TRYING TIMES FOR THE MELES REGIMEBy Tsegay Gebriye The Meles region seems to have turned a deaf ear to the unpalatable news that its request for “interpretation, correction and consultation” to the EEBC decision of April 13, 2002 has been consigned to the dustbin. The likes of Walta Information center and Bereket Simon, the mouthpieces of the regime have not yet tried to offer their usual distorted interpretations to convince the Ethiopian people not to accept the truth. From the outset the "ultra legalist" Meles must have known that he was simply trying to bend the rules to please the Ethiopian people in the short term and probably the outcome may not have surprise him. One cannot sign away his right to appeal and expect to appeal at the same time. As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Obviously, the request
has backfired resulting in the outright rejection of regime's plea to reverse
its failings. This time, the EEBC did not offer any face-saving mechanism to the
regime and this may have shocked Meles. In fact, the EEBC has ridiculed the
regime for misunderstanding the rules and regulations it had signed. The EEBC in
its "Decision
Regarding the ‘Request for Interpretation, Correction and Consultation’
Submitted by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia on 13 May 2002."
states that "The Ethiopian
request appears to be founded on a misapprehension regarding the scope and
effect of Articles 28 and 29 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The
facility accorded to the Parties in Article 28(1) to request the Commission to
give an interpretation of the Decision may only be invoked where the meaning of
some specific statement in the Decision is unclear and requires clarification in
order that the Decision should be properly applied. The concept of
interpretation does not open up the possibility of appeal against a decision or
the reopening of matters clearly settled by a decision. The Commission, through
its President, has already stated “that the provisions of Articles 28 and 29
of the Rules of Procedure neither allow substantive amendment nor affect the
binding quality of the Decision as rendered on 13 April 2002. Re-argument of the
case is not permitted.” Now that they are caught off guard, God knows what sort of distraction they will come up with to divert the public's attention form their blunder. At least we can rest assured that how hard they may try to conceal the truth, the truth will eventually come out and they will drown in their own pile of lies. Back to main page! |