CHAPTER SIX

THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AND JURISDICTION OF COURTS

6.1. An Overview of the Court System in the Ethiopian Federal Set-up

The 1995 Constitution of the FDRE provides for a federal state structure with nine
member states making up the federation (FDRE Con. Article 47, 50(1). It has thus brought in to
being two layers of administration i.e. the federal government on the one hand and self-
governing regional states on the other hand.
The three braches (organs) of the government i.e. legislative, executive and judiciary are
established at both levels of the government having their own powers and responsibilities
constitutionally defined. (FDRE Con. Articles 50(2), 50(8), 51,52,55..)
Judicial organs are established by the constitution both at federal and regional level (art.
50(2),78,79,80). So, we have federal courts on the one hand and regional courts on the other
hand. Federal judicial authority is vested in federal courts tiered along three layers based on their
competence as provided for by law. By virtue of this arrangement, we have the Federal Supreme
Court, which is the highest federal judicial organ, the Federal High Court and Federal First
Instance Court.
State judicial power on the other hand is vested in state courts. The structure of state courts
comprises state supreme court, state high court and woreda courts. In principle these courts
exercise jurisdiction within the concerned state jurisdictions only. Besides these matters which in
principle fall under the jurisdiction of Federal High Court and First Instance Court at the state
level is to be exercised by state supreme and state high courts respectively, because of the
delegation given under the Constitution.
6.2. Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts.
Before we deal with criminal jurisdiction of courts, let us see the concept of court’s
jurisdiction in nutshell.
Jurisdiction in general
In its broader terms, jurisdiction refers to the powers of government to exercise authority over all
persons and things within its territory. It may be the powers of federal or state governments and
the powers of their respective legislative, executive, or judicial organs. When comes to courts, it
refers to the powers of the judicial organ of a specific government to handle the case and to give
binding decisions on the specific disputes. It is the authority given by law to a court to try cases
and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal
cases. Simply, it is the legal term that defines which court can hear a case? The jurisdiction of the
court contains three elements: judicial jurisdiction, material jurisdiction, and territorial (local)
jurisdiction.
Judicial jurisdiction: It is the first and basic criteria or element by which a given court
jurisdiction is determined. It is the power of a State to empower one of its governmental
instrumentalities to hear a particular dispute and give judgment on the premises. It is the legal
power and authority of a court to make a decision that binds the parties to any matter properly
brought before it. It is about determining which country’s court or which level of government’s
court shall have the power to handle the dispute, mostly before instituting the suit, based on the
available competing countries or governments in the case of Federal Country, respectively. The
situation arises in countries with a federal constitutional setup such as the present Ethiopia in
which powers are divided between the component States of the Federation and the Federal
government.
Material Jurisdiction: Material jurisdiction refers to the legal powers of the specific court to
hear and decide over the objects of the disputes. It concerns the competent courts in relation to
their level or hierarchy (such as federal supreme, high, or first instance court) should exercise
jurisdiction over certain specific matters, and powers conferred to the federal courts and
delegated to state courts. Thus, once it is identified that the specific disputes fall under the
judicial jurisdiction of a given court, the next step is to identify whether the specific matter falls
under the material jurisdiction of that court according to the law.
Territorial jurisdiction: It refers to the location power of the courts to handle the specific
subject matter of the dispute. It is the court’s power to bind the parties to the action. It is about
the geographical areas covered by the power of the specific court or the relationship of the court
and the subject matter of the dispute with respect to the location of the former and the place of
existence of a cause of action. Jurisdiction has three elements:
Judicial
Material, and
Local(territorial)
Thus, a court is said to have jurisdiction over a particular offence only when it has the judicial,
material and local jurisdiction of adjudication.
6.2.1. Judicial Jurisdiction of Ethiopian courts on criminal cases
It is related to issue of whether a person is subject to the criminal law of Ethiopia or subject to
the jurisdiction of Ethiopian courts and therefore they may be tried by Ethiopian courts for
violation of the Ethiopian criminal laws.
Though normally the issue of jurisdiction is a subject matter of criminal procedure law, both
the previous and the current criminal code of Ethiopia has provisions dealing with the issue of
jurisdiction.
Art 11-20 of the CC are devoted to issues of judicial jurisdiction of Ethiopian courts over
offences. Thus, whether or not a person is subject to the CC of Ethiopia depends on:
(1) the place where the offence was committed (e.g article 11
(2) the nationality of the accused, and; (if an Ethiopian
(3) the kind of the offence that has been committed. (e.g article 13)
In certain circumstances, an accused is said to be subject to Ethiopia’s principal jurisdiction( See
articles 11,13,14,15(2) of CC). In other circumstances, although he is not subject to Ethiopia’s
principal jurisdiction, he is subject to Ethiopia’s subsidiary jurisdiction( See articles 15(1), 17,
and 18 of CC).
Bear in mind that when a person is subject to Ethiopia’s principal jurisdiction, discharge or
acquittal in a foreign country does not prevent a prosecution for the same offences in
Ethiopia( Article 16 of CC. However, if he is subject only to Ethiopian subsidiary jurisdiction, no
fresh prosecution if discharged or acquitted in foreign Country ( Article 20(1)
I. Principal jurisdiction
According to Art 11-16 of the CC principal jurisdiction, which is one form of judicial
jurisdiction exists in cases where the accused is :.
1. Charged with the commission of an offence in Ethiopia
2. Charged with the commission of certain offences against Ethiopia in a foreign country.
3. Charged with the commission of an offence in a foreign country where he possesses immunity
from prosecution by virtue of his status as an Ethiopian official.
4. Charged with the commission of certain offences in a foreign country while a member of the
Ethiopian armed forces.
 Herein below we shall first consider the conditions when an accused is subject to Ethiopia’s
principal jurisdiction; and then we will consider the conditions for the exercise of principal
jurisdiction as being incorporated under the current criminal code.
Persons Subject to Ethiopia’s Principal Jurisdiction.
Under this section we have two kinds of jurisdictions, territorial and extra territorial.
Territorial jurisdiction
Art 11 and 12 of the CC are about territorial jurisdiction. According to this principle, which has
almost gained universal acceptance, the Ethiopian courts shall have principal jurisdiction over
offences specified in the CC committed by any person on Ethiopian territory. Territory consists
of land, sea and air.

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction

Any Ethiopian or a foreigner having no immunity is obviously subject to an Ethiopian

jurisdiction for violation of Ethiopian criminal laws provided that he is in Ethiopia. However,
people may after having committed an offence in Ethiopia may have successfully escaped and
taken refuge in a foreign country. In such a case, the Ethiopian authorities are directed under Art
11(3) of the CC to request his extradition so that he may be tried in Ethiopia under Ethiopian
law.

What is extradition?
With which countries did Ethiopia conclude extradition treaties (if any)?

Art 21(2) of the CC which reads as:

No Ethiopian national having that status at the time of the commission of
the crime or at the time of the request for his extradition may be handed
over to a foreign court. However, he shall be tried by Ethiopian courts under
Ethiopian law.

Art 13 of the CC
Crimes committed against Ethiopia outside its territory.
Under this provision, crimes committed in a foreign country which have their effects in Ethiopia
are dealt. However, not all such offences are covered. Accordingly, only offences prohibited by
Art 238-260 and Art 355-374, i.e. crimes against the state (crimes against the constitutional order
and the internal security of the state), and crimes against currencies, government bonds or
security documents, official seals, stamps or instruments, respectively, are subject matters of the
Ethiopian principal jurisdiction. The offender of such offences is subject to Ethiopian principal
jurisdiction.

Article 14 and 15
Crimes committed in a foreign country by an Ethiopian enjoying immunity and by a
member of the Ethiopian defense force.

It is normal that Ethiopian officials and members of defense force goes to another country
temporarily. This, however, does not exonerate them from becoming liable for their
acts/omissions happened in their stay. Art 14 and 15 is designed to make Ethiopian officials and
members of the Ethiopian defense force subject to the Ethiopian principal jurisdiction for certain
offences they committed while abroad.

Conclusion:- Under the aforementioned circumstances, we have been looking in to the kinds of
offences that fall under the Ethiopian principal jurisdiction. A person is subject to the Ethiopian
principal jurisdiction. This is because of the belief that Ethiopia is the country most affected by
the alleged commission of the offence. Any person subject to Ethiopia’s principal jurisdiction, if
found in Ethiopia or extradited to Ethiopia, may be tried in Ethiopia for the offence, whether or
not he was not tried in a foreign country for the same offence and if he was tried, whether or not
he was discharged or acquitted. If, however, he has been convicted of the offence abroad, any
part of the punishment he already served shall be deducted from the new sentence.
II. Subsidiary Jurisdiction.

With regard to offences that do not directly and chiefly concern Ethiopia, our courts have
subsidiary jurisdiction which is derivative-not original. Under these circumstances, Ethiopian
courts substitute foreign courts in trying offenders who must have been (but have not been) tried
in a foreign country.

Subsidiary jurisdiction exists as to an accused who is charged with:

- Offences committed by members of the armed forces against the ordinary laws of
a foreign country, Art 15(1).
- Offences committed in a foreign country “against international law or
international offences specified in Ethiopian legislation, or/ and international
treaty or a convention to which Ethiopia has adhered”, Art 17(1) (a).
- Offences committed in a foreign country “against public health and morals
specified in Art 525, 599, 635, 636, 640 or 641 of the code, 17(1)(b).
- Offences committed abroad against an Ethiopian national or offences committed
by Ethiopians while abroad, if the offence is punishable under both laws and is
grave enough to justify extradition, Art 18(1) and
- Other offences punishable by rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years)
committed abroad by non- extradited foreigners, Art 18(2).
6.2.2. Material and Territorial(Local) Jurisdiction.
We have seen that two sets of courts are established under the federal form of government
each having three layers of courts and that they are empowered to exercise judicial power over
offences. Issues on how this power of adjudication over offences is apportioned as between
federal and regional courts, and even among the federal courts on the one hand and the state
courts on those matters is jurisdiction over offences.
The appointment of jurisdiction over offences between the federal and state courts is
dependent up on whether the case is Federal matter on State matter( FDRE Cons. Article 80 (1 &
2) . Federal courts have jurisdiction on federal matters. In principle, federal matters identified
based on three major grounds: ( Federal Court Proclamation No- 1234/2021 article 3,12,13)
 a. laws : i.e if case arise under the Federal Constitution, the federal laws and Int’l treaties
( art. 3(1a)) +art. 4
b. Parties specified in federal laws.(art. 3(1b) +4
c. Places of commission ( article 3(1 c)+ 12 (2)+ 13(2)
Thus, whether a particular case is within the jurisdiction of federal courts or not is to be
determined by first, ascertaining that it arises under the federal constitution, the federal laws and
international treaties or that parties are those specified in the federal laws to be subject to the
jurisdiction of the federal courts or the case occurs in places specified in the Constitution or in
other federal laws.
Apart from these apportionment of jurisdiction among the federal and state courts, there is
a delegation of power because of the fact that we do not have yet established federal courts all
over the country. Hence, matters which in principle fall within the jurisdiction of Federal First
Instance and Federal High Courts may come within the jurisdiction of state high court and state
supreme courts respectively, if they are committed in regions or there is any other ground
justifying delegation. It is designed for the purpose of convenience, both for the parties and the
court as well.

So far issues as to how jurisdiction over offences is apportioned as between federal and regional
courts have been examined ( Judicial jurisdiction) . The point, however, does not stop there for
the issue as to which particular court of a federal court or regional courts i.e. supreme court, high
court or first instance/ woreda court has the pertinent jurisdiction over the case has to be
addressed. It is only by then that one can say question of determination of jurisdiction is
exhausted. ( Issues of material and territorial jurisdictions)
So far, we have been discussing on the issue of judicial jurisdiction with the view of determining
cases upon which Ethiopian courts have power of prosecution i.e. whether Ethiopian courts in
general have power (competence) to see and then adjudicate the case or not. Determination of
such issue though crucial is not conclusive. The question of which particular court in Ethiopia
has jurisdiction to hear specific case should be answered subsequently. The issue of material
jurisdiction and territorial (local) jurisdiction, hence, comes in to being.
Material jurisdiction is concerned with the level of courts, and the type of court that should
hear the case. Thus, the issue of material jurisdiction should be seen the light of structure of
courts.
The apportionment of jurisdiction is first determined on the basis of subject matter which in turn
is to be determined based on law, parties and places. Our Constitution nowhere defines federal
matters and state matters, hence, this is left to the determination of the legislator. If the
legislature decides that such certain matters be under federal jurisdiction, then such matter would
be regarded as federal matters. But there are matters which as a rule must be categorized as
federal matters or state matters. Under such rule a case is a federal matter if it arises on federal
law and a case is a state case if it arises on state law. We may, therefore, conclude that all cases
that arise or all claims that are based on federal law may be called federal matters and the rest
may be categorized as state matters.
All laws made by the House of Peoples’ Representatives under its enumerated
power of legislation and laws made by the council of ministers are referred to as Federal laws;
and all laws made by the state legislative bodies under their residual power of legislation are
state laws.