With a little bit of work, this belongs in a proper academic Journal. #academiclife :)

Piggybacking on this great work, let me say my piece about this matter.

A long-ish thread. /1 https://twitter.com/awushwish/status/1275061382736723968

I thoroughly enjoyed the constitutional debates that came after NEBE announced it cannot conduct the election. Specially in the days after the four options were presented to the parties and the public, I was at the high of my excitement with the sudden turn of events ... 2/

that put the constitution at the center of everyone’s conversation. Unlike many times before, this time almost every one was talking about how to make it work for their preferred outcome, not if we should keep it or discard it and write a new one. /3

But this lasted only until I realized the matters is landing in the hands of the CCI and the HoF. This is NOT because I believed the CCI did not have jurisdiction or there is no need for interpretation as some do. /4

I do believe an interpretation was called for & it was legally correct for the matter to be referred to the CCI. My mood was dampened as I learned the identity of members of the CCI, some with well-known associations with the incumbent and some with questionable track records./5

More importantly, I did not have confidence in their knowledge of constitutional jurisprudence. This was partly because, for anyone who read the few decisions that the CCI authored before,,, well it does not even read like a proper judgment in terms of format and language. /6

Given the fact that it has the power of setting a binding legal precedent, it’s hard to tell what is what in the case at hand, the rule they want to establish. /7

Come hearing day, I was proven right. It’s basically a depressing replication of the Ethiopian Judicial scene. The yawning gap in expertise between “the bench” and “ the bar” was on display. /8

The way some members of the CCI, including the seasoned lawyers were struggling to comprehend the arguments from the expert witnesses was cringe worthy. For anyone hoping they could take some of the submissions very seriously, .... / 9

their questions and interventions were too transparent in indicating which way they wanted to go. The reading of prepared questions reminiscent of the scenes from parliament including "lekerbew... iyamesegenku, tiyakyen endemiketilew akerballehu" did not help. /10

The fact that it was a procedural novelty and that the room setting was rather awkward for such a "judicial" process and the challenges it causes is not lost on me. Also, I have to say some of the experts also wrote better than they spoke. But even with that, it was a mess. /11

The hope that is dashed with the blank check they eventually wrote is not limited to the immediate case. If it was more respectably done, this would have been an exercise that would have built confidence in a judicial route for constitutional dispute. settlement in the future /12

In every reform, personnel matter, but in judicial reform, it would not be too controversial to say it defines it. If we are to have a better future tin this sector, a major purging and re-staffing of the judiciary is a must. /13

Also, though the financial and non-financial incentives need to be considered, the many prominent lawyers offered influential judicial positions in the honeymoon days of the reform but declined should, at least partly, blame themselves. /13
End.

One more thing. Experts who, in good faith, participated in the process through written submissions & oral testimony deserve our respect and appreciation. Some who in hindsight criticize them for doing so are being dishonest. Every lawyer I can think of was equally optimistic.