FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INTERNET ACCESS IN ETHIOPIA: EXAMINING THE LEGALITY OF INTERNET SHUTDOWNS

Abstract

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right recognized by international, regional, and national legal frameworks. The internet is crucial for enforcing this right, making access a derivative right. Interference with internet access violates this right and requires legal justification. While freedom of expression isn’t absolute, restrictions must meet international standards of legality, legitimate aim, necessity, and proportionality.

While internet access itself isn’t universally defined as a human right, its role in facilitating freedom of expression is crucial. This article examines Ethiopia’s recurrent internet shutdowns, highlighting their impact on freedom of expression, a right guaranteed by international legal instruments. The Ethiopian government’s shutdowns, especially in Amhara and Tigray, fail to meet international standards of legality, legitimate aim, necessity, and proportionality, impacting health, education, and humanitarian aid. The article calls for international accountability, Ethiopian legal reform, impact assessments, and increased NGO involvement to protect online freedoms. It concludes that Ethiopia must abandon internet shutdowns in favor of rights-respecting approaches.

Key words: Freedom of Expression, Internet Shutdown , Legitimacy, Proportionality, Legality

Introduction

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right recognized by international, regional, and national legal frameworks. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees and states.[1]

Similarly, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects this right.[2]

At the regional level, the right to freedom of expression is fully recognized under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Ethiopia is a party.[3] In 2016, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) affirmed the UNHRC’s declaration and called on states to respect and take legislative and other measures to guarantee, respect, and protect citizens’ rights to freedom of information and expression through access to internet services.[4] ACHPR recognizes the role of new digital technologies in the realization of the rights to freedom of expression and also affirms that the same rights that people have offline should be protected online.[5] Ethiopia has incorporated freedom of expression into its legal framework through Article 29 of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) Constitution, as well as through laws such as the Hate Speech and Disinformation Suppression Proclamation No. 1185/2020 and the Computer Crime Proclamation.

As freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to hold and express their opinions without interference, it encompasses the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any medium, including speech, writing, art, and digital communications.[6]

Concerning the enforcement, internet plays a critical role in ensuring this right, opening up new possibilities for the realization of the right to freedom of expression.[7]  Due to this, access to the internet is increasingly regarded as a derivative right within the broader framework of ensuring free speech.[8] Therefore any interference with accessing internet service can be taken as violation of the right to freedom of expression and such interferences must be provided by law and specifying justifying grounds.[9]

However, the right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right; rather it has universally recognized restrictions aimed at protecting certain key public and private interests.[10] However, before taking such restrictive measures, stakeholders should justify their action with international tests such as; legality, legitimate aim, and necessity and proportionality test.[11] 

Despite its role in enforcing freedom of expression, most countries including Ethiopia’s Governments worldwide impose internet restrictions, frequently citing reasons related to national security, public order, or political stability. However, many of these justifications fail to meet international legal standards. In recent years Ethiopian government take internet shutdown as a culture.  Since 2016 E.C, the internet blocked out more than 10 times in different areas.[12]

Since 2016, Ethiopia has experienced multiple internet shutdowns as a government tactic to control narratives and suppress dissent, particularly during major conflicts and crises. One of the most severe cases occurred during the two-year war in Northern Ethiopia, beginning in November 2020, when authorities cut off access to banking, telecommunications, and electricity, worsening the humanitarian crisis and hindering aid efforts. The blackout obscured human rights violations and prevented families from staying connected. In 2023, the Ethiopian government blocked social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Telegram for over five months in response to nationwide protests organized by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, restricting discussions and mobilization. A similar strategy was deployed following the outbreak of conflict in the Amhara region in April 2023, further isolating residents and limiting access to vital information. These prolonged shutdowns have exacerbated suffering, curtailed freedom of expression, and highlighted ongoing challenges to digital rights in Ethiopia.
This article examines the legality of imposed internet shutdowns in Ethiopia, analyze their impact on freedom of expression and other fundamental rights,  it explores the government’s justification for these consecutive shutdowns and asses them comparative to international principles.

 Methodology

This article adopts a doctrinal research method which relies on the review of a combination of primary and secondary sources. Among the primary sources the researcher will apply domestic and international laws relevant to  repatriation of cultural objects.  Secondary sources will consists of journals, articles, and internet sources in the field of cultural heritage law as well as on the basic concepts of contemporary human rights norms. Comparative analysis will be employed to examine successful repatriation cases from other countries.

Legal and Regulatory frameworks on freedom of expression

Freedom of expression at international level

A. UDHR

Under international level The United Nations was the first international entity to enshrine the right to freedom of expression in international law in 1948 with the UDHR.[13] Article 19 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.[14] This is very important document regarding human right concern in the world because almost all countries signed such declaration.[15] Even if the document had no binding effect among signatory states, there is widely accepted argument which says UDHR have got the status of customary international law.

ICCPR

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a crucial human rights treaty that safeguards civil and political rights, notably the right to freedom of expression as articulated in Article 19.[16] This article affirms that everyone has the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media, without borders. Unlike UDHR, the ICCPR specifies conditions under which this right can be limited.[17]Article 19(3) stipulates that any restrictions must be legally defined and necessary to respect the rights or reputations of others, or to protect national security, public order, health, or morals.

The Special Rapporteur underscores that freedom of expression is fundamental to the enjoyment of all human rights, and thus any limitations should be exceptional and subjected to rigorous scrutiny.[18] Various resolutions and general comments further elucidate the application of these rights and the stringent conditions under which they may be restricted, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a delicate balance between protecting individual rights and addressing legitimate societal concerns.

C. United Nations Human Right Council Resolutions

There are different resolutions concluded by united nation human right council on different human right issues.

HRC44: UN resolution on freedom of opinion and expression

It recognizes freedom of expression as an important indicator of the level of protection of other human rights and freedoms and reaffirms freedom of expression offline must also be protected online.[19]  It protects related issues such as; the right to information, internet shutdowns, responses to misinformation, counter-terrorism and violent extremism, encryption and anonymity tools, and safety of journalists.[20] It strongly condemns an arbitrary and intensional internet shutdowns to prevent information access.[21]

HRC: New resolution on freedom of expression

The resolution holds strong ideas on Internet shutdowns, role of business enterprises, encryption and anonymity, the safety of journalists and whistleblowers, and other issues addressed in the previous text.[22]

D. United Nations Human Right Council General Comments[23]

Let’s see some of the general comments on freedom of expression right commented by UNHRC.

General comment No. 34

This was the comment concluded on July 2011 by human right committee to give interpretation on important human right issues such as; expression and receipt of communications of every form of idea and opinion capable of transmission to others it even include expression that may be regarded as deeply offensive.[24] Regarding conditions to limit freedom of expression found in Article 19 of ICCPR, the committee give interpretation on restriction, that restrictions should be in line with the legality, necessity, legitimacy and proportionality tests.[25]

General comment No. 10: Freedom of expression (Article 19)

General comment no 10 gave concerns to state parties to make report or information regarding the way how states applied the rules of freedom of expression under their national law and how they apply practically both the rule and the exceptions.[26] Paragraph 3 of the acomment order State parties to imposes certain restrictions to protect interests of others, in the way that should not jeopardy the right itself and inline with principles of legality, legitmacy, necessity and proportionality.[27]

II. Freedom of Expression at the Regional Level

A.  Freedom of expression under ACHPR

The African charter was adopted at an OAU meeting of African heads of state and governments held in Kenya on 27 June 1981, the Charter laid out a range of rights and duties that should always be respected.[28] It states; “Everyone has the right to receive information and may express themselves in any      way they like about any subject they choose”.[29]

The charter recognized the right to receive information and express an idea given to every individuals living in the continent however, failed to stipulate the legal conditions to limit freedom of expression.

B. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on freedom of expression

2002 declaration of ACHPR

The 2002 declaration from the ACHPR emphasizes freedom of expression as a fundamental human right and essential for democracy. It condemns arbitrary interference without defining it, and underscores the right to access information from public and private bodies..[30]  

2019 Declaration of ACHPR

On April 17, 2020, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) adopted a new Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, replacing the 2002 version. While classified as soft law, this declaration is vital for promoting these rights across Africa.[31] This declaration includes 43 principles that enhance guidance on access to information and digital rights, outlining conditions for limiting freedom of expression based on legality, proportionality, necessity, and legitimate aims.[32] It emphasizes the state’s duty to foster an enabling environment for these rights and protect against non-State interference.[33]Notably, it states that “In conflicts between domestic and international human rights laws, the more favorable provision applies.”[34]

 III. The National Legal Framework

• FDRE Constitution

Freedom of expression is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution of Ethiopia. It states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression without interference. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any media of his choice.”[35]

The Constitution clearly endorses freedom of expression in similar terms as under the Universal declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[36] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[37]. It recognizes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. This further resonates with the so-called two dimensions of freedom of expression individual and collective freedoms through enabling the right holders to act individually or collectively.[38] It also embraces a plethora of modes and means of expression, be it orally, in writing, in print, or by any medium of one’s choice.[39] Thus, we unequivocally can say freedom of expression on the Internet is equally protected under the Constitution through the phrase any media of his choice.

Furthermore, the Constitution under article 9(4) and 13(2) provides ‘All international agreements ratified by Ethiopia are an integral part of the law of the land’ and that:

The fundamental rights and freedoms specified in this Chapter (chapter 3 on fundamental rights and freedoms) shall be interpreted in a manner conforming to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenants on human rights and international instruments adopted by Ethiopia.[40]

As such, the above constitutional safeguards have to be interpreted in light of the UDHR, ICCPR, or regional instruments (the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right). And freedom of expression is clearly protected under common article 19 of the UDHR[41] and the ICCPR, as well as under article 9 of the African Charter[42].

However, one of the apparent flaws in the Constitution is that it places freedom of expression under the category of democratic rights, as distinct from human rights.[43] The practical implication of dividing rights as human right and democratic right remains baffling and has no currency under international human rights law.[44] Moreover, some of the grounds set out by which the right to freedom of expression can be limited under article 29(6) such as; ‘The public expression of opinion intended to injure human dignity’ seems to be nebulous and also unsupported by international human rights law.[45]

• The Ethiopian Freedom of the Mass Media and Access to Information Proclamation

It also stresses the need for upholding freedom of expression for the mass media houses.[46]

 General Overview of Internet Access

The Internet is a global network of interconnected computers and devices that communicate using standardized protocols to share information and resources. [47]It enables various forms of communication, including email, chat, and video conferencing.[48]

It is an integral part of daily life, the Internet reshapes how we communicate, access information, and conduct business, driving changes across multiple domains.[49]Officially launched on January 1, 1983, with the adoption of the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), the Internet standardized communication among diverse computer networks, marking its transformative impact on modern society.[50]

The Internet as a Platform for Exercising Freedom of Expression

In today’s word,   the most important way of exercising the right to freedom of expression is by using internet access and  symmetric information right to some extent requires the Internet, and thus access to the Internet itself has become a human right.[51]

Internet Access as a Fundamental Human Right

The Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, addressed in his report in 2011 that Article 19 of the ICCPR were drafted in a manner to include and accommodate future technological developments through which individuals can exercise their freedom of expression.[52] Article 19(2) protects the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any other media of his choice.[53]  The UN Human Rights Committee has affirmed this, claiming that Article 19 (2) protects all forms of expression and the means of their dissemination, including all forms of Internet based modes of expression.[54]

The Right to Internet as an Auxiliary Right

The right to Internet access can be viewed as an auxiliary right, supporting primary rights like freedom of expression and the right to access information.[55] While the Internet is crucial for exercising various human rights, it should not be considered a standalone human right.[56]Instead, it serves to enhance and facilitate the realization of other rights, such as freedom of association, education, employment, and health..[57]

Legal Basis for Internet Shutdowns and Regulatory Restrictions under   Ethiopian Law

The right to freedom of expression and online access to information is recognized under Ethiopian law. Our law, as clearly protect those rights, at the same time try to incorporate legal grounds for restriction. There are laws that are used as a justification to restrict online access to information.

Art 19 of FDRE constitution clearly recognizes the requirement of legality test like that of international instruments. This provision stipulates that the right to freedom of expression cannot be limited on account of the content or effect of the point of view expressed.[58] Here we can conclude the test of legality is consistent with international and legal instruments. But the problem is it is not clear under what legal basis the government restricted Internet access for several days, and sometimes, months. The enacted legislations to restrict the right to freedom of expression in online have its own limitation to balance freedom of expression and imposing lawful limitation. Our government use legislations as bases of legality test. But the compatibility of that legislation with international legal standard is still controversial. Let’s see them;

Hate speech and disinformation laws

The Preamble of Hate Speech Proclamation has a restrictive nature. This proclamation defines hate speech as ‘speech that deliberately promotes hatred, discrimination or attack against a person or an identifiable group, based on ethnicity, religion, race, gender or disability’.[59] This definition is broad and failed to define terms like what mean by hatred and how one can know a falsity of a certain speech. This leads to the difficulty to peoples to regulate their conduct. This vagueness leads to the inconsistency of the law with Art 19(3) ICCPR and Art 9 ACHPR stipulations because according to general comment of UN Human Right Committee, there shall be clear and precise laws to limit freedom of expression.[60]  This leads to the authoritative interpretation which leads to the violation of rights through abuse of power.  The UN Special Rapporteur also affirmed this by expressing his concerns about the ambiguous formulation of Ethiopia‘s hate speech and disinformation law by stating that it goes far beyond the scope of article 20(2) and the limitations on restrictions required by article 19(3) of ICCPR.[61]

State of Emergency Decrees

Ethiopian government imposing State of Emergency laws to justify and provide a tentative legal basis for internet shutdowns. But limiting internet through these laws has its own concern because the Proclamation State of Emergency Proclamation No. 6/2023 is still broad and vague. Even if these laws provide relatively clear provisions to internet shutdown, we cannot say it is enough to shutdown internet access because the applicability of this law is up to the end of threats triggering state of emergency.

National Security Laws

These laws are used as a first justification to limit internet access. This is offered by Ethiopian Federal Attorney General in its response comment to report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression.[62] the general attorney argued that according to proclamation no 808/2013,[63] have vested power to keep the country safe from any threats against national security and it can take measures when the necessity arises by re-establishing INSA in2013 having this power. But when we infer closely this law, this law empowers INSA to take a counter measures regarding cyber-attacks. Nowhere is clearly stipulated that INSA have no a power to shutdown internet.[64] Here, we can conclude that internet shutdown made by INSA have no legal ground.

Cybercrime Legislation

Ethiopia’s cybercrime law [Computer Crime Proclamation No 958/2016] is mostly used as a base for internet shutdown.[65] The way it defines ‘network’ in art 2(8) shows that the fulfillment of the requirement of legality to limit internet access.[66]  But this proclamation impose broad restriction the right of freedom of expression by incorporating vague and contrary to international legal instruments by containing phrases which holds wide definition like ‘crime against public security’, ‘inciting violence’.  Who have a competent power to order network disruption is another question.[67]

Here we can conclude that Ethiopian laws do not provide a sound and firm legal basis for internet shutdowns. Since the laws which are raised as a reason for internet shutdown lacks legality test, talking about other standards is immaterial. This is because the tests provided under international human right standards and under the FDRE constitution should be fulfill cumulatively.

The Ethiopian Government Justifications for internet Shutdowns

Since Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed took office, Ethiopia has seen significant political changes, initially raising hopes for improved civil and political rights. However, concerns about freedom of expression have emerged, particularly due to internet shutdowns the government has implemented for national security and public order. This research will analyze these shutdowns, assess the government’s justifications, and evaluate their compliance with domestic and international legal standards on freedom of expression and digital access.

Nationwide Internet Blackout for National Examination

There are several shutdowns recorded in Ethiopia as between 2020 to 2022.[68] One of the justifications here is to prevent exam cheating.

Ethiopia uses Proclamation 1148/2019 (“national security,” “public safety”) to justify internet shutdowns, often citing exam integrity. However, this is controversial. While the constitution guarantees freedom of expression (Art. 29) with restrictions being necessary and proportionate, exam cheating has less restrictive alternatives (targeted blocking, supervision). Nationwide shutdowns disproportionately harm the economy, education, healthcare, and civil life. ICCPR and UNHRC General Comment 34 require necessity, proportionality, and clarity, with the state demonstrating legal basis. Exam-related shutdowns likely fail the proportionality, consistency, and necessity tests, making them unjustifiable even if domestic law is invoked.[69]

Internet Shutdowns during Elections

Internet access is a cornerstone of democracy, enabling informed citizen participation in elections. However, Ethiopia has a history of disrupting internet access during elections, a trend seen across Africa. These disruptions, ranging from total blackouts to social media restrictions, significantly impact the right to participate in public affairs, as enshrined in international (ICCPR Art. 25) and domestic (Ethiopian Constitution Art. 38) law. The 2021 Ethiopian elections serve as a prime example, with social media platforms restricted and internet connectivity slowed in many regions. Tigray and other conflict-affected areas experienced full internet blackouts, exacerbating existing communication challenges.

The Ethiopian government justifies these shutdowns as necessary to prevent violence during the election period. However, the connection between internet access and violence remains unclear, and the term “violence” is often broadly interpreted, potentially leading to abuse of power. National laws should not be interpreted in a way that undermines legitimacy and violates fundamental rights.[70]  Other justifications, such as controlling misinformation, maintaining public order, and preventing hate speech, also fail to meet the required “eminency” and “necessity” tests for restricting freedom of expression and access to information. Effective alternatives exist, including fact-checking organizations and social media platform policies against misinformation. Strengthening official information channels through government, election commissions, and NGOs could further improve the situation. Public order is arguably better served by an informed populace actively engaged in the electoral processMoreover, internet shutdowns have broader negative consequences, including economic disruption, and a lack of accountability for the social, political, and economic harm they cause.[71]

Finally, the conclusion is shutdown of internet access at the time of election lacks legal justification, practical effectiveness and moral legitimacy.

Shutdowns in the Name of Avert National Security and public safety

National security is frequently relied upon as the justification for interference with access to the internet, as well as other interferences with the right to freedom of expression.[72] While this may, in appropriate circumstances, be a legitimate aim, it also has the potential to be used to quell dissent and cover up state abuses.  

Many national security laws, policies, and decisions have a covert nature. The refusal by states to disclose information about particular national security threats leads to the aggravation of the issue.  The way in which one country or court defines the term national security is different from the other. It can be noted that:

“The use of a vague concept of national security to justify invasive limitations on the enjoyment of human rights is of serious concern. The concept is broadly defined and is thus vulnerable to manipulation by the State as a means of justifying actions that target vulnerable groups such as human rights defenders, journalists or activists. It also acts to warrant often unnecessary secrecy around investigations or law enforcement activities undermining the principles of transparency and accountability.”[73]

Principle 9(3) of the African Declaration provides that national security, public order, or public health are legitimate aims for a limitation on freedom of expression, but only if it is prescribed by law and necessary and proportionate.[74]

Most of the time, the government impose internet shutdown to prevent violence and unrest, countering terrorism, and controlling information in crises. As I tried to explain earlier, international and regional legal instruments also recognize these justifications in strict sense. But the main problem here is countries use those terms by interpreting widely which leads to arbitrary limitation of rights. Ethiopian government justify internet shutdown for national security and public safety. Our constitution allows the limitation of rights including freedom of expression during emergencies if deemed necessary for national security and public health.[75]  The state of emergency proclamation gives the power to suspend or restrict communications to avert threats to public security and health.[76] This proclamation allows authorities to take “any necessary measures” to maintain public order.[77] The term ‘any measure’ can be interpreted as including internet.  The Hate speech and Disinformation Prevention Proclamation also used as a legal ground to restrict internet access. This proclamation prohibits the dissemination of hate speech and disinformation via digital platforms.[78] This may use as a justification to blocking social Medias during crises.  Telecom providers may also request to cooperate with the   government to remove content or restrict access.[79] There are different internet shutdowns recorded in Ethiopia in the name of national security. Recent reports are discussed herein under:

Internet Shutdown During Tigray Protest

There was a protest in Tigray region which is lasted for a long period of time since November 2020. Reports showed that Internet and Telecommunication shutdowns have been used as a weapon of information control and censorship by involved parties.[80] The Ethiopian government did not issue an official justification for the internet shutdown that coincided with this event. But there were suspected reasons which were applied for this situation that is government’s characterization of Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) as a threat to national sovereignty.[81]  Even if international legal instruments UDHR and ICCPR and Ethiopian laws don’t impose a specific obligation on the government to announce his justification, the combined effect of constitutional rights, international human rights obligations[82]

Regarding the test of proportionality, the shutdown in Tigray region is complete and prolonged blackout affects the entire region and all users.[83] Justifying this broader restriction by international and regional law is difficult. The consequence of shutdown may beyond the potentially involved aim by affecting other rights. The conclusion is it is difficult to say the test of proportionality had been met to restrict the right.[84]

The government also failed to prove the necessity of complete shutdown to achieve legitimate aim because less intrusive methods like targeted restrictions on specific individuals or platforms allegedly inciting violence could have been considered. Reports from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch showed that there was illegal killing of civilians, sexual violence, arbitrary arrest and detention and denial of humanitarian access in the region which lasted for a long period of time.[85]  For this reason, different Human Right Organizations and NGOs blamed Ethiopian government measure to internet shutdown was against principle of legitimate aim, committed by both parties to the conflict.[86] To conclude, shutdown made in the Tigray region in November 2020 lacks clear legal basis, disproportionate impact on the whole population, failure to demonstrate the necessity of complete restriction and its legitimate aim refers likely violation of international human rights law and pertinent Ethiopian constitutional principles.

Internet Shutdown During Fano Militia and Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) in Amhara Region

Very recently there was an intensified armed conflict that has been penetrated around different regions in Ethiopia. Amhara region is the one in which armed conflict arose since July 2023. This conflict was started because of the federal government’s decision to integrate regional police forces in to federal military. In august 2023 the Ethiopian parliament declared sweeping state of emergency in Amahara region that could be extended to any part of the country as deemed necessary. And two days before the emergency declared the access to internet in the region was blocked. According to different human right organizations including Access Now stated that the prolonged blackout of internet in the region continuous for almost a year this deprive its residents to have access to vital information and staying connected with each other amid ongoing conflict and human rights violations.[87] There was a complete shutdown almost extend for a year. Like that of previous shutdowns, there was no official justification given by the government for internet shutdown. Common grounds were used as a justification like national security, public order and to prevent misinformation.

Legality and Compatibility of Government Justifications with International Standards

• With Regards to Legality Test

Legality refers to the fact that limitations imposed on freedom of expression should be provided by law. It refers to the requirement that internet shutdowns imposed upon human rights by states should be provided by the law. It is used to determine whether a law, policy, or government action complies with established legal principles and constitutional provisions. This principle is enshrined under ICCPR, ACHPR, and FDRE constitution as an important precondition before limiting the right freedom of expression and access to information. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects the right to freedom of expression. The 2019 African charter declaration also make it clear that state parties can only limit the right to freedom of expression if only if the limitations are prescribed by law and such laws need to be clear, precise, accessible and foreseeable and overseen by an independent body.[88]

In Ethiopia Constitution underscored the legality requirement under article 29 (6) using the phrase ‘these rights can be limited only through laws’. This means that the right can be limited only through laws that are guided by the principle that freedom of expression cannot be limited based on subjective appreciation of the content or effect of the point of view expressed.[89] It is important to avoid arbitrary acts from the state officials who limit such right.

The FDRE constitution also include this test but different questioned were raised as a limitation on this provision.[90]

Proclamation 1185/2020 is the other justification the government used. But this proclamation has its own defect and cannot be used as a justification to total shutdown in the region because its applicability is upon organizations and individuals. Most commonly the government also justifies its internet disruption using state of emergency as a base line. However, the government often fails to justify their actions in a particular case, and the legal basis for these disruptions is often contested as there is no specific law to restrict communication outlets in the country.[91] Freedom of expression can be limited in the existence of clear, precise, accessible and forcible laws as stipulated on legal instruments.

Under emergency decree proclamation No. 6/3023 which is proclaimed to protect public peace and security in the region, no specific provisions which clearly and precisely empowers the state of emergency central command to take the act of total internet blackout or shutdown in the region. If the government used this proclamation as a base, it is a violation of international obligation of the state by which the state is party including ACHPR as the commission put that the law that restrict freedom of expression to imply clearly and precisely such power to the government. The day of internet shutdown was also prior than the enactment of the proclamation. Internet shutdown measures ordered pursuant to vaguely formulated laws and regulations fail to satisfy the legality requirement.

Another instance that shows the incompatibility is the Emergency Directive Ethiopia passed in 2016, that allows the government to block mobile services and Internet access without a court order on the basis of state of emergency. For example, in particular, the Directive under article 4(2) provides: When the Emergency Command Post believes that it is necessary for the observance of the constitutional order and for the maintenance of peace and security of the public and citizens; it may cause the closure or termination of any means of communication.

So we can conclude that, it was not used as a legal base for restriction.

• With Regards to Necessity Test:

 The necessity test is used to determine whether a situation is genuinely required to achieve a legitimate objective. This means that the right to freedom of expression on the internet can be limited only if it is necessary to protect one of the legitimate objectives set out above.[92] The Ethiopian Constitution is silent regarding the requirements of necessity.[93] For a restriction to pass this test, it must be essential rather than merely convenient or preferable. ACHPR 2019 declaration defines necessity as a test for ensuring weather there exist a pressing and substantial need and weather the limitation has resulted with a direct and immediate connection to the expression and disclosure of information.[94] It is about checking whether there exists another option before taking the action to limit the right and we have to make sure whether the measure is necessary depending on the disseminated information.[95] According to UNHRC general comment public strikes and labor disputes shall not have to be taken as a legitimate aim to limit freedom of expression right.[96] In this regard, internet ban in Amhara region could raise a lot of questions on the test of necessity. The government did not take other prior options to achieve its legitimate aim. From different parameters stipulated above, we can conclude that, there was lack of necessity test which could be used as a justification to the government.

• With Regard to Proportionality Test:

The proportionality test assesses whether a restriction on freedom of expression, such as internet shutdowns, is balanced and justified in relation to its intended purpose. Internet shutdowns in Ethiopia consistently fail this test as they impose broad restrictions affecting essential services and information access. For a restriction to pass this test, it must not exceed what is necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. It is about states have to demonstrate that the tools chosen to achieve legitimate objectives are proportionate so as to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health, or morals.[97] This principle focused on the measure has to be least restrictive for achieving particular aim and the application of the measure has to be to the best interests of the protected ones.[98] The Ethiopian Constitution does not explicitly include the proportionality test, but it aims to balance individual rights and societal interests.[99] 

The internet shut in the region after the armed conflict between FANO forces and federal forces intensified in the region was an action to shut the internet in Amhara region for almost a year is proportionate for one thing as the government take the actions stating the proper legitimate aims to achieve and as the measure is not taking into consideration the best interests of the people as the necessity of internet become crucial during conflict time for the consumption of life saving information and for reporting on major crises and human right investigations. So the measure taken by the federal government lacks proportionality test.[100] Moving into Ethiopian context, the shutdown measure in connection with security forces strike is said to be proportional as the closure concentrated in Addis Ababa only and did not extend to other parts of the country. But the shutdown action in connection with the second state of emergency did not fulfill the proportionality test since it is neither geographically limited nor time specific.[101]

Notably, the communication blackout in Tigray region may be justified as necessary to safeguard the country’s existence, arguably it not proportional since banning all communication services (including internet) on blanket basis may result in unintended collateral damages on civilian population.

• WithRegards to Legitimacy Test:

The legitimacy standard refers to the requirement that internet shutdown measures taken that restrict freedom of expression should be in conformity with utilitarian grounds of communal interest such as national security, public health and morality or the right of others.[102] For example, the Ethiopian Constitution under article 29(6) provides a few grounds by which freedom of expression can be legally limited. These include limitations imposed to protect the well-being of the youth, the honor and reputation of individuals, prohibition of the propaganda for war as well as the public expression of opinion intended to injure human dignity. Therefore, the Ethiopian government should ensure that its actions are in line with the rights of others or community interests before enacting shutdown measures.

Generally, The Ethiopian government’s restrictions on internet access and freedom of expression often violate international human rights standards of legality, legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality. Despite legal protections, shutdowns are routinely used to suppress dissent and control narratives, undermining universal internet access vital for socio-economic development and human rights across the country.

Ethiopian Constitution under article 29(6) provides a few grounds by which freedom of expression can be legally limited. These include: limitations imposed to protect the well-being of the youth, the honor and reputation of individuals, prohibition of the propaganda for war as well as the public expression of opinion intended to injure human dignity.[103] In sum, before implementing shutdown measures, the Ethiopian government must align its actions with one or more communal interests or the right of others such as collective security, morality or public health or the right of others, including the right to privacy and the right to vote.

Way Forward

• To address the arbitrary actions taken by governments, such as Internet shutdowns in Ethiopia, international human rights institutions and stakeholders should play a proactive role in promoting accountability.
• Governments should prioritize best practices that tackle issues at their source, favoring alternative measures over restrictive actions like Internet blackouts. In doing so sharing experiences across regions can lead to innovative solutions that do not compromise access.
• A thorough cost-benefit analysis of Internet shutdowns is essential. These disruptions not only hinder productivity but also undermine business confidence and deter both short- and long-term investments.
• Civil society organizations must continue to monitor the effects of such shutdowns, advocating for government accountability and transparency.
• The technical community should enhance Internet monitoring efforts and make tools for data analysis publicly available, increasing visibility into the scope, duration, and impact of shutdowns.
• The Ethiopian government should undertake legal and policy reforms to align domestic laws with international standards. Revising legislation in accordance with international and regional instruments will ensure clarity and adherence to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
• Judiciaries must assess government justifications for shutdowns against these international human rights standards, demanding transparency through public disclosure of shutdown orders. Before implementing shutdowns, impact assessments on human rights and economic implications should be conducted, with critical sectors such as healthcare, education, and humanitarian services exempted from disruptions when possible.
• Strengthening the involvement of NGOs and other entities will facilitate a more robust assessment of the legality, legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality of government measures that limit online freedom of expression. This collaborative approach is essential for safeguarding rights while addressing governance challenges.

Conclusion

Freedom of expression, a fundamental human right enshrined in the UDHR, ICCPR, and ACHPR, encompasses the freedom to hold opinions, impart information, and access diverse sources. In the digital age, internet access is increasingly crucial for realizing this right. While the formal classification of internet access as a human right remains debated, its instrumental importance for facilitating freedom of expression is widely recognized. However, governments frequently impose arbitrary restrictions on internet access, often justifying these actions through vague legal frameworks. International standards mandate that any limitations on freedom of expression be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and represent the least restrictive means available.

Ethiopia’s recent internet shutdowns, particularly in the Amhara and Tigray regions, have drawn considerable criticism for their failure to meet these international legal standards. These restrictions not only impede freedom of expression but also demonstrably impact health, education, and economic stability. Reports from organizations like Amnesty International highlight how such blackouts obstruct humanitarian aid efforts and obscure potential human rights violations, further underscoring their disproportionate impact.

This ongoing situation necessitates concrete action to protect digital rights. International human rights institutions should actively promote accountability and disseminate best practices focused on prioritizing less restrictive alternatives to internet shutdowns. Furthermore, the Ethiopian government must undertake comprehensive reforms of its domestic laws to ensure alignment with international human rights standards, guaranteeing that any limitations on freedom of expression strictly adhere to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Finally, conducting thorough impact assessments prior to implementing shutdowns and actively strengthening NGO involvement in monitoring and advocating for online freedoms will contribute to a more balanced approach to governance and rights protection.

Ultimately, Ethiopia must abandon its reliance on internet shutdowns. Protecting freedom of expression and ensuring access to information are essential for a healthy and democratic society. Instead of resorting to restrictive measures that cause widespread harm, Ethiopia should embrace rights-respecting approaches to address its legitimate security and governance concerns.

Reference(S):

International Law

1. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS), vol. 999, p. 171, Art 19.
2. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS), vol. 999, p. 171, Art 19.
3. Organization of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“Banjul Charter”), 27 June 1981, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), Art 9
4. ACHPR, ‘Resolution on the right to freedom of information and expression on the internet in Africa’, ACHPR/Res. 362, (2016)
5. UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 34, Article 19, Freedoms of opinion and expression, CCPR/C/GC/34 , 12 September 2011, <http://www.refworld.org/legal/general/hrc/2011/en/83764>
6. F La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Report to the Human Rights Council, 17th session, UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 (2011), p 7.
7. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948), art. 19.
8. United Nations, Report on the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 9 October 2019, A/74/486, pp. 5, Para. 6.
9. HRC44: UN Resolution on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, July 22, 2020,<https://www.article1 9.org/resources/hrc44-un-resolution-on-freedo
10. Amnesty International, a Guide to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right, 2006, Pp 8
11. African Charter on Human and People’s Right, Adopted by the 8th Assembly of Heads of States and Governments, on June, 1981, Nairobi, Article 9(1) and (2).
12. ACHPR Press,< https://achpr.au.int/en/special-mechanisms-reports/declaration-principles-freedom-expression-africa-2002> First Paragraph, [last accessed on Sep 18, 2024]
13. ACHPR Press, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa 2019, <https://achpr.au.int/en/node/902>, [last accessed on September 18, 2024]
14. Declaration of Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 65th Ordinary Session, 21 Oct 10 Nov, Banjul , 2019,Principle 9, pp. 11.
15. General comment 34 on Article 19: Freedom of Expression, July 11-29, Geneva, 2011, United Nation Human Right Committee, paragraph 11, pp. 3.

National Laws

1. Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Negarit Gazette, Addis Ababa, 21 August 1995, Art 29. (Here after FDRE Constitution)
2. Computer Crime Proclamation, Proclamation No. 765/2012, Art. 12, Federal Negarit Gazeta (Ethiopia), 2012.
3. Proclamation No. 590/2008 of 2008, Freedom of the Mass Media and Access to Information Proclamation, no.4 December 2008, Art 4
4. Information Network Security Agency Re-establishment Proclamation No 808/2013, Federal Negarit Gazeta, Art 6(4)

Judgements

 The judgment in the case of (Amnesty International Togo v The Togolese Republic 2020), <http://prod.courtecowas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/JUD_ECW_CCJ_JUD_09_20.pdf  > (Last accessed March 2025)

Articles and Journals

1.  1.enter for Law and Democracy (CLD) and International Media Support (IMS), Freedom of Expression Briefing Note Series, Copenhagen, 2009, pp. 2
2. 2.Yitbarek Tibebu, ‘Apprising Internet Shutdown in Amhara Region: and its Impact on Exercising Freedom of Expression’, LLB Thesis, Bahir Dar University, Law School, 2024, {Unpublished Found at Library}, pp. 2.
3. Yohannes Enyewu, Mapping the Human Rights Impact of Internet Shutdowns in Ethiopia, CARD Report, 2021, pp. 1.
4. Media Defense, Summary Modules on Litigating Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online, <http://www .mediadefence.org>, pp. 3
5. Ayalew, Y. E. (2019). ‘The Internet shutdown muzzle(s) freedom of expression in Ethiopia: competing narratives. Information & Communications Technology Law’, 28(2), 208–224.https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2019.1619906
6. Gedion Timothewos, ‘Freedom of Expression in Ethiopia: The Jurisprudential Dearth’ Mizan Law Review, No.4 (2) 201–31. 2010)
7. Mesenbet Tadeg, ‘Freedom of Expression and the Media Landscape in Ethiopia: Contemporary Challenges’ (2016) 5 U. Balt. J. Media L. & Ethics 69, 86.

[1]United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (1948). Art.19. Accessed at https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (Here in after UDHR)

[2] United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1948). Art.19.Accessed at https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (Here in after UDHR)

[3]Yohannes Eneyew, ‘Assessing the Limitations to Freedom of Expression on the Internet in Ethiopia Against the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ African Human Rights Law Journal, , Vol. 20(2), No. 14. 2020, Pp.162

[4] ACHPR, ‘Resolution on the right to freedom of information and expression on the internet in Africa’, ACHPR/Res. 362, (2016) (Accessible at https://www.achpr.org/sessions/resolutions?id=374)

[5] ACHPR, ‘Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa’ (2019) (accessible at https://www.achpr.org/public/Document/file/English/Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression_ENG_2019.pdf).

[6] UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 34, Article 19, Freedoms of opinion and expression, CCPR/C/GC/34 , 12 September 2011, <http://www.refworld.org/legal/general/hrc/2011/en/83764> ( Last accessed 27 February 2025)

[7] Andrew P. et al. Freedom of Expression: The essentials of Human Rights, 2005, pp. 128

[8] F La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Report to the Human Rights Council, 17th session, UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 (2011), p 7

[9] The judgment in the case of (Amnesty International Togo v The Togolese Republic 2020), <http://prod.courtecowas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/JUD_ECW_CCJ_JUD_09_20.pdf  > (Last accessed March 2025)

[10]  Center for Law and Democracy (CLD) and International Media Support (IMS), Freedom of Expression Briefing Note Series, Copenhagen, 2009, pp. 2. See Also, ICCPR, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976.  Art.19

[11]Yitbarek Tibebu, ‘Apprising Internet Shutdown in Amhara Region: and its Impact on Exercising Freedom of Expression’, LLB Thesis, Bahir Dar University, Law School, 2024, {Unpublished Found at Library}, pp. 2.

[12] Yohannes Enyewu, Mapping the Human Rights Impact of Internet Shutdowns in Ethiopia, CARD Report, 2021, pp. 1.

[13] Media Defense, Summary Modules on Litigating Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online,   <http://www .mediadefence.org>, pp. 3

[14] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948), art. 19.

[15] Id.

[16] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 19, opened for signature Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976).

[17] Supra note 23, Article 19(2), pp. 11.

[18] United Nations, Report on the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 9 October 2019, A/74/486, pp. 5, Para. 6.

[19] Article 19, HRC44: UN Resolution on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, July 22, 2020,<https://www.article1 9.org/resources/hrc44-un-resolution-on-freedom-of-expression/, paragraph 1.

[20] Ibid, paragraph 2. 

[21] Ibid

[22] Article 19, UN: New resolution on freedom of expression, July 11, 2022, <https://www.article19.org/resources/un-new-resolution-on-freedom-of-expression/, paragraph 1 and 2.

[23] General comments are documents of treaties monitoring bodies to give authoritative interpretation for specific articles of human right issue. Such general comments are important to indicate the specific obligations of member states.

[24] General comment 34 on Article 19: Freedom of Expression, July 11-29, Geneva, 2011, United Nation Human Right Committee, paragraph 11, pp. 3.

[25] Ibid, Pp. 5-6.

[26] General comment 10: Freedom of expression (Art. 19), June 29, 1983, United Nation Office of High Commissioner for Human Right, pp. 74.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Amnesty International, a Guide to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right, 2006, Pp 8

[29] African Charter on Human and People’s Right, Adopted by the 8^th Assembly of Heads of States and Governments, on June, 1981, Nairobi, Article 9(1) and (2).

[30]ACHPR Press,< https://achpr.au.int/en/special-mechanisms-reports/declaration-principles-freedom-expression-africa-2002> First Paragraph, [last accessed on Sep 18, 2024]

[31] ACHPR Press, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa 2019, <https://achpr.au.int/en/node/902>, [last accessed on September 18, 2024]

[32] Declaration of Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 65^th Ordinary Session, 21 Oct 10 Nov, Banjul , 2019,Principle 9, pp. 11.

[33] Id, principle 1, pp. 10

[34] Ibid, principle 3

[35] Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of  Ethiopia, Federal Negarit Gazette, Addis Ababa, 21 August 1995, Art 29. (Here after FDRE Constitution)

[36] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), Art 19

[37] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS), vol. 999, p. 171, Art 19.

[38] Kimel v. Argentina, Merits, reparations and costs, IACHR Series C no 177, IHRL 3051 (IACtHR 2008), 2nd May 2008, Para.53

[39] Ibid

[40] FEDRE Constitution,  Art.13

[41] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS), vol. 999, p. 171, Art 19.

[42] Organization of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“Banjul Charter”), 27 June 1981, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), Art 9

[43] Ayalew, Y. E. (2019). ‘The Internet shutdown muzzle(s) freedom of expression in Ethiopia: competing narratives. Information & Communications Technology Law’, 28(2), 208–224.https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2019.1619906

[44] Gedion Timothewos, ‘Freedom of Expression in Ethiopia: The Jurisprudential Dearth’ Mizan Law Review, No.4 (2) 201–31. 2010)

[45] Mesenbet Tadeg, ‘Freedom of Expression and the Media Landscape in Ethiopia: Contemporary Challenges’ (2016) 5 U. Balt. J. Media L. & Ethics 69, 86.

[46] Proclamation No. 590/2008 of 2008, Freedom of the Mass Media and Access to Information Proclamation, no.4 December 2008, Art 4

[47] NIELIT, Internet and WWW, 8 April, 2020, <https://www.nielit.gov.in /gorakhpur/sites/ default/files/Gorakhpur /olevel_1_ittnb_b4_08apr20_ART.pdf, paragraph 1, [last accessed on March 18, 2025].

[48] Agnes Callamard (Dr), “Freedom of Expression and Advocacy of Religious Hatred that Constitute Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence”, Expert Meeting of UNHRC on the Links Between Article 19 and 20 of ICCPR, Geneva, Oct 2-3, 2008, pp. 1

[49]A Brief History of Internet, < https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtml >, [last accessed on March 2025]

[50]Ibid

[51] Michael L Best, Can the Internet Be a Human Right?, 2004, pp. 158.

[52] UNHRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (La Rue Report) 2006, Pp. 29.

[53] ICCPR, art, 19(2)

[54] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment no. 24, Article 19, Freedoms of Opinion and Expression’ Pp.12
September 2011, pp. 24-28.

[55] Simon Rice, The Right of Access to Law‘ in Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken and Mart Susi ,The
Cambridge Handbook on New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric Cambridge University Press, 2020.

[56] Ibid

[57] Philip Alston, Conjuring up New Human Rights: A Proposal for Quality Control, 2005, pp.129.

[58] Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (Proclamation No. 1 of 1995, Federal Negarit Gazeta 1st Year No. 1), Article 29(6)

[59] Art 2(2) of Hate Speech Proclamation.

[60] General Comment 34 Para 25

[61] United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, David Kaye, Visit to Ethiopia, 2-9 December 2019

[62] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression: Visit to Ethiopia

[63] Information Network Security Agency Re-establishment Proclamation No 808/2013, Federal Negarit Gazeta, Art
6(4).

[64] Ibid, Art 2(5)

[65] Computer Crime Proclamation, Proclamation No. 765/2012, Art. 12, Federal Negarit Gazeta (Ethiopia), 2012.

[66] Id.

[67] Computer Crime Proclamation (2020) Art 22(4)

[68]Access Now( 2023)  “Preserving freedom in crisis: Ethiopia’s internet shutdowns must not become the norm” <https://www.accessnow.org/press-release/open-statement-internet-shutdown-amhara/ >

[69] Supra note 59

[70] Supra note 103 Art 13

[71]American Psychological Association, (2024). Misinformation and disinformation, < https://www.apa.org/topics /journalism facts/misinformation disinformation>

[72] Richard Carver ‘Training Manual on International and Comparative Media and Freedom of Expression Law’ (accessible here) at pp. 77-88

[73] Report of the UNSR, on freedom of expression to the UNGA, A/HRC/23/40, 17 April 2013,  Para 60

[74]  Media Defense ‘Module 3: Access to the internet’< www.mediadefence.org >

[75] Supra note 54, Art 93

[76] Art 6(1) of state of emergency proclamation

[77] ibid art 9(1)

[78] Supra note 70,  art 5(1)

[79] ibid art 6(2)

[80]Internet Shutdowns in Ethiopia: The Weapon of Choice,(2022) <https://blog.prif.org/2022/03/11/internet-shutdowns-in-ethiopia-the-weapon-of-choice/> (last accessed May 10,2025)

[81] ACCORD, Civil War between the Ethiopian Government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front: A Challenge to Implement the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, AJCR (2023/1)< https://www.accord.org.za/ajcr-issue >

[82] UN Human Rights Commission, “Internet shutdowns: UN report details ‘dramatic’ impact on people’s lives and human rights” Geneva,2022

[83] ACCORD, Civil War between the Ethiopian Government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front: A Challenge to Implement the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, AJCR (2023/1)< https://www.accord.org.za/ajcr-issue >

[84] Id.

[85] Amnesty International, (2024), “Human rights in Ethiopia. < https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/africa/east-africa-the-horn-and-great-lakes/ethiopia/report-ethiopia />

[86] Id.

[87] Felicia et al, ‘Keep It On in conflict: the human impact of internet shutdowns in Amhara region, Ethiopia’, Nov 22, 2023, <https://www.accessnow.org/keepiton-in-conflict-the-human-impact-of-internet-shutdowns-in-amhara-region-ethiopia/ , {last accessed on May 8, 2025}.

[88] Declaration of Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 65^th Ordinary Session, 21 Oct – 10 Nov, Banjul , 2019, principle 9(4), Pp. 12.

[89] FDRE Constitution Art.29(6)

[90] Supra note 122, Article 29(6).

[91] Kinfe Micheal Yilma (PhD), “Network Disruptions and the Law in Ethiopia: A Legal Guide”, Internet news, August/ September, 2021,

<<https://internews.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Network-Disruptions-and-the-Law-in Ethiopia>.

[92] M Tsegaye ‘The illegality of internet shutdown in Ethiopia’(2023) < https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/illegality-internet-shutdown-ethiopia-markos-tsegaye/ (accessed on 26 May 2025)

[93]Ibid

[94] Supra note 29, Principle 9.

[95] General comment 34 on Article 19: Freedom of Expression, July 11-29, Geneva, 2011, United Nation Human Right Committee, paragraph 11, principle 33 pp. 3.

[96] Ibid, Principle 30, pp. 7.

[97] Yohannis Enyew, Supra note 99, pp. 15.

[98] Supra note 13, principle 34.

[99] MA Tadeg, ‘Freedom of Expression and the Media Landscape in Ethiopia: Contemporary Challenges’ Journal of Media Law and Ethics’, (2017).

[100]Access Now, (2023) “Keep It On in conflict: the human impact of internet shutdowns in Amhara region, Ethiopia”< https://www.accessnow.org/keepiton-in-conflict-the-human-impact-of-internet-shutdowns-in-amhara-region-ethiopia />

[101] Ibid

[102] M Tsegaye, Supra Note 141

[103] The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, (Art. 19, London, November 1996)