Constitutional silence on election postponement in Ethiopia amidst a pandemic: A critique of constitutional interpretation

Election postponement in Ethiopia, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, has raised critical constitutional questions that have never been really thought before in the country’s constitutional law jurisprudence. This is because the state of emergency measure in Ethiopia, due to the spread of COVID-19, is in conflict with constitutional deadlines for elections. The constitutional lacuna is complicated by the absence of explicit constitutional provisions that indisputably govern election postponement. Although any legal measures to postpone election schedule and pass constitutional deadlock is far from simple, the Ethiopian government has suggested four possible ‘options’ to the constitutional dilemma: dissolving the parliament, declaring state of emergency, amendment of the Constitution and constitutional interpretation. Finally, the House of Federation (HoF), the Ethiopian upper House entrusted to interpret the constitution decided and postponed the election indefinitely until the pandemic no longer poses a risk to public health confirmed by the parliament which has direct vested interest in the outcome. This research investigates whether the constitutional interpretation option adheres to the premises of the Ethiopian Constitution or is it extra constitutional. Accordingly, the HoF provided superficial analysis and fallacious reasoning and failed to meaningfully grapple with the serious constitutional issues. The constitutional interpretation is not constitutionally bound and is defective. The manner the HoF managed the constitutional vacuum concerning election postponement, indisputably, was ‘constitutional interpretation’ by name but a political decision in practice.