Adem Laws Page

====================Kunis murtii mormii sadarkaa duraa irratti M/Murtii Ol’iyyannoo dhagahuun kennamu irraa gareen komii qabu eega dhimmichi qajeelfamaan M/Murtii sadarkaa jalqabaatti deebi’uun ijoo haadhoo irratti murtiin dhumaa kenname booda bakka tokkotti komii isaa Mana Murtii ol’iyyannoo dhagahutti ykn Dhaddacha Ijibbaataa ilaalutti dhiyeeffachuu akka danda’uu fi otuu dhimmichi ijoo bu’uraa irratti murtii dhumaa hinargatin murtii mormii sadarkaa duraa irratti kenname irraa battalumatti ol’iyyachuuf kan hindirqamne akka ta’e kallattiin hiikkoo seeraa dirqisiisaa laateers....

DHIMMWF Lakk galmee 119851 tahe irratti murtii dirqisiisaa Abbootiin seeraa 7 irratti muudaman gaafa 26/07/2011  kanneen  dhimma yeroo kam   MSD irrratti jala murtii kannamee irraa  oliyyannoon ykn iyyannoon ijibbaataa yeroo kam dhiyaachuu akka. ====================Kunis murtii mormii sadarkaa duraa irratti M/Murtii Ol’iyyannoo dhagahuun kennamu irraa gareen komii qabu eega dhimmichi qajeelfamaan M/Murtii sadarkaa jalqabaatti deebi’uun i…

Cassation Decision No. 182212: 26/3/2012 E.C Your Address Can't Keep You in Jail
==============================
Imagine you are arrested for a crime while traveling or working in a town far from your home. As you sit in a police station or a courtroom, a particular fear begins to creep in—not just about the charge itself, but about your address. You worry that the prosecutor and the judge will see your distant hometown on your ID and immediately label you a "flight risk."
=============================
The case involved a man from Adama who was charged in Nekemte with the alleged illegal transportation of 28 quintals of coffee, valued at 200,000 birr. The applicant with other were charged with violating Criminal Law Article 32 (1) (a) and Oromia Region Coffee Quality Control and Trade Proclamation No. 160/2002 Article 23 (4). The law under which the defendants were charged is not one that prohibits the right to bail. Applicant challenged the common assumption that a person's home address can be used as a primary reason to deny them their fundamental right to bail.
=============================
This post will unpack the most significant, and often surprising, principles from this landmark ruling. One a person's distant home address is not a sufficient legal reason, on its own, to deny their right to bail.
=============================
In the case, the prosecutor argued against bail on two grounds: that the accused might tamper with witnesses and that his distant address made him a flight risk. The lower courts correctly dismissed the flimsy witness tampering argument but then erred by accepting the second. They repeatedly denied the man's request for bail for one primary reason: they feared that the distance between Adama and Nekemte made his voluntary return for trial "doubtful." The Cassation Bench unequivocally rejected this logic. This is a crucial clarification of the law, as it prevents a person's place of residence—a simple fact of their life—from becoming an automatic penalty that costs them their liberty.
==============================
If a judge has concerns, the proper course is to verify whether the accused is known at their stated address through the appropriate local body. This is providing a workable, rights-respecting solution for future cases. The court's definitive statement on the matter leaves no room for ambiguity
==============================
The Right to Bail is directly linked to Freedom of Movement. It grounded its decision in one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. The ruling explicitly connected the denial of bail based on address to Article 32(1) of the FDRE Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to move and establish a residence anywhere within Ethiopia.
==============================
The Bench reiterated that, the justice system cannot punish a citizen for exercising their constitutional right to freedom of movement. By denying bail solely because a person lives "far away," the lower courts were inadvertently penalizing them for living where the constitution gives them every right to live.
=============================
Innocent Until Proven Guilty" Is a Principle with Teeth. The right to bail is not a minor privilege; it's a direct extension of the "presumption of innocence" a cornerstone of any fair legal system. In general, Pre-trial detention must be the exception, not the rule, because the default position of the justice system must be to protect a person's liberty before they are proven guilty. The Bench recognized that keeping an unconvicted person in jail fundamentally hampers their ability to work with their lawyer, gather evidence, and build a robust defense for trial.
==============================
So Judge's "Feeling" Isn't Enough to Deny Freedom. Article 67 of the CPC gives judges discretion in bail. It allows a judge to deny bail if they presume the accused is unlikely to show up for court. However, this decision placed a crucial limit on this judicial power that a judge's presumption cannot be arbitrary or based on a whim. It must be founded on "sufficient and legal reasons." A distant home address, does not meet this standard.
=============================