Parliament is wrestling with a contentious bill that would grant the Ministry of Justice sweeping powers to trace, investigate, and seize assets acquired through "unexplained means." The bill, debated by the Legal & Justice Affairs Standing Committee last week, co-chaired by Etsegenet Mengistu and Isa Boru, seeks to consolidate asset recovery provisions into a single legal framework to combat financial crimes more effectively.

Justice Minister Hanna Arayaselassie, recently appointed to a cabinet portfolio, pressed the urgency of addressing economic crimes and the proliferation of unexplained wealth.

"The absence of a strong legal framework has allowed individuals to take calculated risks, engaging in money laundering and capital flight," she told the Committee. "It's become a major concern."

If passed, the law will mandate the Ministry to initiate retroactive investigations into assets exceeding 10 million Br over a 10-year span.

Most controversially, the bill proposes measures allowing investigators to bypass privacy laws, including accessing bank accounts and emails without a court order. It also outlines provisions for undercover operations and international collaboration in asset recovery. A new department within the Ministry would manage the seizure and administration of recovered assets.

The Standing Committee debated provisions that would require individuals and entities to prove the sources of their "unexplained assets" within one month, with a possible six-month extension for complex cases. According to Minister Hanna, investigations could be initiated based on information from credible sources or financial intelligence services.

A particularly contentious clause allows the Ministry to freeze assets suspected of being linked to economic crimes for up to three years, with a court order. Critics cautioned that such extended freezes could lead to human rights violations, mainly if assets are later found legitimate.

The bill has raised eyebrows on the legislative floor and outside, with some legislators questioning the constitutionality of retroactive applications and whether sufficient data exists to support such probes. Critics argue that this concentration of power could lead to abuse.

Robel Tarekegn, legal head at Ethio telecom, expressed concern over potential misuse.

"It needs to be checked thoroughly," he said.

Bizuayeneh Gebregziabher, legal head of the Federal Civil Society Authority, acknowledged the bill's necessity in fighting corruption but expressed reservations about its retroactive nature.

"The law should govern future undertakings rather than applying to past activities," he said.

The bill also lowers the bar for asset confiscation by allowing federal authorities to act based on civil standards of proof without requiring a criminal conviction. The burden of proof of the legitimacy of assets shifts to individuals or institutions. Bizuayeneh warned that this could cause problems for those who acquired assets through informal yet legal channels.

"In some cases, it may be difficult to prove the legitimacy of assets," he told Fortune.

Ashenefech Abebe, vice president of the Federal First Instance Court, expressed concerns about the Ministry's overreaching authority, particularly about asset seizures.

"The mandate should belong to the courts," she argued.