Methods Of Constitutional Interpretation In Constitutional Dispute Settlement In Ethiopia

The gist of constitutional interpretation is maintaining supremacy of the constitution. Yet,rnconstitutional interpretation invariably involves complex questions having equally competing butrnconflicting socio-politico-legal dimensions and choices. Finding a viable and constitutionallyrnappealing way out from the web of these three-dimensional issues obviously requires a soundrnbackground of constitutionalism and knowledge of appropriate principles of constitutionalrninterpretation. In this regard the FDRE Constitution offers little guidance on how thernconstitution should be interpreted where the need arises, except for fundamental rights andrnfreedoms specified in chapter three of the constitution. The general reference to internationalrninstrument in the interpretation of fundamental rights and freedom does not help much if it is notrnspecified. Apart from the constitution Proclamation No. 251/2001 authorizes HoF to identify,rndevelop and implement principles of constitutional interpretation as it deems appropriate.rnHowever, constitutional interpretive principles have not developed yet by HoF. Hence, lack ofrnconstitutional interpretive principles/methodology result in lack of consistency and predictabilityrnof how the constitution is interpreted as well as the outcome of the decisions itself. The researchrncontends that the Ato Ashenafi Amare et al vs. the Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authorityrn(ERCA) case and Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) vs. Prime Minister Meles ZenawirnAsres cases would have been decided in a more consistent and rational manner, had they beenrnanalyzed by employing proportionality and balancing analysis method of interpretation. Hence,rnthis research argues that apart from the existing interpretive methodologies that the CCIHoF isrnapplying, proportionality and balancing method of analysis could transform the interpretivernmandate of CCIHoF in the event of possible limitation of fundamental rights and freedomsrnoccurs. It analyzes in a case by case basis the legality and legitimacy of the action where legalityrnrefers to the requirement that the limitation to be ‘prescribed by law’ where as legitimacy refersrnto the requirements of proportionality which has three criteria (suitability, necessity andrnproportionality). Therefore, HoF should adopt proportionality and balancing method of analysisrnas one of its constitutional interpretive methods.rnKey Words: principles of constitutional interpretation, balancing, proportionality,rnsuitability, necessity, supremacy of constitution

Get Full Work

Report copyright infringement or plagiarism