Abstract

This paper examines the extent to which the Ethiopian legal system accommodates Traditional Dispute Resolution Institutions (TDRIs). To achieve this objective, the paper explores the legislative framework that governs the relationship existing between TDRIs and the formal justice system (FJS), delineating the jurisdictional mandate of TDRIs as compared to the judicial jurisdiction of regular courts. The study employs a doctrinal legal research method, assessing relevant legal instruments from the broader constitutional framework to subsidiary legislations. The findings indicate that TDRIs are explicitly mandated to address civil matters; however, their mandate over criminal matters remains silent under the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE Constitution). Furthermore, there is inadequacy of clear legislative guidelines governing the interface between TDRIs and the FJS. Despite this ambiguity within the constitutional framework, recent subsidiary laws—such as the Draft Law on Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code and the Proclamation for the Establishment and Recognition of Oromia Region Customary Courts Proclamation No. 240/2021)—begin to elucidate the criminal jurisdiction of TDRIs in specific instances. While acknowledging the progresses made in enunciating the mandate over criminal matters and civil jurisdiction of TDRIs, this article raises concerns regarding the wider jurisdictional mandate granted to the FJS by the Oromia Customary Courts Proclamation, which may undermine the autonomy and legitimacy of TDRIs. In consequence, it is argued that harmonising these two justice systems must be based on respect for traditional dispute settlement practices and their corresponding institutions, the same measures aimed at respectful coexistence should apply mutatis mutandis to any future legal measures.   

Key words: Traditional dispute resolution institutions, formal justice system, legal pluralism, Ethiopia.