Traditional justice is in high demand, but an unaccountable system could perpetuate discrimination and undermine human rights.
Traditional justice mechanisms are among Ethiopia’s most enduring alternative dispute resolution avenues. They are rooted in indigenous systems that predate the formal judiciary and provide accessible, affordable and culturally legitimate justice for millions.
In recent years, formal recognition of these mechanisms has gained momentum, according to Ethiopia’s Ministry of Justice. The Oromia regional state has established over 7 376 customary courts, and several other regions have enacted laws on traditional institutions. Since 2023, Oromia’s customary courts have handled over 1 133 374 cases.
Regional initiatives largely draw on the customary courts model law developed by the Ministry of Justice in 2023, which was influenced by Oromia’s practice. Customary courts are a key pillar of the ministry’s justice sector transformation plan.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The model law rests on four principles that align customary justice with constitutional and human rights standards. First, justice must be geographically, procedurally and financially accessible to ordinary people. Second, the courts’ jurisdiction is based on parties’ free consent. Third, customary justice must comply with international human rights and the Ethiopian constitution to prevent discrimination and abuse. Fourth, formal recognition should not undermine the customs and institutions themselves.
The model law and corresponding regional laws operationalise these principles. They stipulate that customary courts be established at the kebele, the and offer free services. They limit jurisdiction to individual disputes and proscribe political interference. At least one female judge is required in each court, and non-discrimination is mandated.
In principle, cultural legitimacy is balanced with rights compliance. However, there’s a growing gap between these aspirations and lived realities. Assessments of customary courts in Oromia and elsewhere show persistent human rights violations, gender-based exclusion and political interference.
Female judges (elders) are often unwelcome. Local administrators interfere in proceedings, even threatening to remove elders who fail to meet their expectations. And many customary courts deal with matters that can only be addressed through the formal justice system.
These problems are symptoms of a deeper institutional weakness, namely the absence of sustained support and supervision. In most cases, only introductory training is provided to customary court judges, and there is no standardised manual or practice.
The model law recognises the need for oversight and envisions Customary Courts Administration Councils at federal and regional levels. These councils are mandated to facilitate setup, monitor compliance, organise capacity building and when necessary, recommend the revocation of licences for repeated violations. They should ensure that judges receive continuous training in human rights and constitutional principles, and guarantee that free legal aid services are available.
However, these supervisory councils are not yet established, and even if they were, their design is inadequate. Comprising mainly formal state institutions such as supreme courts and justice bureaus, they are ill-suited to monitor and support thousands of dispersed customary courts. The judiciary faces chronic delays and case backlogs; adding daily oversight of customary courts to its mandate may exacerbate these inefficiencies.
Furthermore, the absence of key actors such as the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission weakens the system’s integrity. Customary courts have yet to feature in the commission’s education agenda, despite being mandated to monitor all justice mechanisms.
Civil society organisations, particularly at grassroots level, which could advocate for women’s rights and deliver human rights education, remain largely inactive in customary justice. Universities provide free legal aid, but have not been systematically involved in supporting customary courts.
Traditional elders’ councils, as envisaged in the model law, have not been established in most regions, allowing political or administrative actors to dominate decision making on customary courts. Integrating customary institutions into the governance framework would help shift the process from a top-down administrative exercise to a bottom-up articulation of community needs.
This shift is vital. In regions like Sidama and Oromia, elders regarded customary courts as a threat to their cultural practices and an extension of the formal justice system rather than a genuine recognition of local traditions.
The entire customary justice system is currently unwatched, with limited accountability and no structured channel for community feedback or rights protection.
Addressing the oversight gap requires rethinking the nature of support for customary courts. One promising approach is to reposition Community Justice Centres (CJCs) as operational arms of the Customary Courts Administration Councils. This model, piloted in Hawassa (Sidama), Asaita (Afar) and Addis Ketema (Addis Ababa), integrates customary courts with legal aid services and digital information platforms.
The CJCs were established through collaboration between the Ministry of Justice, Hague Institute for Innovation of Law, and Destiny Ethiopia. The centres aim to provide accessible, community-level justice that bridges traditional and formal systems, particularly in cases involving land and family disputes.
If properly institutionalised, CJCs could serve as coordination and monitoring hubs for customary courts. They could collect data, analyse reports and ensure adherence to legal and human rights standards. They could arrange training for customary judges and highlight exemplary decisions, following the Oromia Supreme Court model.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Success!
Almost finished…
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the process, please follow the instructions in the email we just sent you.
Error!
There was a problem processing your submission. Please try again later.
CJCs could also channel legal aid and human rights education to disputants, acting as intermediaries between communities, civil society and formal justice institutions. Operating at community level, they are well placed to offer daily oversight and capacity support.
Reorienting CJCs in this way would relieve regional supreme courts and justice bureaus of excessive administrative burdens, ensure that customary courts are regularly monitored, and enhance trust between traditional authorities and the state.
Ethiopia’s customary courts stand at a critical juncture. Their rapid proliferation reflects both the demand for local justice and the state’s recognition of their value. Yet, without support and supervision, they could perpetuate discrimination and undermine human rights, diminishing their legitimacy. The likely outcome is that those who can afford it would use formal justice mechanisms, leaving the poor confined to an inferior system, entrenching inequality.
A recent conference organised by the Ministry of Justice and the Institute for Security Studies highlighted that federal and regional governments must establish effective supervisory mechanisms alongside the Customary Courts Administration Council. This would safeguard the integrity of traditional justice systems and strengthen Ethiopia’s commitment to rights-compliant, community-rooted justice for all.
Tadesse Simie Metekia, Senior Researcher, Special Projects, ISS Addis Ababa
