All criminal cases do not lead to either conviction or acquittal after completion of trial. Midway, the cases may be withdrawn from the records of the criminal courts. In Ethiopia, power to withdraw criminal charges for the sake of public interest is absolutely vested in the hand of Attorney General (AG). Unfortunately, the Ethiopian laws are failed to define and lists some illustrations what constitutes public interest. In such a case, the AG has become lynch pin in disposal of cases otherwise than on merits. Thus, such power of the AG for withdrawal of criminal charges from prosecution for the sake of public interest has become a controversial topic in the criminal proceedings and in fact it is a peculiar power entrusted to the AG. The main objective of the article is to examine the existing normative frameworks of Ethiopian criminal justice system that regulating withdrawal of criminal charges for the sake of public interest. In order to achieve the intended aims, this article has employed doctrinal legal research on which legal analysis of the principal legislations was the focal point. In so doing, the study has identified a lot of legal vacuums. Accordingly, the study found absence of clear and comprehensive definition of the phrase public interest; lack of legal way outs for consideration of views and concerns of victims of crimes; absence of review mechanism in a case where the AG withdraw criminal charges arbitrary; lack of time limitation for continuation of criminal charges after withdrawal and empowering exclusive mandate and wide discretionary power to AG in withdrawing criminal charges alone are the main ones. Amongst others, it is recommended that the Ethiopian law maker should amend and enact a law governing withdrawal of criminal charges under the guise of public interest.
| Published in | Humanities and Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 4) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11 |
| Page(s) | 80-86 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Withdrawal of Criminal Charges, Public Interest, Attorney General (AG), Discretionary Power
| [1] | FAGE Proclamation No. 943/2016, 22nd Year, No. 62, 2nd May 2016, A. A, Article 6 (3) (E). |
| [2] | Section 23 (A) of the Australian Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985. |
| [3] | Article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code of India 1973. |
| [4] | Bozenman. (2007). Public Values and Interest, George Town University Press, Washington, Ch. 1. |
| [5] | Nsongurua Udombana. (2013). Justice in the Public Interest, Presented at the Spidel Session of the NBA Annual Conference, Calabar, p. 8. |
| [6] | Megan Carter and Andrew Bouris. (2006). Freedom of Information: Balancing the Public Interest, 2nd edition, published by The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy, p. 4. |
| [7] | Black’s Law Dictionary, (8th ed. 2004), p. 3883. |
| [8] | Virginia Held. (1970). The Public Interest and Individual Interest, Basic Book, New York, p. 248. |
| [9] | FDRE Constitution, Federal Negarit Gazette, 1st Year No. 1.21st August, 1995, Article 26 (2), 27 (5) and 29 (6). |
| [10] | FDRE Criminal Justice Policy (2011), No. 3.9. |
| [11] | Article 505 of FDRE Criminal Code Proclamation No. 414/2004, Negarit Gazetta, No., Year 9th of May, 2005. |
| [12] | Ethiopian Criminal Procedure Code (1961), Article 38, 39 and 42. |
| [13] | Take note that the Ethiopian government has enacted a new Criminal Code in the year 2003. As per this new Criminal Code aggravated robbery and homicide in the first degree are treated under Article and 539 respectively in the new code. |
| [14] | Mihret Abebe. (2018). Legal Lacunas Associated to Withdrawal of Criminal Charges under Contemporary Ethiopian Legal System: Review of Criminal Legal Frameworks in Comparison with Other Jurisdictions, International Journal of Management, Technology And Engineering, Volume 8, Issue XI, p. 1505. |
| [15] | Article 206 of the 2021 Revised Draft Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code. |
| [16] | Paul Robert Sayi. (2016). Crime Victims’ Remedy against a DPP Decision not to Prosecute in Tanzania, International Journal of Science Arts and Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 10, p. 1. |
| [17] | Ayalew NA. (2020). Basis and Practices of Restorative Justice: the case of Ethiopian Criminal Justice. Forensic Res Criminal Int J.; 8 (4): 140-147 DOI: 10.15406/frcij.2020. |
| [18] | Criminal Justice System Working Group. (2021). Diagnostic Study of the Ethiopian Criminal Justice System, Published by The Legal and Justice Affairs Advisory Council of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Attorney General. Jomo Kenyatta St. Addis Ababa, Pp. 123-124. |
| [19] | Etose; Aziegbemhin; and Aghede-Ehikwe. (2018). An Appraisal of the Application of the Doctrine of Nolle Prosequiin Nigeria, Julia Law Publishers, Cranbrook Law Review, Volume 8 (1), p. 10. |
| [20] | Nabiyu Mikru. (2017). Selective Criminal Prosecution Vis a Vis Prosecutorial Discretion in Ethiopian Criminal Justice System: Theory and Practice, Unpublished LL. M Thesis, Addis Ababa University, p. 48. |
| [21] | Alemu Meheretu. (2016). The Proposed Plea Bargaining in Ethiopia: How it Fares with Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law and Procedure, Mizan Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 420. |
| [22] | Kenny Yang. (2013). Public Accountability of Public Prosecutors, Murdoch University Law Review, 20 (1), p. 46. |
| [23] | Muralidhan S (2004). Rights of Victims in the Indian Criminal Justice System, National Human Rights Commission Journal, p. 5. |
| [24] | Tian Li. (2013). Victims Opportunity to Review Decision not to Prosecute made by Crown Prosecutor, Published Masters of Laws Thesis, The University of Western Ontario, Pp. 129-130. |
APA Style
Diriba Adugna Tulu. (2021). Withdrawal of Criminal Charges for the Sake of Public Interest in Ethiopia: Exploring Legal Gaps and Way Forward. Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(4), 80-86. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11
ACS Style
Diriba Adugna Tulu. Withdrawal of Criminal Charges for the Sake of Public Interest in Ethiopia: Exploring Legal Gaps and Way Forward. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2021, 9(4), 80-86. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11
AMA Style
Diriba Adugna Tulu. Withdrawal of Criminal Charges for the Sake of Public Interest in Ethiopia: Exploring Legal Gaps and Way Forward. Humanit Soc Sci. 2021;9(4):80-86. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11,
author = {Diriba Adugna Tulu},
title = {Withdrawal of Criminal Charges for the Sake of Public Interest in Ethiopia: Exploring Legal Gaps and Way Forward},
journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences},
volume = {9},
number = {4},
pages = {80-86},
doi = {10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hss.20210904.11},
abstract = {All criminal cases do not lead to either conviction or acquittal after completion of trial. Midway, the cases may be withdrawn from the records of the criminal courts. In Ethiopia, power to withdraw criminal charges for the sake of public interest is absolutely vested in the hand of Attorney General (AG). Unfortunately, the Ethiopian laws are failed to define and lists some illustrations what constitutes public interest. In such a case, the AG has become lynch pin in disposal of cases otherwise than on merits. Thus, such power of the AG for withdrawal of criminal charges from prosecution for the sake of public interest has become a controversial topic in the criminal proceedings and in fact it is a peculiar power entrusted to the AG. The main objective of the article is to examine the existing normative frameworks of Ethiopian criminal justice system that regulating withdrawal of criminal charges for the sake of public interest. In order to achieve the intended aims, this article has employed doctrinal legal research on which legal analysis of the principal legislations was the focal point. In so doing, the study has identified a lot of legal vacuums. Accordingly, the study found absence of clear and comprehensive definition of the phrase public interest; lack of legal way outs for consideration of views and concerns of victims of crimes; absence of review mechanism in a case where the AG withdraw criminal charges arbitrary; lack of time limitation for continuation of criminal charges after withdrawal and empowering exclusive mandate and wide discretionary power to AG in withdrawing criminal charges alone are the main ones. Amongst others, it is recommended that the Ethiopian law maker should amend and enact a law governing withdrawal of criminal charges under the guise of public interest.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Withdrawal of Criminal Charges for the Sake of Public Interest in Ethiopia: Exploring Legal Gaps and Way Forward AU - Diriba Adugna Tulu Y1 - 2021/07/13 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11 DO - 10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11 T2 - Humanities and Social Sciences JF - Humanities and Social Sciences JO - Humanities and Social Sciences SP - 80 EP - 86 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-8184 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20210904.11 AB - All criminal cases do not lead to either conviction or acquittal after completion of trial. Midway, the cases may be withdrawn from the records of the criminal courts. In Ethiopia, power to withdraw criminal charges for the sake of public interest is absolutely vested in the hand of Attorney General (AG). Unfortunately, the Ethiopian laws are failed to define and lists some illustrations what constitutes public interest. In such a case, the AG has become lynch pin in disposal of cases otherwise than on merits. Thus, such power of the AG for withdrawal of criminal charges from prosecution for the sake of public interest has become a controversial topic in the criminal proceedings and in fact it is a peculiar power entrusted to the AG. The main objective of the article is to examine the existing normative frameworks of Ethiopian criminal justice system that regulating withdrawal of criminal charges for the sake of public interest. In order to achieve the intended aims, this article has employed doctrinal legal research on which legal analysis of the principal legislations was the focal point. In so doing, the study has identified a lot of legal vacuums. Accordingly, the study found absence of clear and comprehensive definition of the phrase public interest; lack of legal way outs for consideration of views and concerns of victims of crimes; absence of review mechanism in a case where the AG withdraw criminal charges arbitrary; lack of time limitation for continuation of criminal charges after withdrawal and empowering exclusive mandate and wide discretionary power to AG in withdrawing criminal charges alone are the main ones. Amongst others, it is recommended that the Ethiopian law maker should amend and enact a law governing withdrawal of criminal charges under the guise of public interest. VL - 9 IS - 4 ER -
Email: