The first instance court of Arada bench was expected to wrap up the
pre-trial ‘hearing’ which took more than 70 days and yet the bloggers
were not even brought before the judge. Mr.Amaha Mekonnen,
a lawyer defending the bloggers & journalists who are detained on
unclear but shaping up to be on terrorism charges expected the first
instance court at Arada bench to rest the pre-trial procedure last
Saturday. The court had set the 12th July hearing for closing arguments
but with an extraordinary move the police referred the case to the
Federal High Court without even the presence of neither the defendants nor their
defense lawyer himself. The shift overlooked the court and contravenes even the
standard procedure of the biased justice system. The lawyer speaks to Dawit Solomon, a journalist based in Addis Ababa about the issue. Here
are the translated excerpts from the interview.
DAWIT: What were your thoughts on your way to the court for Saturday’s procedure?
 |
| Amaha Mekonen Defense Lawyer of Zone 9 bloggers & Journalists |
AMAHA: I expected the police might demand for more
time to wrap up their interrogation as usual. I also sought to see how
the court would reply to this repeated claim of the police.
Nevertheless, to the shock of me and all people who were here what
unfolded was really baffling. Since the detainees were not brought to
the court some journalists went straight to the court’s registrar to ask
about the case. Then a person who claimed himself as “the detective” of
the case told the journalists since he is done with the interrogation
he submitted the case for a prosecutor. He further claimed that the case
is closed. This was what I was told by the journalists then I also went
in to verify which I found it true. They closed the case without the
presence of neither my clients nor me who is
representing them.
DAWIT: What action have you taken after you heard?
AMAHA: We have been to court’s compound way
earlier than the scheduled time of the hearing. When the detectives/police officers presented their arguments it should be in our presence. I
have tried to explain our disappointment to the judge. This is
basically a grave breach of law.
DAWIT: So what is the encroachment? Where is the breach of the law?
AMAHA: It is this court that allowed the detectives
to wrap up their interrogations within 28 days. Presumably up until now
the defendants were under custody with at least (translator’s addition)
the authorization of the court but from this moment on they are detained
illegally without the sanction of the court. That is where the sort of
encroachments lay. The police officers should have brought the
defendants before the judge. They should have given details about the
result of their investigation of the case to the court. It should have
been the judge who should have determined if the case is liable. It
should have been the court which decides to grant or deny bail for the
defendants based on the details presented to the court. They have closed
the case at the first instance court and kept the defendants illegally
(translator’s addition) without all these procedures. That is why I said
it is a breach of law.
DAWIT: What will be next for the defendants? What can you do for them?
AMAHA: I will start a lawsuit on the behalf of the
defendants. I need to guard the physical freedom of the defendants. I
will wait until Monday (July 14, 2014) since I have to get details about their lawsuit
which they said they will begin on the defendants. I should learn
details such as where and when will the lawsuits carry on.
DAWIT: So where will you launch the lawsuit to
safeguard the individual freedom of the defendants and to require the
police to bring the defendants before a judge or into court?
AMAHA: I will start the lawsuit at the Federal High Court.
DAWIT: Since last week the bloggers and journalists
are allowed to be visited by their loved ones with the exception of Abel
Wabela. What is the reason for him? Have you tried to find out the
reason?
 |
| Blogger Abel Wabela, handcuffed & in white shirt |
AMAHA: I have had a permission to visit the
detainees at least once a week. Even though it is just for a single day I
had a chance to speak with eight of them whom I represent in the court.
Now I am told that the permission is limited to meet with just one of
the detainees within a day. By this pace it would take me about four
weeks to speak to all eight of the detainees. This is another serious
breach of law. The defendants’ constitutional right of speaking with
their lawyers should be respected.
Regarding Abel I have heard that he had some disagreements with the
detectives who are assigned to investigate his case. But I should
confirm this from Abel himself.
DAWIT: We have heard that the bloggers and
journalists are forced to make false confessions. They were under
extreme duress to make a clean breast of actions they have never
participated and documents they have never produced. What does the law
say about admissibility of confessions that are induced through
coercion? Please tell me details especially in relation with
anti-terrorism law?
AMAHA: Regarding confessions made to police officers
the criminal procedure has established a series of rules. Confessions
that are reportedly induced through coercion are not that admissible
before the court or the judge. People should not be forced to confess on
themselves.
DAWIT: It is expected the other three group of
bloggers will be brought to court this afternoon (Monday). Considering
what happened on Saturday will you anticipate the blogger to be brought
before the court?
AMAHA: No I don’t expect they will be brought but I will honor the date and I will be in attendance
DAWIT: Thank you!
Note: This is not a literal translation (word to word translations) but contextual translations
No comments:
Post a Comment