Authored By: Dina Girmay
Addis Ababa University
Case Title & Citation
Wedma Abeje v. Public Prosecutor (2012)
Public Prosecutor v. Wedma Abeje, Criminal Case No. 66856, Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench, on Attempt and Aggravated Robbery, written by Abbas Shash, Law Ethiopia, Vol.13 2. Court Name & Bench Federal Supreme Court of Ethiopia
Bench:
– Hagos Weldu
– Teshager Gebre Silasse
– Ali Mohammed
– Nega Gufsa
– Adane Neguse
Bench Type: Criminal Bench
Date of Judgment
April 04, 2012 4. Parties Involved
Appellant: Wedma Abeje, an individual appealing the lower court’s judgment regarding his sentence and the classification of his criminal act.
Respondent: The Public Prosecutor, representing the state in upholding the lower court’s decision.
Facts of the Case
The case arose from an incident in the Kilele area of Gurage Zone, involving the appellant, Wedma Abeje, along with an accomplice. They were charged under the relevant criminal provisions for attempted robbery of vehicles transporting goods in the Jima Welene Kebela area between March 7 and March 8, 2009 (2001 E.C.).
The appellant and his accomplice armed themselves with a firearm, a knife, and other instruments, and moved around the area intending to intercept and rob vehicles. Despite their preparations, they were unable to find a suitable vehicle to attack.
While returning without having committed the robbery, the appellant and his accomplice were stopped by police officers following a complaint by a third party. Upon inspection, the police found the weapons and tools they carried, which indicated preparation for robbery.
Although the police did not apprehend them in the act of robbery, the evidence of their possession of weapons and their conduct supported charges of attempted aggravated robbery.
Statements from the appellant, witnesses, and other evidence confirmed that the appellant and his accomplice had taken concrete steps towards committing the robbery, although the crime was not completed.
Issues Raised – Whether the appellant’s conduct constituted an attempt to commit a crime or merely preparation.
Under Ethiopian Criminal Law, one of the complex legal issues involves distinguishing mere preparation from an actual attempt. Article 27 of the Criminal Code defines criminal attempt, but it often requires interpretation based on facts and intent. In this case, the court was faced with determining whether arming oneself and seeking a target was sufficient to qualify as an attempt.
– Whether the lower court erred in sentencing the appellant to 22 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments:
– The appellant argued that his actions did not meet the threshold for an attempt to commit a crime and instead amounted only to preparation.
– He claimed that the gun was not loaded, arguing that this negated any inference of intent to use force.
– He requested the court to consider his actions under preparatory offenses, which carry a lesser penalty.
Respondent’s Arguments:
– The Public Prosecutor contended that all necessary steps to commit the robbery were already taken.
– The failure to complete the robbery was not due to the appellant’s withdrawal but rather to circumstances beyond his control.
– The attempt was evident from the planning, arming, and execution of the robbery until intervention occurred.
The prosecution relied on Article 27(1) of the Criminal Code, which states that an attempt occurs when the offender has commenced execution of a crime by concrete acts. They argued that the act of lying in wait while armed, regardless of whether the gun was loaded, demonstrates an intention to commit a violent offense.
Judgment / Final Decision
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision.
– The appeal was dismissed.
– The 22-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment remained valid.
– No modification or reduction of the penalty was granted.
Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
– The Court found that the appellant and his accomplice had gone beyond mere preparation and entered the execution stage of the crime.
– It emphasized that criminal attempt under Ethiopian law does not require the completion of the crime; it is enough that the offender begins executing the offense with the necessary criminal intent.
– Under Article 27 of the Ethiopian Criminal Code, criminal attempt does not require completion of the crime, only the commencement of concrete acts toward its commission with criminal intent.
-The accused were found armed with a gun, knife, and iron tools, and had been lying in wait in a forested area known for robberies, clearly indicating their readiness to commit the robbery.
-They were intercepted the following morning while traveling in a vehicle toward their intended target, further proving that the plan was in progress.
– The Court noted that the accused’s own confession, their possession of robbery tools, and their coordinated movements confirmed the commencement of the crime.
– It stated that the failure of the robbery — due to the absence of a suitable vehicle or not firing the gun — does not reduce the seriousness of the offense, since all essential acts to begin committing the crime were present.
– The Court stressed that the purpose of punishing attempts is both preventive and retributive, protecting society before harm is done.
– Finally, it held that waiting until the robbery was completed would endanger public safety and undermine deterrence, justifying the original conviction for attempted aggravated robbery.
Conclusion / Observations
This case reaffirmed the legal distinction between preparation and attempt under Ethiopian criminal law.
It highlighted that once a person begins executing a criminal act with intent, failure to complete the act does not shield them from liability.
The court’s decision strengthens the application of attempt provisions and emphasizes deterrence for armed crimes.
Legal Significance / Broader Implications
The Wedma Abeje case is a landmark decision in Ethiopian jurisprudence for clarifying the threshold at which criminal preparation escalates into an attempt. The Federal Supreme Court’s decision provides future courts with clear criteria, particularly in cases involving violent crimes or the use of weapons. By affirming that concrete steps toward execution—regardless of success—are punishable, the court underscores both the preventative and punitive roles of criminal law.
The case also contributes to ongoing discussions around the interpretation of Article 27 of the 2004 Criminal Code. Legal scholars may continue to debate whether the factual matrix in this case represents a high bar for attempt, or whether it sets the threshold too low, potentially leading to overly punitive measures for incomplete crimes. Regardless, this judgment affirms the state’s strong stance on public safety, especially when firearms are involved, even if no physical harm occurred.
Furthermore, this decision reinforces the role of intent and readiness in establishing criminal liability—important concepts for legal education, law enforcement practices, and future criminal proceedings.
