The Jurisprudence and Approaches of Constitutional Interpretation by the House of Federation in Ethiopia

Abstract

This article examines the jurisprudence of the Council of Constitutional Inquiry (CCI) and the House of Federation (HoF) in resolving constitutional disputes with a view to identifying the principles/approaches utilized in their decisions and its human rights implication. These organs are entrusted with the power to interpret the Constitution upon application by private parties or court referral of cases. The article also examines patterns in the judiciary’s referral of cases for constitutional interpretation, and it discusses the methods and principles used by CCI/HoF in constitutional interpretation. Although the CCI/HoF has not expressly adopted distinct principles/approaches of constitutional interpretation, they can be inferred from the jurisprudence of the CCI and the HoF. I argue that there is inconsistent application of principles of constitutional interpretation. This is related with the incoherence observed in the constitutional interpretation of fundamental human rights recognized under the FDRE Constitution and ratified international human rights conventions. This shows that the HoF –which is a political body– has failed to protect basic human rights through its decisions that involve politically sensitive cases. There is thus the need to develop and adopt rules of procedure and principles of constitutional interpretation that can ensure predictability, consistency and coherence in HOF/CCI decisions towards the protection of human rights. Key terms Human rights, Constitutional interpretation, House of Federation, Council of Constitutional Inquiry