4466 Environmental Crimes in Ethiopia.indd

Rose Mwebaza, Philip Njuguna Mwanika and Wondowossen Sintayehu Wonndemagegnehu
Unfortunately, in Ethiopia this fact seems to have been
overlooked. In Action for Professionals’ Association
for the People (APAP) vs. Environmental Protection
Authority, 54 the first case instituted under article 11 of
the Proclamation, the court ruled that article 11(2) did
not permit the APAP to sue the EPA. The appellate court
upheld this decision. The case has been referred to the
Federal Cassation Court to rule on whether or not the
APAP or any other private organisation can sue the EPA.
It should be noted that the issue of locus standi and
public interest litigation pertaining to any environmental
crime is yet to be resolved since the APAP case was
brought under the Environmental Pollution Control
Proclamation and not Article 37 of the Constitution,
which recognises public standing. There is thus still
another opportunity within Ethiopian jurisprudence to
test the practical applicability of the constitutional recognition
of public standing in the enforcement of the law
pertaining to environmental crime.
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
AGREEMENTS
As has been noted, treaties enjoy a special place within
the Ethiopian legal system. Agreements entered into by
government have the force of law even before any formal
domestication process ensues.
The government has so far adopted about 15 MEAs
(see annexure, which also lists the dates of accession).
The country is at different levels with regard to ratifying
and implementing the various agreements. Although
the ratification of MEAs is not the single most important
task of governments, the Ethiopian government has
not yet ratified some important treaties, such as the
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on
Migratory Species, both of which are important in terms
of the specific ecosystems they seek to protect.
Situation Report 11