal and regional states.
 The three braches (organs) of the government i.e.
legislative, executive and judiciary are established at both
levels of the government constitutionally.
 Powers not specifically allocated for either or both of them
(concurrent) are left by the Constitution to the regional

146. Federalism and the Jurisdiction….
 The FDRE Constitution established judicial organ both at
federal and state levels.
 So, we have federal courts on the one hand and regional courts
on the other hand.
 Federal judicial authority is vested in federal courts tiered
along three layers: the Federal Supreme Court, which is the
highest federal judicial organ, the Federal High Court and
Federal First Instance Court.
 State judicial power on the other hand is vested in state
courts. The structure of state courts comprises state supreme
court, state high court and woreda courts.
 Besides these matters which in principle fall under the
jurisdiction of Federal High Court and First Instance Court at
the state level is to be exercised by state supreme and state

147. Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts.
 We have seen that two sets of courts are established
under the federal form of government each having
three layers of courts and that they are empowered to
exercise judicial power over offences.
 The appointment of jurisdiction over offences
between the federal and state courts is dependant up
on some factors.
 In principle federal courts have jurisdiction over
offences based on three major grounds: (Art. 3 of
Pro.25/96)
 law,
 Parties to the case, and
 Places of commission

148. Federal & Regional Maters
Matters
 Whether a particular case is within the jurisdiction of
federal courts or not is to be determined by first,
ascertaining that it arises under the federal constitution,
the federal laws and international treaties or that parties
are those specified in the federal laws to be subject to the
jurisdiction of the federal courts or the case occurs in
places specified in the Constitution or in other federal
laws. (Art. 3 of Pro.25/96)
 On the other hand, the law lists down specific cases which
fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts.
 Apart from these apportionment of jurisdiction among the
federal and state courts, there is a delegation of power
because of the fact that we do not have yet established
federal courts all over the country. Art. 80)

149. Jurisdiction of Courts
 Hence, matters which in principle fall within the jurisdiction of Federal
First Instance and Federal High Courts may come within the jurisdiction
of state high court and state supreme courts respectively.(Art.80(2) &(4))
 The point, however, does not stop there for the issue as to which
particular court of a federal court or regional courts i.e. supreme court,
high court or first instance/ woreda court has the pertinent jurisdiction
over the case has to be addressed. ( Material Jurisdiction)
 The above issue, extends to local jurisdiction, which is about the specific
place of the court in which the case is going to be entertained (tried).
 All what we have been looking presupposes the fact that Ethiopian
courts have judicial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
 Jurisdiction has three elements: Judicial, Material, and Local
 A court is said to have jurisdiction when it has the judicial, material and
local jurisdiction of adjudication.

150. Judicial Jurisdiction
 Judicial jurisdiction is all about whether Ethiopian
courts have power to see and then adjudicate a case or
not. Hence, it is related to issue of whether a person is
subject to the criminal law of Ethiopia or subject to
the jurisdiction of Ethiopian courts and, therefore,
they may be tried by Ethiopian courts for violation of
the Ethiopian criminal laws.
 Though normally the issue of jurisdiction is a subject
matter of criminal procedure law, the criminal code of
Ethiopia has provisions dealing with the issue of
jurisdiction.
 Art 11-20 of the CC are devoted to issues of judicial
jurisdiction of Ethiopian courts over offences.

151. Judicial Jurisdiction depends on
 Whether or not a person is subject to the Criminal Code of
Ethiopia depends on (Art 11-20 of the CC)
 The place where the offence was committed;
 The nationality of the accused, and;
 The kind of the offence that has been committed.
 In certain circumstances, an accused is said to be subject to
Ethiopia’s principal jurisdiction; in other circumstances,
although he is not subject to Ethiopia’s principal jurisdiction, he
is subject to Ethiopia’s subsidiary jurisdiction.
 Most significantly, whether a person is subject to Ethiopia’s
principal jurisdiction, discharge or acquittal in a foreign country
does not prevent a prosecution for the same offences in Ethiopia.
 However, if he is subject only to Ethiopian subsidiary
jurisdiction, no fresh prosecution if discharged or acquitted
abrode.

152. Principal jurisdiction
 Principal jurisdiction, exist in cases where the
accused is Charged with the commission of ,
 1. An offence in Ethiopia
 2. Offences against Ethiopia in a foreign
country.
 3.Offence in a foreign country Ethiopian
official having immunity.
 4. Offences in a foreign country while a
member of the Ethiopian armed forces.

153. Persons Subject to Ethiopia’s
Principal Jurisdiction.
 Art 11 and 12 of the CC are about territorial jurisdiction. According to this
principle, which has almost gained universal acceptance, the Ethiopian
courts shall have principal jurisdiction over offences specified in the CC
committed by any person on Ethiopian territory. Territory consists of
land, sea and air.
 Art 11(2) of the CC is an exception to the above principle, i.e. Art 11(1) of
the CC. Consequently, certain persons such as diplomatic officials are
immune from criminal prosecutions in the country to which they are
accredited under principles of public international law.
 Any person who enjoys such immunity, therefore, is not subject to the
CC, and thus, not subject to the jurisdiction of the Ethiopian courts.
 The principal jurisdiction of Ethiopian courts to try offences committed
in Ethiopian territory presupposes the offenders presence within the
Ethiopian territory, the request of his extradition to Ethiopia or the
possibility of trial in absentia as per the provisions of (Art 160-161) of the
CPC.

154. When & What is extradition?
 Any Ethiopian or a foreigner having no immunity is
obviously subject to an Ethiopian jurisdiction for violation
of Ethiopian criminal laws provided that he is in Ethiopia.
 However, people may after having committed an offence in
Ethiopia may have successfully escaped and taken refuge in
a foreign country.
 In such a case, Art.11(3) of the CC to request his extradition
so that he may be tried in Ethiopia under Ethiopian law.
 With which countries did Ethiopia conclude extradition
treaties (if any)?
 No Ethiopian national having that status at the time of the
commission of the crime or at the time of the request for
his extradition may be handed over to a foreign court.
However, he shall be tried by Ethiopian courts under
Ethiopian law. Art 21(2)

155. When extradition cannot obtained
and the consequences
 Where extradition cannot be obtained, Art 12(1) directs the
Ethiopian authorities to request that the suspect be tried
in the country of refugee.
 If that request is honored by the country in which the
offender has taken refugee and he is tried and acquitted
there, he cannot be tried again for the same offence in
Ethiopia if he is subsequently apprehended here.
 This is also true if his sentence has been remitted there or
if enforcement of the sentence is barred by limitation, Art
12(2) of the CC.
 Had no request been made or the request had not been
honored, Art 12(2) is not applicable and that he could be
retried in Ethiopia though he had been tried and acquitted
for the same offence abroad according to Art 16 of the code.

156. Ethiopian enjoying immunity and member defense force
Article 14 and 15
 It is normal that Ethiopian officials and members of defense
force goes to another country temporarily.
 This, however, does not exonerate them from becoming liable for
their acts/omissions happened in their stay.
 Art 14 and 15 is designed to make Ethiopian officials and
members of the Ethiopian defense force subject to the Ethiopian
principal jurisdiction for certain offences they committed while
abroad.
 Members of the Ethiopian diplomatic or consular service, an
Ethiopian official or agent who cannot be prosecuted at the place
of commission of the crime by virtue of international principles
of immunity are subject to the Ethiopian’s jurisdiction for
offences other than those provided under Art 13 of the CC
provided that the offence is punishable both under the Ethiopian
criminal law and the law of the place of commission.

157. Immunity and Member Defense
Force………..
 If the offence is punishable only upon complaint under either
law, no proceedings may be instituted until such complaint is
lodged.
 Ethiopian defense force may for some time stationed abroad as
in the case of Somalia and Rwanda and a member (members) of
the defense force may commit offences which are against
international law or crimes specifically mentioned as military
offences under Art 269-322 of the code under such circumstances
Art 15 makes the offender(s) subject to the Ethiopian principal
jurisdiction and be tried by Ethiopian military courts.
 In other cases, the offender shall remain subject to the ordinary
laws and territorial jurisdiction of the country where he
committed the crime if he is arrested there. If he has taken
refuge in Ethiopia, he shall be tried in accordance with the
principles of extradition provided under Art 21(2) of the code.

158. immunity and member defense
force…
 Any person subject to Ethiopia’s principal
jurisdiction, if found in Ethiopia or extradited to
Ethiopia, may be tried in Ethiopia for the offence,
whether or not he was not tried in a foreign country
for the same offence and if he was tried, whether or
not he was discharged or acquitted.
 If, however, he has been convicted of the offence
abroad, any part of the punishment he already served
shall be deducted from the new sentence.
 It should also be noted that where the person had
been tried abroad on the request of the Ethiopian
authorities pursuant to Art 12 of the code, he is no
longer subject to Ethiopia’s principal jurisdiction.

159. Subsidiary Jurisdiction.
 With regard to offences that do not directly and
chiefly concern Ethiopia, our courts have subsidiary
jurisdiction which is derivative-not original.
 Under these circumstances, Ethiopian courts
substitute foreign courts in trying offenders who must
have been (but have not been) tried in a foreign
country.
 Subsidiary jurisdiction exists when accused is charged
with
 Offences committed by members of the armed forces
against the ordinary laws of a foreign country, Art
15(1).

160. Subsidiary Jurisdiction…..
 Offences committed in a foreign country “against
public health and morals specified in Art 525, 599, 635,
636, 640 or 641 of the code, (1Art.7(1)(b))
 Offences committed abroad against an Ethiopian
national or offences committed by Ethiopians while
abroad, if the offence is punishable under both laws
and is grave enough to justify extradition, Art 18(1)
and
 Other offences punishable by rigorous imprisonment
of not less than ten years) committed abroad by non-
extradited foreigners, Art 18(2).
 For Art 18 to be applicable, i.e. in order for a person to

161. All other offences committed outside Ethiopia.
 There are two types situations covered under Art 18.
The first one is where the crime is committed in a
foreign country either by a foreigner against an
Ethiopian or by an Ethiopian.
 In order to make a suspect subject to Ethiopia’s
subsidiary jurisdiction, it is only necessary that the
conditions referred previously be satisfied.
 As long as the offences are of sufficient gravity to
justify extradition, it subjects the offender to
Ethiopia’s subsidiary jurisdiction (if prohibited by law
of the place of commission and Ethiopian law)
irrespective of the punishment authorized.

162. The questions to be asked in such
a situation are
1. Was the offence committed in a foreign country
against Ethiopian National or by an Ethiopian?
2.Is the offence prohibited by the law of the country
where it was committed and by Ethiopian law?
3.Is the offence extraditable under any of Ethiopia’s
extradition treaties or legislation?
If the answer to each of the three questions is in
the affirmative, the accused is subject to
Ethiopia’s subsidiary jurisdiction and may be
tried here for the commission of the offence.

163. Trial in Absence of a foreigner in the
absence of extradition of the foreigner.
 It subjects him to Ethiopia’s jurisdiction if:
1.The act is prohibited both by the law of the state
of commission and by Ethiopian law;
2. It is extraditable under Ethiopian law; and
3. It is punishable under Ethiopian law by death or
rigorous imprisonment for not less than ten
years.

164. More Favorable Law
 Hence, an offender tried in Ethiopia pursuant to
its subsidiary jurisdiction shall not be punished
more severely than he could expect to be at the
time when and the place where he committed the
offence.
 Thus, in case of disparity between the
punishment prescribed under the criminal code
of Ethiopia and the law of the country of
commission, the punishment to be imposed by
the Ethiopian courts must be the one which is
more favorable to the accused.

165. The difference between the two
 It has been seen that in cases of principal jurisdiction
a person’s discharge, acquittal or conviction abroad is
no bar to proceedings being instituted a new in
Ethiopia, provided that where the suspect is convicted
and new sentence is passed, the term of the sentence
already served abroad will be deducted from such new
sentence.
 The effect of foreign sentence in the case of offences
to which Ethiopia has only subsidiary jurisdiction is
different. Ethiopian courts may only exercise their
subsidiary jurisdiction only insofar as no action has
been taken against the offender in a foreign country
in general.

166. Material Jurisdiction.
 Material jurisdiction is concerned with the level of
courts, and the type of court that should hear the case
which should be seen in the light of structure of
courts.
 The 1994 FDRE Constitution takes Ethiopia in to a
federal form of government. Hence, the organization
of courts had been changed accordingly. Art 78 of the
FDRE Constitution created a two tiered court system:
federal and state courts.
 At federal level, we have the Federal Supreme Court,
the Federal High Court and the Federal First Instance
Court.

167. Federal and state Laws
 All laws made by the House of Peoples’
Representatives under its enumerated power are
referred to as Federal laws; and all laws made by the
state legislative bodies under their residual power of
legislation are state laws.
 Article 80(1) (2) of FDRE Constitution;
 The federal Supreme Court shall have the highest and
final judicial power over federal matters.
 The state supreme courts shall have the highest and
final judicial power over state matters.
 Federal Courts Proclamation No. 25/96 and 322/2003
sets out the rules for allocation of common and

168. Federal Supreme Court Article 8
First Instance Jurisdiction
 According to Art. 8 of the Federal Courts
Proclamation, the Federal Supreme Court is given an
exclusive first instance jurisdiction over:
 Offences for which officials of the federal government
are held liable in connection with their official
responsibility;
Without prejudice to international law and custom,
offences for which foreign ambassadors, consuls and
representatives of international organizations and
foreign states are held liable; and
 Application for change of venue from one federal high
court to another or to itself as provided by law.

169. Appellate Jurisdiction FSC
 Appellate Jurisdiction
 Art 9 of the proclamation provides that the Federal Supreme
Courts shall have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of Federal
High Courts rendered in their first instance and appellate
jurisdiction on variation of the decisions of the Federal First
Instance Court.
 Is second appeal possible?
 Power of Cassation (Art 10(1-3))
 The Federal Supreme Court exercises power of cassation over
final decisions it has rendered in its appellate jurisdiction, in its
first instance jurisdiction and final decisions of regional
supreme courts rendered in their first instance jurisdiction or in
their appellate jurisdiction where such decisions contain
fundamental error of law.
 The federal Supreme Court’s decision under its cassation power

170. The Federal High Court (Article
12)
 First instance criminal jurisdiction
 Article 12 of the proclamation provides that the Federal High Court shall
have first instance jurisdiction over:
 Offences on the constitutional order, or the internal security of the
state.
 Offences against foreign states.
 Offences against the law of nations.
 Offences against the safety of aviation.
 Offences regarding illicit trafficking in dangerous drugs. Other criminal
cases arising in Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa and falling under the
jurisdiction of the high court pursuant to other laws in force.
 Appellate Jurisdiction.
 The federal high court exercises criminal appellate jurisdiction over all
decisions rendered by Federal First Instance Court, the national
electoral board, tax appeals commission, labor boards, etc.

171. The Federal First Instance Court.(Art 15)
 The Federal First Instance Court shall have
jurisdiction over
 Offences against the fiscal and economic interest of
the F.Go.
 Offences regarding counterfeiting of currency.
 Offences on freedom of communication service
operating across R/states and international level.
 Offences in which foreign national who enjoy
privileges and immunities and reside in Ethiopian are
victims or defendants subject to the jurisdiction of
First Instance Court in operating laws and without
prejudice to international agreements.
 They also have jurisdiction over criminal cases that

172. Jurisdiction of State Courts
 Proclamation No. 25/96 sets the rules that
apportioned jurisdiction between federal courts and
state courts.(Art.3)
 It enumerates the cases where the federal courts
would assume jurisdiction. The areas that are not
specifically mentioned to fall under federal court
jurisdiction are therefore presumed to be under
jurisdiction of state courts.
 Thus, it may be argued that there is no need of
enumerating the jurisdiction of state courts. The way
FDRE Constitution did the residual jurisdiction is left
to regional courts.

173. Concept of Delegation (delegated
jurisdiction)
 Art 78(2) of FDRE Constitution provides that “the
jurisdiction of federal high court and of the first
instance courts is delegated to state courts”. Art 80 of
the same also provides that “state high courts in
addition to state jurisdiction shall exercise the
jurisdiction of the federal first instance court. State
supreme courts then shall exercise the jurisdiction of
the federal high court because of the delegated
authority.
 We have seen the principle under Art 3(1) of the
Federal Courts Proclamation and the specific
jurisdictions over offences that are provided under Art
8, 12 and 15 of the same.

174. Local Jurisdiction
 Based on the above criteria and standards, one could
determine whether Ethiopian courts have
jurisdiction, the case is within the material
jurisdiction of federal or state courts, and also which
level of courts i.e., supreme, high or first
instance/woreda court as the case may be.
 Yet the last but most important question of which
particular court has the jurisdiction to see and
adjudicate the case at hand is not answered.
 Local Jurisdiction refers to where pertinent public
prosecutor frame (prepare) charge against a suspect to
a particular named court.