Right to Self Determination and Land Rights in Ethiopia: Analysis of the Adequacy of the Legal Framework to Address Dispossession.

• Author: Zewdie, Fasil A.

Acknowledgement

I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Dr. George Meszaros, for his invaluable guidance.

Introduction

1.1 Background

Ethiopia has been home to dozens of various peoples with different ethnic, religious and social identities. However, the great majority of these peoples have lived under internal ethnic, political, social and economic subjugation for centuries. Modern Ethiopia is seen by many as the product of the gradual expansion of the old Abyssinia- that consisted mainly of the high land regions of central and northern parts of the country, i.e., shewa, Gojam, Gonder and Tigray including parts present day Eretria- which had started in the 13th century and culminated with the annexation of the eastern, southern and south-western regions of the current Ethiopia (Donham D. 1986: p3, 251; Zewde B. 2007: p7).

Similar to other Africans who were colonized by European forces, the conquered peoples in these parts of the country lost, totally or partially, their local/ indigenous institutions and their land and other resources; were forced to adopt an external language and religion and were enslaved... the only difference was that they suffered these misfortunes at the hands of their fellow Africans. However, contrary to their African counterparts, the plight of these peoples did not receive the attention of the international and regional anti-colonial movements; and they did not get the moral and political support other colonised peoples received. The paradox of the late 19th century Ethiopia under Menelik II was that it was both the symbol of African resistance to European colonialism while at the same time it colonised and enslaved fellow Africans.

The expansion/colonization had significant economic and social consequences for peoples in these parts of the country; first and for most, the expansion led to abolition or the suppression of local land tenure systems (Jembere A. 2012: p128,129, 130) and the superimposition of an external, Abyssinian land tenure system that both led to the dispossession of local peoples of their land and other resources and the introduction of the exploitative political and administrative structures, i.e., the 'gebbar-gult' system.

In the settled and cultivated parts of the newly incorporated regions, a 'gebbar' system was introduced (Zewde B. 2007: p94, Donham D. 1986: p41). Upon completion of the conquest, the emperor granted his main war generals- the pioneers- and some of the local/indigenous leaders called the 'balabats,' who served as the intermediaries between the local people and the centre, a 'gult' right/land- a fief power to collect tributes from peasant farmers- 'gebbars'-living in the region or district under his domain. Accordingly, Ras Woldegiorgis was given the Kafa region which he conquered and colonized; Dejach Tessema was given Ilubabor; Dejach Demisse was given Wollega Arjo and Horro, and Ras Mekonnen was given Hararghe (Zewde B. 2007: p96), to mention few examples.

The Amharic for the verb 'to colonise' is 'qiny madreg', 'maqnat' that means to discover, to control and make it better and usable... Thus, the head of the army that led the conquest was normally given the 'gult' power over that region, while the lower ranking officers and the rank and file are given, according to their hierarchy, a power of tribute over a certain district, county or over a number of households (a foot soldier for example had a tribute collection power over five families (Zewde B. 2007: p96).

Though local people had the right to hold and use land, either collectively or individually, and the 'gult' holder's right was limited to the collection tributes and labour services, some 'gult' holders forced their 'gebbars' to buy their own lands. For instance, the governor of Arsi Ras Birru Woldegeorgis required that every 'gebbar' pay 30 Maria Teresa Dollars for an acre of land and those who did not afford were reduced to being tenants on their own land and could be removed any time (Zewde B. 2007: p98).

Furthermore, 'gult' holders gradually extended their powers beyond tribute collection and corvee labour to direct rights over land, i.e., 'rist', the fact that 'gult holders' /governors also had judicial power gave them the opportunity to amass land previously held by locals (Donham D. 1986: p9,11; Zewde B. 2008: p105).

However, it is true that the centre spared some of the regions from the 'gult-gebbar' system and the placement of their land under the lordship of northern war lord, for example regions in the west and the south west that have submitted peacefully such as Jimma, Leqa Neqamt, Leqa Qellam, Assosa, Benishangul, Afar (Awsa) and Gubba (Metekel), instead they were required to pay a fixed amount of tax annually to the emperor and were allowed to maintain their internal autonomy and institutions(Garretson 1986: p199). The Islamic kingdom of Jimma was further able to obtain a guarantee from the emperor that no church would be built in its territory and no Muslim would be forced to convert (Garretson 1986: p199).

Another consequence of the expansion/colonization was the introduction of a categorization of land known as 'unsettled' or 'uncultivated' or 'unused', that refers to all land 'not used' in the sense of a settled agriculture common in the northern part of the country and over which no particular person could show an individual or family right... such as communal land used for grazing cattle, forest areas used for hunting, collecting wild fruits, medicine and wood... and the whole land in the pastoral and semi pastoral lowland areas (Donham D. 1986: p41).

This classification is followed by a sweeping declaration that all 'unsettled' land falls within the domain of the king, which he could grant as 'gult' to his generals, who would then settle their soldiers and followers as payment for their military services; to the church, and people serving the state in other capacities such as judges and tax collectors in lieu of wages; or it was measured and sold to settlers from the north or used directly for the production of grains, keeping horses, mules and cattle for palace use (Zewde B. 2007: p198-99). Furthermore, local chiefs /leaders that served as instruments in the administration of the local people would also receive a share of land that has been declared the king's land.

This appropriation of large areas of 'unused' 'uncultivated' and 'vacant' land also led to the introduction of land measurement called 'qalad' and sale of land that laid the foundation for individual ownership of land and the suppression of local communal land rights (Zewde B. 2007: p97). In some places, such as Wollega and Arsi, land measurement affected even land already 'settled' and 'cultivated', and local people were required to buy their own land or face tenancy (Zewde B. 2007: p97).

The other effect of the expansion/colonization was that it led to the settlement of large number of people from the north or Abyssinia in the areas newly incorporated, thereby giving the dispossession of the local people a permanent effect, while on the other hand, it relieved the overcrowding and land scarcity in the north (Zewde B. 2007: p94). It also led to the imposition of the Amharic language as the official working language of the newly constituted administrative organs and the promotion of Orthodox Christianity as the official religion of the empire, though not as vigorously promoted as the former (Donham D. 1986: p11).

1.2 Land Tenure Reforms

The gebbar system and the unlimited tribute collection powers of the gult holder had been gradually eroded by successive laws issued by the government in the 1930's and 1940's. For instance, the 1928 law gave gebbars the option of paying land tax either in kind or a three days labour on government land, while the 1935 and 1942 laws introduced a fixed annual land tax paid in cash that depended on the size of the land and whether the land is cultivated, semi-cultivated or uncultivated- and abolished all other forms of tribute to the gult holder including honey tribute (Jembere A. 2012: p130) and the corvee labour (Zewde B. 2008: p107, 176-77). These measures in principle had the effect of abolishing the gult and gebbar system of land tenure, though little had actually changed for the gebbar as the gult holders and landlords firmly resisted the changes and the central government did not have the capacity to enforce these laws.

The major change in land tenure came in 1975 with the enactment of the law on public ownership of rural land. The law nationalised all rural land and made it the common property of the peoples of Ethiopia (Art 3/1/); it outlawed private ownership of land and all forms of transfer including lease (Art 3/2/ and Art 5) and prohibited the use of hired labour, except where the land holder is unable to cultivate it himself due to illness, old age or where the holder is a woman (Art 4/5/). Most importantly, the law guaranteed the right of every one who wish to engage in agriculture to acquire land; and until land redistribution is undertaken, every tenant was allowed to remain in the possession of the land he had been cultivating (Art 6).

This law was significant because; firstly, it enabled a large number of gebbars/tenants whose lands have been appropriated to become the rightful holders of land; second, it brought the exploitative and inhumane 'gebbar' and 'gult' systems to an end; third, it helped create a system of local administrative and judicial organs with regard to land (Nahum F. 1980: p85), creating first cases of self government. Fourthly; it recognised the possessory and use right of pastoral and semi-pastoral peoples over the lands they customarily used for grazing and other agriculture related purposes (Art 24).

However, this law failed to address broader issues of dispossession of land and other resources the local/native peoples suffered autonomy and self administration. As a result, it only reaffirmed the...