Protecting Fair Trials Without Putting the Media in the Dark

Protecting Fair Trials Without Putting the Media in the Dark

Jun 27 , 2026. By Daniel Fikadu ( Daniel Fikadu (LL.B, LL.M, MBA) Head Attorney at Law, Daniel Fikadu Law Office, and Partner at Legaltec Ethiopia Software. He can be reached at (Danielfikadulawoffice@yahoo.com) )

Rules restricting communication about active litigation apply to the judiciary as well as the press. The formal code of conduct for Federal judges strictly bars them from making public statements concerning the merits of pending cases. Under these ethical guidelines, judges are limited to delivering procedural explanations or formal final rulings, as external commentary is considered improper "ex parte" communication conducted outside the present parties.

In courtrooms and press briefings alike, one phrase recurs whenever a sensitive case is raised.

The line "It's a matter before the court; I won't discuss it" captures the sub judice rule, a principle meant to protect the judicial process by limiting public discussion of cases still being heard. It also marks one of the most contested frontiers in the country's constitutional law, where the press's right to report collides with a defendant's right to a fair trial. However, the conflict is old.

Open justice, championed by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, holds that publicity is the soul of justice, the surest guard against judicial misconduct and the firmest basis for public confidence. The sub judice rule holds that unrestrained commentary can prejudice a trial by swaying judges, intimidating witnesses, or tainting evidence.

Ethiopia manages that tension through a mix of constitutional and statutory provisions rather than a single law. The existing Constitution sets the terms, with Article 29 guaranting freedom of expression and the press, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information. Article 20(1) grants the right to a public trial, which puts journalists in the courtroom as a check against closed proceedings. Not an absolute right, courts may sit in closed session and gag the media to protect the privacy of parties, public morals, or national security.

The morals exception tends to cover sexual offences and minors, while the security exception has been applied more broadly in political and terrorism cases. Article 20(3) protects the presumption of innocence by restricting reporting that implies guilt before a verdict, while Article 26 guards privacy and Article 12 requires public institutions to be transparent.

The statutory framework has shifted with the political winds. The restrictive press law passed in 1992 gave way to the Mass Media & Freedom of Information Proclamation, issued in 2008, and then to the Media Proclamation enacted in April 2021. The latter consolidated print, broadcast, and online rules, decriminalised defamation, and barred pre-trial detention for media offences. Defamation now carries only civil liability, with moral damages capped at 300,000 Br. Article 86(1) bars the remanding of a journalist for further investigation, thereby reducing the chilling effect on court reporters.

The Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA) can still issue warnings, levy fines up to 200,000 Br, or suspend licenses, an administrative route the Authority applies mainly to registered outlets, leaving social-media users exposed to ordinary criminal statutes. Progress has since met a shift.

The media law, revised last year, changed how the Authority is run. The Prime Minister now appoints the Director General, tightening the executive's grip on the regulator, whereas the 2021 law had Parliament designate him or her.

Without a stand-alone sub judice statute, prejudicial reporting is policed mainly through contempt of court proceedings. Article 449 of the Revised Criminal Code lets judges deal with contempt summarily when it occurs in open court. Contempt in the face of the court carries up to one year of simple imprisonment or a fine up to 3,000 Br; contempt outside it carries up to six months or 1,000 Br, the greater risk for journalists, since it covers publishing material that could prejudice a proceeding. Article 446 punishes knowingly misleading justice with up to six months, and Article 480 of the Civil Procedure Code allows summary punishment by the presiding judge.

Ironically, summary power makes the judge accuser and arbiter, testing the principles of natural justice.

Silence binds the bench, too. The code of conduct for Federal judges requires them to say nothing about the merits of pending cases, limiting them to procedural explanations or final rulings. Talking to reporters about an active case is considered improper "ex parte" communication conducted outside the parties' presence.

Ethiopia is bound by outside standards, such as the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, which guarantees a fair and public hearing before an independent tribunal. The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment holds that trials should be public unless a specific exception applies. It allows limits on expression to protect the judiciary, but any restriction must pass a three-part test. It should be set by a precise law, serve a legitimate aim, and be the least intrusive measure necessary.

Ethiopia's pre-trial restrictions often fail that test due to a lack of precise, balanced rules, since the complete suppression of information usually exceeds what is strictly necessary in a democratic society.

Other countries strike the balance differently. Britain's Contempt of Court Act applies a strict-liability rule once proceedings are active, catching publications that create a "substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced". Reformers have urged that the clock start at charge rather than arrest, and British courts assume professional judges are not swayed by prejudicial coverage.

In the United States, the First Amendment makes gag orders rare. The Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction after a "circus atmosphere" of publicity, and it called, in 1976, prior restraints the "most serious and the least tolerable infringement" on press freedom, permitted only where no other measure would protect a fair trial. India wrestles with "media trials," weighing free speech against the fair-trial guarantee. Its Supreme Court permits postponement orders where coverage poses a "real and substantial risk of serious prejudice," backed by the Contempt of Courts Act.

On the ground, media rights are strongest at the trial stage and weakest during investigation, when courts more readily bar publication to protect the presumption of innocence. The shift to an electronic filing and litigation system promises transparency but demands digital skill from reporters. Courtroom rules are strict, where cameras, recorders, and phones are barred unless a judge allows them. Formal dress is required, and recording needs permission for each hearing.

In 2025, a regional court sentenced Ahmed Awga, founder of the Jigjiga Television Network (JTN), to two years for "disseminating disinformation" over a Facebook post he did not author. In 2024, the EMA suspended nine Deutsche Welle correspondents covering conflict zones, two of them permanently, citing media and hate-speech violations without providing specific examples. In the same year, the authorities arrested seven journalists from the Ethiopian Broadcasting Service (EBS) after a program aired allegations of military misconduct.

The pattern points to a quieter shift from judicial to administrative control. With the regulator now closer to the executive, fines and suspensions can chill reporting as effectively as a trial. The doctrine assumes professional judges, unlike lay jurors, are immune to sensational coverage, yet trial by media can still erode public confidence and pressure a bench whose independence has long been challenged by political interference.

Courts have yet to build the tests and doctrines that guide judges elsewhere, leaving many outcomes to unpredictable judicial discretion. The phrase "I will not speak because the matter is before the court" protects the impartiality of justice. The task is to keep that silence from shielding the courts from public scrutiny, and to let the glare of publicity light the trial without blinding the eyes of justice.

PUBLISHED ON Jun 27,2026 [ VOL 27 , NO 1365]