The introduction of the Asset Recovery Proclamation in Ethiopia represents a significant step in the country’s anti-corruption strategy. The goal is to recover assets gained through illicit means and deter further corrupt practices within both the public and private sectors. However, the law’s potential for misuse, particularly in terms of targeting political opponents, critics, and ordinary citizens, is a serious concern. This analysis will examine how the Asset Recovery Proclamation could be weaponized for political purposes, using the case of four suspects recently charged with corruption-related offenses as a key example of how state mechanisms, including law enforcement, are already being used to target individuals—even before the law is fully enacted.
1. The Case of the Suspects: A Real-World Example of Preemptive Targeting
The case of four suspects charged with threatening investors and accepting money under the pretext of invoking the Asset Recovery Proclamation highlights the danger of abuse in its implementation. The suspects, including police officers, were accused of using the threat of asset confiscation to extort money from individuals, even though the law had not yet been enacted and no formal investigation had begun. The defendants allegedly told an investor that his property was about to be seized under the new proclamation and coerced him into handing over 10,000 birr as a “payment” to prevent such action.
This case serves as a stark example of how law enforcement officers may abuse the legal framework—before it is even fully functional—to exert control over individuals and extract money under false pretenses. The fact that police officers were involved in the extortion scheme suggests that state mechanisms designed to enforce the law could, in fact, become part of the problem, actively participating in corruption rather than eradicating it. Moreover, it indicates how quickly and easily the Asset Recovery Proclamation could be manipulated by individuals in positions of power to intimidate and target those without political or legal recourse.
The indictment reveals that the suspects went further by claiming to be part of the security forces, which allowed them to extract a one-million birr check from the victim under the false pretense of handling asset confiscation. The fact that these individuals were able to engage in such activity with apparent impunity before the law was even in effect underscores the ease with which such laws can be abused by those with authority. This preemptive targeting of a private citizen illustrates a troubling trend—police officers and others in positions of power might be using the law to intimidate and financially exploit individuals, long before an official investigation or judicial process is even in motion.
2. The Broader Implications: Politicization of Anti-Corruption Measures
The Asset Recovery Proclamation is framed as a mechanism to tackle corruption and illicit enrichment, but the case of the suspects underlines how such a law could easily be politicized. The law’s broad and somewhat vague provisions, coupled with a lack of clear guidelines on what constitutes “illicit wealth,” create an opening for political manipulation. Those in power could use the asset recovery process to target individuals based on their political views or affiliations, instead of focusing on actual criminal behavior.
In the case of the suspects, the involvement of law enforcement officials who appear to be working with impunity signals a disturbing trend of politicized enforcement. The accused police officers, including an inspector from the Federal Police Commission, clearly used their positions to manipulate the situation for personal gain. This reflects the potential for similar abuses when the law is fully in force: law enforcement officials, government employees, or even political factions could use the proclamation as a political tool to target opposition figures, business rivals, or dissenting voices.
Given Ethiopia’s political environment, where political competition can be intense and divisive, the risk of weaponizing the law to eliminate rivals or punish critics becomes a very real concern. The law could easily turn into a tool for silencing opposition or delegitimizing political competitors by accusing them of corrupt activities or illicit wealth accumulation without any credible evidence or investigation.
3. The Risk of Political Targeting and Unchecked Abuse
The current case also highlights how the police, long before the law is enacted, have already begun using the perceived power of the Asset Recovery Proclamation to target individuals. The actions of the suspects suggest that the mere threat of asset confiscation under the proclamation is enough to exert control over others, particularly those without the resources to fight back or challenge such claims.
This practice of leveraging an as-yet unimplemented law is alarming. If the law can be exploited even before its official enactment, it could be even more dangerous once fully operational. Individuals—especially those critical of the government or those in political opposition—could face unfounded accusations of corruption or illicit wealth accumulation, leading to asset seizures without due process or substantial evidence.
A critical issue is that individuals accused under such laws might not have the resources to defend themselves. In a society where political and economic power is often intertwined, a vulnerable individual, or a business leader without political protection, might easily become a target. Their assets could be seized, their reputation tarnished, and their livelihood threatened—all in the name of asset recovery, without a fair trial or even a legitimate investigation.
4. Legal Safeguards: The Need for Transparency and Oversight
The case of the suspects makes it clear that there needs to be robust safeguards to prevent the abuse of the Asset Recovery Proclamation. Without adequate oversight, this law could become yet another tool for state officials to suppress dissent and consolidate power. To ensure fairness and prevent political targeting, several measures should be put in place:
- Clear Legal Definitions: The law should clearly define what constitutes illicit wealth or corruption to prevent the arbitrary application of asset recovery measures.
- Independent Oversight: An independent body, free from political influence, should oversee the implementation of the law and investigate complaints of abuse.
- Judicial Review: Any asset seizure should require judicial approval, and the victims should have access to a fair and transparent legal process to contest the seizure.
- Transparency in Investigations: All asset recovery activities should be publicly documented, with clear evidence presented before any assets are confiscated.
5. Conclusion: A Tool for Justice or Political Suppression?
The Asset Recovery Proclamation holds the potential to be a valuable tool in the fight against corruption, but the way it is implemented will determine whether it serves the public good or becomes a vehicle for political repression. The case of the suspects—who have already exploited the legal framework before its official enactment—serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers of unchecked power and the misuse of anti-corruption laws for political ends. To prevent such abuses, the law must be accompanied by strict safeguards, including judicial oversight, independent monitoring, and clear definitions, to ensure it does not become a tool for targeting individuals based on political motivations. Only with these measures in place can the Asset Recovery Proclamation fulfill its original intent—combating corruption—without becoming an instrument of political control.
