|
UNDER THE DISGUISE OF FIGHTING CORRUPTION Observers in Ethiopia - January 2003 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Twenty months have elapsed since the inception of the Ethiopian Government's "Anti-Corruption Campaign". During this period, a series of events have occurred in connection with the Campaign. The subject has been given wide coverage by the Government media (as part of the propaganda work), and by the private media as well. Authorities of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) have been reporting and giving press releases about their plans and activities. The Prime Minister had presented quarterly and annual reports to the parliament regarding the "accomplishments" made so far by the Commission. During the two policy discussion forums recently conducted by the Inter Africa Group, it has been witnessed that the issue of the "Anti-Corruption Campaign" going on is of great concern to the Ethiopian public. Both the Prime Minister and his Minister of Information have failed to properly explain for their action and respond to the fundamental questions raised. 1.2 Issues related to this campaign have been repeatedly covered not only on Forums within the country but also on the internet; bilateral forums with IMF & World Bank meetings, bilateral discussions with democratic nations, Ethiopians in Diaspora, etc. The main issues commonly raised were the fact that the constitution is violated, due process of law is not followed, political agenda was pursued under the cover of fighting corruption, there is no speedy trial (in fact there is a deliberate manipulation to delay trial), etc. The Nation has witnessed in the previous two forums how its questions on the process of this campaign have been deliberately evaded by the top two persons of the Executive Organ and the ruling party. 1.3 Recently, it is being announced that the Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission is going to present her report on the activities of her Commission to the Council of Representative. Previous reports and press releases of the Commission have been very much wide spread among the public so much so that concerned citizens and professionals can now give their version of reports on the subject. This is why this report is prepared and we hope it would enable the recipients to have a balanced view of the Commissioner's report vis-a-vis the reality on the ground. 2 GENESIS OF THE CAMPAIGN 2.1 The Anti-Corruption Campaign as an agenda of the Government came into the picture in May 2001 following the declaration of the conflict and division of the core of the ruling party, Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) into two. 2.2 Immediately, without going through the regular process of promulgation of laws, the two proclamations on anti-corruption proclamation No. 235/2001 and 236/2001 were directly channeled by the Prime Minister and the then Minister of Justice to the Council of Representatives. We were told that they were enacted on Thursday May 24, 2001 with immediate effect. Friday May 25, 2001 was a working day. As May 26 & 27 were weekend days offices were closed. The Following day, Monday May 28, 2001 was a public holiday hence all offices were closed. On the next day, Tuesday May 29, 2001, Mr. Siye Abraha (former Minister of Defense) along with six members of his family, Mr. Bitw Belay some prominent business people, Bank executives, top management of Sugar Factories were arrested by the special guards of the Prime Minister without any arrest warrant from court whatsoever. Mr. Siye Abraha and Mr. Bitew Belay, it should be noted, are the prominent leaders of the faction who has been purged from the core of the Ruling Party. On June1, 2001 all the arrested people were made to appear at the Federal First Level Court. On June 9, 2001, the court ordered for the release of Mr. Siye Abraha and others on bail. Nonetheless, the Central Investigation Police refused to release Mr. Siye Abraha. Instead, in unprecedented manner the police appealed to the High Court. The High Court rejected the appeal and ordered for the release of Mr. Siye Abraha once more on June 12, 2001. On the next day, June 13, 2001, it was announced that an amendment to the new anti-corruption proclamation (Proclamation No. 239/2001) was approved by the Council of Representatives and was issued as a proclamation. This was the un-historic moment when the right to bail was unconditionally closed. The irony is that, at the time when the subject was under discussion by the Parliament, the amendment was already published and available in the market. Subsequently, although the Federal First Level Court got Mr. Siye Abraha released (by way of executing its previous ruling), all the same, Mr. Abraha was rearrested immediately a few yards away far from the prison. 2.3 The Re-imprisonment of Mr. Siye Abraha marked the conclusion of the dramatic process at the Federal First Level Court. His case was channeled to the Supreme Court as the case of the Bankers, Businessmen and Executives of Sugar factories, were referred to the High Court. Under the disguise of police investigation a series of 14 day appointments were given by the Courts as and when requested by the Police. 2.4 Meanwhile in July police came up with an application to the court stating that the properties of the defendants and their companies are the outcome (results) of corruption and thus should be restrained from being sold, transferred to third party. Without any hesitation, the Courts ruled in favour of the police's request and receivers were appointed to administer the properties. To date, the properties of the arrested business persons are under restraint being administered by strangers (receivers), the strength of the companies diminishing from time to time while the loans are swelling up because of accumulated interest as time goes by. Moreover, employees are leaving the campanies. 2.5 In August 2001, Police reported that it has completed its investigation and all the defendants implicated on the corruption case were sent to the prison from the Central Police Investigation. The defendants appealed to the Courts stating that the fundamental Habeas Cor pus right be observed. The court accepted the appeal and ruled that some of the defendants should be released when they appeared to court. Surprisingly, the administrator of the prison who received the court's order bluntly responded to the court that his office will not be able to execute the court's order unless it is ordered by the Prime Minister's office. Hence the defendants remained in prison in which they are languishing to date. 3 THE SEARCH FOR CRIMINAL ACTS & EVIDENCES 3.1 After arresting the targeted persons on the morrow of promulgation of the Anti-Corruption Proclamation, amending the same new law to deny the right to bail and restraining the properties and companies of the defendants, the next crucial task was to hunt for criminal acts and evidences to enable the commission to make a case for the arrest. The Prime Minister's Office which triggered the case from the outset released a statement mentioning the names of the arrested and sensationally claiming that grand corruption cases have been established while still inviting the public to provide the police information and evidences regarding the people arrested. To this effect, telephone and fax addresses have been announced. The public have been invited to provide information for which they will not take responsibilities as they are not required to tell their true names and addresses when they make calls to provide information. 3.2 Along with the wide search for information from the public, special investigation of the businessperson's loans with the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia (CBE), was ordered by the Commission. Office of the Federal Auditor General was assigned to search for evidence against the alleged businessmen in the customs office, Inland Revenue Administration, Addis Ababa Finance Bureau, Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, Sugar Industry Sales Center, and the Ethiopian Privatization Agency by way of conducting "Special Audit". 3.3 As regards the defendants who were not under Government employment (Mr. Siye Abraha & Mr. Bitew Belay) an exhaustive search for witnesses through both lobbying and intimidation was underway. Character assassination campaign was also made against both these former top Authorities in the Government and Ruling Party. 4 CONTENT AND PROGRESS OF THE FIRST ROUND CASES 4.1 Six months after languishing in prison, the lingering process at the Supreme Court culminated in establishing a charge against Mr. Siye Abraha in October 2001. The case encompassed loans from the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, Public Enterprises sold through the Ethiopian Privatization Agency, vehicles purchased by Mrs. Abraha's brother from AMCE, etc. The defendants were mainly Mr. Siye Abraha, his brothers and sister. Funny enough, Mr. Tamirat Layne, the former prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense (in prison for six years now) has been included along in the charge following his refusal to stand as a witness against Mr. Siye Abraha and his brothers. 4.2 A long list of names has been provided to the court as witnesses among which are Commercial Bank of Ethiopia's former president, inspectors, Ethiopian Privatization Agency Board minutes and other documents were included in the list of evidences. 4.3 Next to Mr. Siye Abraha & etal's case, the Commission filed charges against 54 Commercial Bank of Ethiopia's (CBE) executives and senior management and hand-picked (targeted) borrowers who are prominent business people in the country. Thus, in addition to the already arrested three bank executives and eleven businessmen, forty more Bank executives and senior bankers among which is the President of Commercial Bank of Ethiopia were grossly arrested. It should be noted that the President of the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia was listed as a prominent witness on the charge against Mr. Siye Abraha etal. 4.4 The alleged charges against the Bankers was granting loans illegally and that of the business people was taking loans illegally. The way the charges were presented, just like the press releases and other propaganda campaigns waged earlier, gave the impression that the Bank's money was robbed rather than lent to the borrowers in accordance with the law and duly crafted contract. Amazingly enough, no mention was made about the fact that a good deal of these loans have been paid back by the borrowers and hence loan accounts closed. The Commission, through its orchestrated campaign against the defendants, had temporarily succeeded in disillusioning the public, the courts and even some members of the international community. 4.5 The defendants charged with granting and taking bank loans were, on the bankers' side those involve in the credit analysis, loan reviewing and loan approval committee membership. On the borrowers' side general managers of the companies were included in the charge. The evidences produced to the effect of establishing the case were inspection report specially prepared to the desire of the Commission and the inspectors who prepared the inspection reports as witnesses. What a self fulfilling prophecy? 4.6 THE INSPECTION REPORTS' CONTENT & VALIDITY AS EVIDENCE 4.6.1 The Organization of the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia is such that the Inspection division gives support service and reports to the top management of the bank. Its main function is to see to it that the Bank's various activities are being accomplished per the policies procedures, guidelines and management's decisions short of which it reports to the top management of the Bank. This is clearly stipulated in the Bank's policy and procedures manuals and organizational set up. 4.6.2 Always order for special examination by inspectors emanates from the top management of the Bank. The inspection manual clearly depicts the process of inspection, reporting of irregularities, actions necessary for rectification etc. The management after receiving the report discusses it and resolves on what irregularity has been made what actions to take, who is responsible, and rectification's to be made. If the management believes a criminal act has been committed, the case is channeled to the police and litigation pursued with at the court of law. 4.6.3 If one examines the Bank's regular/established system of inspection vis-a-vis the one followed by the Commission, the inspection report produced as evidence, the following handicaps are easily observed. a)The reports were not initiated by the top management of the Bank. Rather, the Central Police Investigation Office directly ordered the inspection division of the Bank to conduct a special investigation. The reports were prepared a few weeks after the defendants were arrested. b)The reports do not provide a clue on the terms of reference. They only narrate the loan granting process and state "...The violations as observed as examined against the Bank's policies & procedures..." No mention is made about what specific violations have been committed, who is responsible and the action(s) that need to be taken to rectify same. Hence fail to meet the Commission's intended purpose. c)According to the Bank's standard inspection (control) practice the reports were supposed to be submitted to the Bank's management after which they would be sent (as appropriate) to the police. In reality what happened was, the reports were through internal memo, sent to the acting chief inspector and without the Bank's seal and official acknowledgement, reached to the hands of the police after which they were handed over tot the court as evidence against the defendants. The reason why the reports were obtained unofficially (stolen) through the backdoor is that the Bank's Board of Management has deliberated on these reports albeit initiated by the police, and concluded that no criminal act has been committed. Therefore, it is not surprising to learn that the unofficial reports were smuggled by the police, as the official ones would not endorse the malicious desire of the Commission. 4.6.4 The inspectors who prepared the reports are only internal to the Bank and not certified auditors to serve the purpose of producing uncontested evidence. Thus their appearance in front of the courts as witnesses would not cure the weaknesses of the report revealed so far. If anything they can only be as good as their own reports. RULINGS ON THE FIRST ROUND CHARGES Following the prosecutors production of evidence to the courts, the defendants presented their defense and. The Bank's case was appointed for September 2002 when the Court was expected to give rulings. In September, to the surprise of the defendants, the media and the public, the prosecutor appealed to the court to withdraw the case at the court and replace it by a new one. This apparently had the effect of dragging the case back to square one. Amazingly the High Court accepted the Commission's request. On the other hand, the Supreme Court rejected a similar request by the commission after examining the evidences which were stated as the main reasons for changing /modifying the charge. It is in deed a paradox to observe two opposing rulings by the two courts operating under the same law. Both requests of the prosecutor were fundamentally the same;having the intention of dragging the case in fear of facing the day of reckoning. 5 CONTENT AND PROCESS OF THE SECOND ROUND CHARGES 5.1 The Alleged "new" charges were presented one week after the commission withdrew the initial charges. The content of the so-called "new" case revealed no new substance. The central issue was still like the previous one around the process of approving loans and taking loans. The articles of the charges were also the same. A very limited change was observed on the defendants. Out of the 54 defendants, three were excluded from the new charge and hence released. Two defendants charged with Ato Siye Abraha were included in the bankers' charge on similar grounds they have been charged at the Supreme Court. A third new defendant (businessman) was also included in the charge. 5.2 Another development in the new charge was that the 54 defendants are divided into four files. Each file constituted from 28 to 37 defendants. In each file, a combination of bankers (lenders) and business people (borrowers) are included. Although the content of the charges was not changed the form was different in that the level and type of participation of each participant in the loan process was revealed. Thus each defendant was charged for supporting the request of loan or recommending the loan, or approving the loan, etc. 5.3 The corresponding evidences for the "new" charges are mostly "Special Audit" reports. In only few cases, the inspection reports were retained. The special audit reports were produced by the office of the Auditors' General as requested by the Anti-Corruption Commission. The Auditors who produced the Audit Reports are also presented as witnesses. 5.4 Now that in all the defendants (Mr. Siye Abraha Etal, Executives of Sugar Factories and Bankers and Businessmen) have filed their defense against the charges are waiting for the courts' rulings. 6 THE CONTENT AND VALIDITY OF THE AUDIT REPORTS 6.1 Initiation 6.1.1 The Audit Reports are 15 each prepared in the name of the company which took the loans from the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia. The covering letters of the reports, signed by the Auditor General or his deputy addressed to the commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission indicate that all of them were finalized between March and May 2001. The same covering letter reveals also that the request for "Special Audit" was made by the Commissioner on June 21, 2001. 6.1.2 The form of presentation of all the Audit Reports is similar depicting that:- a)The Special Audit was made as per the request for "professional support" by the Commission and per the proclamation for the establishment of the Office of the Federal Auditor General. (Proclamation No.68/97) b)The Audits were made on each loan granted to the businessmen against the credit policies, procedures and guidelines of the Bank. It is stated in that information is gathered from policy documents, guidelines and procedures of the Bank, other government and private institutions and explanations from the Bank's employees and managers concerned. c)The audits cover the period from 1993 to July 7, 2001, and d)The auditing method applied was "detail" approach. The audit report further indicates the way each loan was processed from loan application to loan approval, the persons involved from branch to the Board of Management level and the alleged violations (no mention is made as to which specific policy of the bank is violated). 6.2 Chronology of events in the preparation of the Audit Report In June 21, 2001 the Commissioner wrote a request for audit (Professional) support to the office of the Federal Auditor General stating that: Will be the subjects of the envisaged "Special Audit" On June 28, 2001 the commission for Anti-Corruption commission wrote a directive to all the above mentioned government institutions and AMCE (Local Truck Assembly plant) instructing them to make their books open to the auditors assigned regarding the corruption suspected organizations and individuals. On July 5, 2001 the Auditor General in his letter to the Commissioner states that 25 auditors are assigned for the special audit and requested that:- Should be provided to the teams of auditors. As per the above request of the Auditor General, the Commissioner requests the Prime Minister to approve same and the Prime Minister approves the request for logistics and additional budget The Deputy Auditor general requests the Ministry of Finance to release the specially approved monetary support Vehicles, Mobile telephones and special allowance have been made available by the organizations being inspected. It should be noted here that all this financial and logistical support has been granted to the Auditor General without the knowledge and approval of the Parliament. This is contrary to the proclamation of establishment of the Office of the Auditor General. The Proclamation clearly stipulates that the Parliament would allocate budget to the Office in order to avoid the danger of falling on the trap of dependence on the Executive wing. Initially, the Federal Auditor's office promised to complete the audit in six months. However, as the audit nearly took 11 months, hence more resources were needed for the extended period. The Executive wing (PMO and the Commission) continued to supply with all the additional resources in contravention to the proclamation of establishment of the office of the Auditor General and the mandatory independence from the Government. Finally, the so-called auditors completed their fault finding mission which culminated in preparing the long waited audit reports. The reports were presented to their sponsor, the Commission. The reports handed over to the Commission reveal that :- 7 VIOLATIONS & CRIMINAL ACTS COMMITTED IN THE PROCESS OF AUDIT PREPARATION However, in the case of the "Special Audit" activities performed per the request of the commission, the Office of the Federal AG has indulged itself in accepting orders from the Executive wing to conduct criminal investigation effectively replacing the police. As evidenced from its correspondence with the Commissioner. In the Audit Reports none of the objectives mentioned above are witnessed to have been fulfilled or even attempted. What is actually done is searching for faults that will justify the charges filed without evidence. 7.2 Proclamation 68/97 article 4/2 states that one of the objectives of the Office of the Federal AG is to:- "Ascertain that all receivable money and property of the Federal Government are collected, preserved and used properly, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Federal Government, and report same to the Council;" However, a look into the Audit Reports reveal that the benchmarks for the audit were rather the internal policies and procedures of each institution concerned. No reports were presented to the Council to whom the office is accountable as clearly indicated on the covering letters of each of the audit reports. The fact that AG's office is shying away from reporting clearly casts doubt regarding the legality of the process and authenticity of the report. 7.3 The same proclamation on Article 4/3 defines the kind of Audits the Office of the AG is empowered to conduct as follows: "Undertake a financial and performance audits of the Office and Organizations of the Federal Government."The Office is no where in the proclamation bestowed upon to conduct a "Special Audit". Notwithstanding this, the audit reports that are presented to the court are based on examination (investigation) of loan granting process around specific targeted individuals and companies. This fact is established by the reports themselves. Examining the decision process of an Organization against its internal policies, regulations and procedures is not at all a mandate given to the office by the proclamation. 7.4 The Proclamation (No.68/97) Article 13 in underscoring the duty of the Office of the FAG to notify its audit findings clearly underscores the following. "The Federal Auditor General shall notify to the Ministry of Justice and the head of the audited Federal Government or Organization concerned where, in the course of his auditing he has reasons to believe that an offence has been committed." None of these organizations have received the report nor has the council been informed about it. One can't help wandering why the Office of Federal AG failed to report to those it is obligated by the proclamation. 7.5 The introductions to the audit Reports State that the "detailed audits" approach has been applied in performing the audit. In fact, only 15 borrowers have been selected from 34,000 borrowers of the Bank Similarly, only 4 enterprises out of the 200 public enterprises sold by the Ethiopian Privatization Agency have been subjected to audit. Had it been on "detail audit" approach all the 34,000 borrowers and 200 PEs should have been audited. Thus, apparently the detail approach as indicated on the AG proclamation was not applied. A spot-checking or sample-based approach was not applied either. While, the proclamation provides only the "detail" and "sample" approaches to the auditing function the AG work was done on certain targeted borrowers who were already charged and imprisoned well before the start of the audit. Thus, the whole purpose of the auditing task in which the AG went far out of its way was to fulfill the Commission's need of incriminating innocent Citizens. 7.6 Organizationally, Office of the AG is made to report to the Council of Representatives deliberately so to enable it to maintain its independence mainly from the Executive organ. For the same reason its budget is allocated by the CR. In contravention to this intent for independence: The AG has accepted the request of the Commission to conduct investigative audit and asked the executive (through the Commission) for additional budget. Here under are a serious of violations. a)Accepting assignment from the Commission without a careful reference to its mandate. b)Asking the executive (from which it was supposed to be independent both organizationally and resource wise) for budget to enable it to do the assignment given to it. c)Channeling the report confidentially to the commission and worse not letting the Council to know about it and receive the report of same. d)According to the Anti-Corruption Proclamation No. 235/2001 the Auditor General or his/her deputy is a member of the Advisory Board of the Commission. Needless to say, there is a clear conflict of interest in that the independence of the office, the AG and auditors is eroded. Alas! How on earth is the head of the office of AG expected to remain neutral? How would the auditors working for these people messed up in a complex of conflict of interests remain independent? No wonder that the beginning, the process and the outcome of the reports are full of irregularities, inconsistencies, and lack professional touch. 7.7 Proclamation 84/94 issued to establish the National Bank of Ethiopia's (NBE) authority to authorize and control banks in Ethiopia unequivocally stipulates that only the NBE is authorized to supervise and control the activities and financial management of the banks operating in the country. The power to inspect banks in the country is exclusively bestowed upon the NBE by the strength of the same Proclamation. On the other hand, office of the AG is entitled to do "financial audit" while what it actually did is banking process audit in particular loan application processing audit which is totally outside of its mandate and area of competence. The proclamation 84/94 not withstanding, the commission and the office of the AG have been working hard towards illegally generating the reports produced to serve as evidence for the alleged corruption charges. From the above points, we believe, the reader can understand the unholy alliance and orchestration between the commission and the office of the AG to establish truth in the eyes of the courts from fabricated allegations. 7.8 According to International Standard Audit practice, the draft audit report is supposed to be provided to the authorities concerned and the employees implicated for discussion and correction if any. Neither the authorities nor the implicated people (suspects) were given the chance to see the report until the reports were made available as evidence to the court. 8 FACTS REVEALED & HIDDEN BY THE AUDIT REPORT Effort has been made to highlight the circumstances under which the commission and the office of AG created an unwholly alliance to forge evidence against the defendants. One can imagine the irregularities and violations committed in the process thereby severely compromising the validity of the document as evidence. However much effort has been made to produce evidence tailor made to the need of the Commission there are facts revealed and facts hidden not necessarily to the interest of the Commission. Some are presented in brief below. 8.1 Facts hidden In the Report 8.1.1 The report treats in detail the lending process from application for loan to approval, No mention is made about how the loans are serviced, how they have been managed, etc. It gives the reader the impression that the loans have been taken but not repaid back. Thus, the report hides the fact that most of the loans are fully repaid and hence accounts closed. 8.1.2 Although the auditors have stated that violations of policy, procedures and guidelines have been made in processing and approving the loans, which policies or procedures have been violated in each transaction processing is not specifically established on the reports. Inspite of this, the auditors have tried to pinpoint those accountable for the violation. Establishing accountability for unestablished offence is not legally sound and acceptable. Thus, this is nothing other than a fault finding exercise. 8.1.3 While the objective and duty of professionally qualified auditors is to strengthen audit system, upgrade the internal auditors, identify weaknesses that need to be rectified in addition to uncovering violations and offences, in the case of the reports in question no attempt has been made ever about what needs to be done in the future to improve systems and prevent the occurrence of violations. The entire focus was on what fault was found and who is accountable for it. 8.2 Facts Revealed in the Report These reports, despite their enormous limitations depict some facts, which the inspection reports presented at the first round charges do not. Here under are some of them. 8.2.1 While the charges of the first round were vague and too general to show the level and type of participation of each defendant, the second round charges are presented in a way the role played by each participant is established. Moreover, the audit reports also show that the loans have been duly processed by the designated committees and not simply handed out to borrowers as the Commission tries to convince the court and the public at large. 8.2.2 Most loans in the charge are settled; 85% of the loans in the charge are granted by the Board of Management of the Bank. 95% of the remaining loans are again approved by the Board of management (consisting of predominantly ministers in the former and present cabine). The Board which approved the predominant number and amount of loans is not charged for its decision. On the other hand those Bank officials who recommended the loans are charged and languishing in prison. All these facts are established in the audit report. This is another virtue of the report. 8.2.3 Not all bankers who are involved in recommending or approving the loans are charged and imprisoned. The audit report clearly lists all those involved in the decision making. By simple cross-reference against the charges, one can easily identify who is involved in the loan processing but not charged. The reports show that there is no transparency in determining who should be litigated and who should not. 8.2.4 In a similar manner, out of 30 businessmen who got truck loan for 600 trucks (approved by the Board) only two of them were charged. Although no effort is made by the auditors on whether, those loans are unique to the two or many more have been treated by the bank in the same manner, the fact that no mention has been made about it implies that there is a malicious intent to frame up certain customers. 9 CURRENT LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT 9.1 The so-called " new charges" have been issued to the defendants who have been ordered by the Courts to produce their defense. The defendants have filed their defense accordingly. The prosecutor is ordered to respond to the defendant's defense after which the court is expected to read the massive volume of papers and give rulings. No doubt, this process will continue until July 2003 which is the time of closure of courts for summer vacation. 9.2 Regarding the charges against executives of the sugar factories and Mr. Abate kisho (former president of the southern region) etal witness hearing is over and the forth coming appearance at the court is for ruling. Mr.Siye Abraha and brothers file is still at the stage of witness hearing 9.3 In the process, the defendants and their families are exposed to miserable life. So far, two senior bank officials have passed away from 'lack' of adequate medication. As some of the defendants are aged (retired 7-10 years ago) they are leading complicated life in prison. 9.4 The companies of defendants were restrained and handed over to receivers by the order of the Courts. As a result, they are suffering from loss and operational deterioration. The lender banks are serving them with written warnings with a possible consequence of foreclosure unless the loans are serviced. The impending danger extends to employees being laid off and hence impacting the economy at large as well. 10 CONCLUSION 10.1 It was known from the outset that the government was not genuinely fighting corruption. In the process, this reality has grown naked. The real victims of this campaign are political opponents, rivals of party affiliated business organizations, and executives caught in the crossfire. Aimed at fulfilling this hidden agenda, here we are in a progressively compounding crisis. 10.2 In the process of fulfilling this agenda a serious of crimes have been committed including the violation of the constitution and many proclamations. The country's big institutions the Parliament, the Courts, the Police force, Office of the Auditor General (AG) have been contaminated and abused by working against constitutionalism, democracy and legality. 10.3 The campaign is challenging not only the immediate victims but also in more ways than one, the Country and its People. The bridge between the people and the Government is broken. The public doesn't have confidence in the government and the leaders any more. The public servants have lost their confidence. Hence not ready to make decisions and take responsibility. What a paradox at the time when the government preaches capacity building. One can imagine its impact on the national economy, which is on the verge of collapse. 10.4 In the name of fighting corruption, legality, human rights and democracy are deteriorating from time to time in Ethiopia. The campaign which is expected to promote development is becoming the main obstacle to same. It is costing the country a lot. Both foreign and domestic investments which were low by any standard are totally paralyzed. Capital flight is rampant. Who would like to invest in a country where the rule of law, the full right to ones' own property and speedy and transparent trial is not observed? 10.5 We believe genuine fight against corruption has its contribution to promote development. But only if there is a political commitment of the government and it is done within the limits and bounds of legality and transparency. The Ethiopian's Government's campaign is characterized by none of these. Instead of promoting development it is serving as an instrument to sustain poverty, drought, and wild expansion of diseases like HIV AIDS. It is degenerating the country's political system into Mono Party System there by denying people political pluralism and lending toward dictatorship. Therefore, we appeal all the stakeholders and forces to exert influence and pressure on the Ethiopian Government to restore the rule of law transparency and reverse the unconstitutional proclamation it has issued which denies the right to bail. In particular we appeal to: a)The Ethiopian Parliament, the courts, the Auditor General and the Prosecutors not to serve as a rubber stamp to this campaign of destruction of the Government. b)The Ethiopian opposition parties, professional associations such as Economics Association, lawyers Association, Chamber of Commerce, Industrialists association, Bankers association etc. to condemn and fight the politically motivated. Campaign under the disguise of fighting corruption. c)The Ethiopians in Diaspora to use every influence they could to put pressure on the government to stop violating citizens' rights which are by damaging the country economically, socially and politically. Regardless of political inclination, religions and ethnic background, we believe all Ethiopians in Diaspora should stand in unison and say "No" to dictatorship and unconstitutionality. d)The international Community to revisit its relationship with the Ethiopian government which is growing from time to time undemocratic and unconstitutional. It should closely examine how the government is operating. We believe it is important to consult various segments of the society including the Civic Society, the opposition parties, the professional associations, etc. in order to learn the real behavior of the government after which we expect the International Community to make every effort to influence the Government to:- e)The IMF and The World Bank to closely look into the campaign which they are supporting in the belief that a genuine Anti-Corruption campaign is being waged. It is time that these institutions realize that they are being a party to unholy campaign that goes against their own ideals, principles and interest, against the interest of the Ethiopian public and the country at large. We believe, the heavy hand of the IMF and World Bank along with all the National Democratic forces and the World can save the Country from the looming and upcoming crisis and set it in the right direction. |