By TESFALEM WALDYES
FORTUNE STAFF WRITER

Mengistu Yismaw, 21, a student and elected member of the CUD in the Oromia Regional Council, had no doubt that he would get an entrance badge to follow the latest trial of the CUD leaders, journalists and civil society members when he went to the Federal Supreme Court at Sidist Kilo on Tuesday, February 28, 2006.

His confidence lay in having been present at five consecutive hearings. He not only attended and watched how the defendants handled the charges – from treason to genocide - but also shouldered the responsibility of reporting what he observed to CUD members and supporters when he returned to his residence and constituency in Adama (Nazareth) and Arsi Negele, in West Showa Zone of the Oromia Regional State, respectively.

Like all the other observers at the session held last week, the police took away Mengistu’s entrance badge, which had been issued by the Federal Supreme Court. He waited for an announcement to be made on state media that informed him when and where to get a replacement, just as the presiding judge had promised at the end of last week’s session. He heard on the radio that the issuing of badges would start at 10a.m. on Tuesday, but he arrived at the Supreme Court as the courthouse was starting to come to life at 8:30am.

His hopes of getting a badge were dashed when he was told by those who were handing them out to wait until later. They told him he was too boyish in appearance, according to him. He was not alone. Around 15 young people faced similar problems.

After an hour passed, they were still waiting at the back gate of the Supreme Court. Their expectations slowly melted away when people who had gone in behind them left disappointed after they had received the same response that Mengistu and his young friends had been given. Because he had no badge; he was unable to follow the trial the following morning.

Families and observers who gathered at the courtroom of the Second Criminal Bench of the Federal High Court convened in the compound of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED) on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, only saw five defendants arrive a few minutes before the trial began.

The three staffers of ActionAid, a civic society organisation - Daniel Bekele, Nestanet Demissie and Kasshaun Kebede - as well as the teenager Binyam Tadesse, and Wondemeneh Desalegn, were the only defendants to appear in court.

The 34 year-old Wondemeneh, mentioned in the charges as member of Hailu Shawels’ All Ethiopian Unity Party, from the town of Dejen, 229Km west of Addis Abeba, had been transferred from a prison in Gojjam. He was one of those charged in their absence but called on a newspaper announcement made by the Court a couple of weeks ago. He had yet to enter his plea.

Some families were, however, confused that all the defendants were not brought to the courtroom. Rumours started to circulate with those who expressed their suspicions that the defendants were boycotting the trial, while others said that there had been no such talk among the defendants when they visited them in prison the previous Sunday to give them their food and other supplies.

Businessman Nega Bonger, Dr. Berhanu’s father, could not wait until the arrival of the judges to discover the reason behind the empty defendants’ box. He left his seat to ask a prison officer as to the whereabouts of his son and the other defendants. Those sitting near Nega got an answer when he returned, however, others had to wait until the presiding judge, Adil Mohammed, took his seat.

According to the Presiding Judge, the previous session had been adjourned to pass a ruling on the objection made by the three members of civic society and to hear the plea of both Binyam and Wondemeneh. The Court felt that the presence of other defendants was not necessary, said the Judge.

However, the un-informed families, observers, diplomats and journalists had still gathered in the courtroom. Unlike previous sessions, the vacant seats that are allocated for lawyers and prosecutors were filled with observers.

Although the Court had introduced translation headphones for diplomats, foreign observers and journalists - who would otherwise always come with translators - the number of observers was not reduced. Unusually, the number of police officers was much higher than the number of defendants in the courtroom. The five defendants were surrounded by seven police officers and another nine covered the front gates of the courtroom. Some of them were armed: the security of the area was as tight as is often the case.

The names, addresses and jobs of every observer were registered in a guest book. Mobile telephones and keys were handed over to police along with ID cards. If trial observers were not previously aware of the requirement to hand over their keys, they were very well informed when they went through a tight body search in front of the courtroom.

The hearing began with the Court’s ruling on the objection of the three from the civic society organization. Among the seven charges that have been brought against the other 128 defendants, the three shared the alleged crimes on outrages against the constitution and the constitutional order.

Their lawyer, Alemu Denekew, had presented his objection to the charges at the previous hearing that these charges should be reframed in a “way that the law stipulates”. He demanded prosecutors be specific on details such as when and where the crimes had been allegedly committed, and the names of the victims. He argued that his clients would be at a disadvantage to defend themselves in the absence of this information, and they could not understand the charges nor the evidence that would be used against them.

The defence had also argued for separate charges to the three from ActionAid. The defence believes trying those who are charged with one offence together with others whose charges ranges between two to seven would deny them the right for speedy trial.

The chief prosecutor on this case, Shimeles Kemal, objected strongly.

He said the charges were framed in a clear manner and satisfied all the questions raised by the defence. He pledged to come up with additional material evidence and witnesses during the trial.

The prosecutor has also argued that a speedy trial should not be a reason for separating the charges; that the defendants should stand trial together. He said the only exception in the law to this would be if the defendants could prove their defence ability would be compromised in the process and justice would not be served.

The Court denied the defence its request and ruled that the defendants should present their pleas. The three defendants entered a plea of not guilty.

One of the defendants, Daniel Bekele, appealed to the Court that in the absence of a ruling whether the persecution should withhold the identities of its witnesses, he would not be in a position to come up with a proper defence.

Prosecution had asked earlier on the hearing that it should be allowed to guard the identities of its more than 300 witnesses a secret, for fear of intimidation and retaliation against them and their families. Even last week, Shemeles argued he still believed disclosing the identities of his witnesses would adversely affect the trial.

The Court adjourned until March 22, 2006, to hear the other defendants’ response on the issue. The Court will also hear whether or not the young Binyam, whose age had been a controversial issue in determining if he could stand trial as an adult, will be represented through a legal council. It was just last week that he had asked what he was going to do about school if he had to go to trial.

The Court had ordered, last week, that he should be transferred to Kaliti prison. This week, he was brought before the Court as an adult and responded like one when he told the judges that he did not want to be represented by a lawyer. The Presiding Judge has chosen to give the youngest defendant more time, until the next session, to consider his decision in view of his age. A medical examination report prosecutors brought from Black Lion Hospital says Biniam is aged between 16 to 18, although the defendant originally claimed to be 14.

The newly revised Ethiopia’s criminal code – article 56 - allows suspects in this age group to stand trial as adults “under the ordinary provisions of this code”.

The other defendant, Wondemeneh, also refused to be represented by a lawyer and said that the charges brought against him have nothing to do with him. He is one of the seven people charged for allegedly organizing an armed struggle, in eastern Gojjam and northern Shoa, against institutions created based on the constitution.

Although he answered some of the questions from the bench, he finally made a statement – like other defendants before him - saying that he would no longer be responding to the Court in any manner and that he hoped that this would not be interpreted as disrespect for the bench. He also said that he forgave those that had brought him to trial.

CUD’s Mengistu may have another chance to follow the trial of his leaders and others charged in the case. The badges had been collected up again before the trial observers entered the courtroom. He may have another chance to be granted one of these badges next time around. He may be able to tell his neighbours and constituents about what is going on in the round courtroom after a fortnight.