The Judicial Interpretation of the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Expression in Ethiopia: The Application of the Principle of Proportionality

Abstract

This article claims that Ethiopian courts interpret the grounds of limitation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression extremely broadly, in a manner that unjustifiably restricts the right. By reviewing selected decisions handed down by the federal courts, the article attempts to show the prevailing interpretive approaches adopted by the judiciary. It evaluates the existing approaches of the Ethiopian courts in light of the methodological approaches of selected comparative national and international judicial practices. It will attempt to show that the judiciary’s failure to interpret freedom of expression optimally has to do in part with its inability to adopt a helpful interpretative approach. Moreover, the Ethiopian courts’ efforts to interpret relevant legislation in light of Ethiopia's international commitment to human rights and the constitutional protection of freedom of expression leave much to be desired. The article argues that the deployment of the principle of proportionality as an interpretive methodology can help the Ethiopian judiciary to enforce the constitutional right to freedom of expression optimally.