Beyond the Law: Ethiopia Approves Shocking Immunity for Investigators—Except for Murder











Ethiopia’s House of People’s Representatives has approved a controversial amendment to the country’s longstanding anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism proclamation, sparking strong criticism from legal experts and parliamentarians who warn that the changes could enable serious human rights violations.

The amendment, passed on Tuesday, modifies a key provision in the 58-article proclamation first enacted in 2005 to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The specific revision grants broad immunity to individuals conducting undercover investigations—shielding them from criminal prosecution for acts committed “beyond their capacity” or “without their authorization,” with the sole exception of murder.

Broad Immunity for Undercover Agents

According to the newly amended provision, an individual engaged in a special investigative procedure cannot be held criminally liable for any offense other than murder, even if their actions would otherwise constitute a serious crime, provided they acted beyond their capacity or without explicit consent. The explanatory note submitted to parliament rationalized this immunity by asserting that such investigators act “in the public interest,” and should be protected if they unintentionally commit crimes in the course of duty.

The change has proven divisive among lawmakers. Critics argue that the vague language and absence of limits on the types of crimes covered under the immunity clause effectively grant investigators unchecked powers with minimal accountability.

Legal Experts Sound the Alarm

Speaking to the BBC, prominent human rights advocate Yared Hailemariam, Director General of the Ethiopian Human Rights Defenders Center, condemned the amendment. He warned that the provision could serve as a legal shield for grave abuses, including torture and inhumane treatment.

“This clause opens the door to human rights abuses,” Yared stated. “By not explicitly prohibiting excessive use of force or torture, the law gives a green light to acts that could cause permanent physical or psychological harm.”

He also criticized the ambiguous phrasing “except for murder,” questioning whether other serious crimes—such as torture during interrogation—could now be treated as legally permissible. “The failure to clearly state what is off-limits, such as torture, is deeply concerning. This omission provides legal cover for intentional or unintentional abuse by investigators,” Yared added.

International criminal law expert Ato Kassahun Molla Yilma echoed these concerns. “The provision lacks a requirement for prior judicial or executive authorization, which is a basic safeguard in comparable legal systems,” he explained. “Other countries demand that potentially illegal investigative acts be approved by a court or senior authority. Without such mechanisms, there is no oversight.”

Kassahun noted that international human rights treaties—many of which Ethiopia is a signatory to—explicitly prohibit torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment under any circumstances. “The absence of a clear list of non-derogable crimes undermines Ethiopia’s obligations under international law,” he said.

He further criticized the subjective language of the amendment, particularly the phrase “beyond his or her capacity,” calling it legally vague. “This introduces dangerous gaps in interpretation. In other jurisdictions, legal standards like ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’ guide such immunities. Ethiopia’s law, in contrast, leaves too much room for abuse,” Kassahun warned.

Concerns from Parliament Members

The amendment also drew skepticism from several members of the House during the parliamentary session. Dr. Alemu Gonfa, a representative from the ruling Prosperity Party in Oromia’s Dano constituency, questioned the logic of granting such sweeping immunity.

“It doesn’t seem right to declare that someone should never be prosecuted for a crime,” Dr. Alemu said. “If we want to protect investigators, we must clearly define that only actions within their legal mandate are covered—not all criminal acts.”

Dr. Desalegn Chane, a representative of the opposition Amhara National Movement, voiced similar worries. “What if the investigator accepts a bribe or tortures a suspect? Are we saying he cannot be held accountable as long as it’s not murder?” he asked. “That would be a serious breach of both our constitution and international human rights obligations.”

Another unnamed member added, “We are practically saying that investigators can do anything short of killing—does this mean the ends justify the means? This is dangerous and unacceptable.”

Government Justification

In response to the criticism, Ato Issa Boru, Deputy Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, defended the amendment. “This is a complex issue. Special investigations often take place outside standard legal frameworks. The phrase ‘beyond one’s capacity and knowledge’ refers to extraordinary situations,” he explained.

He emphasized that the clause aims to balance national security needs with individual accountability. “Of course, we must avoid abuse. That’s why we explicitly excluded murder from the immunity provision. But in the fight against terrorism, many countries adopt similarly strong laws,” Ato Issa said.

He added that the law would still distinguish between acts committed “knowingly” and those carried out “negligently,” suggesting that only truly unavoidable actions would fall under the exemption.

Nevertheless, critics argue that such distinctions are meaningless without clear judicial oversight and precise legal definitions. “In Ethiopia, where there is a long history of abuse by law enforcement, granting this kind of vague immunity is highly dangerous,” Ato Kassahun concluded.

A Broader Debate

The controversy highlights a broader tension in Ethiopian governance: the challenge of balancing security interests with the protection of human rights in an evolving legal landscape. As Ethiopia continues to reform its institutions, many warn that legal ambiguity—especially in security-related laws—can easily be exploited, unless anchored by transparent checks and balances.

The debate surrounding this amendment may be far from over. Human rights advocates are already urging a review of the law, warning that without tighter legal safeguards, the country risks sliding into a regime of impunity under the guise of national security.