Ethiopia’s Ministry of Justice recently confirmed that the country’s transitional justice process will begin only after the conclusion of the ongoing national dialogue, which is scheduled to conclude in October 2026. At first glance, this sequencing may appear logical: dialogue first, justice later. Yet, this approach potentially undermines both processes. Transitional justice and national dialogue are not mutually exclusive undertakings; they are complementary.
To defer justice until dialogue has been completed is to miss an opportunity to reinforce trust, accountability, and reconciliation at the very moment when they are most needed. National dialogue is designed to bring diverse voices together to discuss Ethiopia’s future, to bridge divides, and to create consensus on fundamental questions of governance. Transitional justice, meanwhile, is intended to address past abuses, provide redress to victims, and ensure accountability for crimes committed during conflict. These two processes are inherently linked. Dialogue without justice risks becoming abstract, detached from the lived experiences of those who suffered. Justice without dialogue can come off as being punitive, imposed without consensus. Together, they create a holistic framework for healing and rebuilding.
Deferring transitional justice sends the wrong signal to victims and survivors. Many of them have waited years for acknowledgment, accountability, and redress. To tell them that justice has to wait until dialogue is finished is to prolong their suffering and potentially erode their faith in the process. Victims have to be empowered so that their voices matter, not only in shaping the future but also in confronting the past. Integrating transitional justice into the dialogue would have ensured that their experiences were central to the national conversation, grounding abstract debates in human realities.
Moreover, transitional justice can strengthen dialogue by providing a framework for truth-telling. Truth commissions, reparations programs, and accountability mechanisms generally create spaces where grievances are aired and acknowledged. This, in turn, builds trust among participants. Without such mechanisms, dialogue may well be dominated by political elites, with victims and marginalized communities sidelined. Justice processes help democratize dialogue, ensuring that it reflects the voices of those most affected by conflict.
Deferring justice is also apt to lead to a politicization of the process. If transitional justice is seen as a separate, subsequent undertaking, it may be vulnerable to manipulation by whichever political forces emerge dominant from the dialogue. Integrating the two processes would have created safeguards, ensuring that justice is not contingent on political expediency but is embedded in the broader consensus-building effort. Justice must be impartial and independent, not subject to the shifting winds of political negotiation.
The government’s sequencing is perhaps motivated by concerns about stability. Officials may have been apprehensive that pursuing justice during dialogue could inflame tensions or derail consensus. Yet this concern misunderstands the role of justice. Properly designed, transitional justice is not about vengeance; it is about acknowledgment, accountability, and healing. Far from destabilizing dialogue, it strengthens it by addressing grievances that, if ignored, could fester and explode later. Stability built on silence is fragile. Stability built on truth and accountability is durable.
Ethiopia’s recent history underscores the urgency of this point. Years of conflict have left deep scars, with communities divided and trust eroded. Though national dialogue is undeniably essential, it cannot succeed if it ignores the wounds of the past. Transitional justice is the mechanism through which those wounds can be acknowledged and addressed. To defer it is to risk building dialogue on shaky foundations, where unresolved grievances undermine consensus and perpetuate mistrust.
The path forward must involve rethinking the relationship between dialogue and justice. Even if transitional justice is formally scheduled to begin after dialogue, it is not late to take steps aimed at integrating the two processes. Victims’ voices should be included in dialogue discussions. It is possible to launch truth-telling initiatives in parallel with dialogue sessions. Preparatory work for justice mechanisms—such as consultations on reparations or accountability frameworks—can proceed in parallel. The sequencing need not be rigid; flexibility is certain to ensure that justice informs dialogue and dialogue informs justice.
International experience offers lessons. In countries from South Africa to Colombia, transitional justice and national dialogue have been pursued together, reinforcing each other. Truth commissions have provided platforms for dialogue, while dialogue has shaped the design of justice mechanisms. Ethiopia can learn from these examples, adapting them to its own context. The key is to recognize that justice and dialogue are not competing priorities but complementary pillars of reconciliation.
Ethiopia’s future depends on its ability to confront the past honestly while building consensus for the future. Critical as national dialogue may be, it needs to be grounded in justice. Transitional justice is essential, but it must be shaped by dialogue. To defer one until the other is completed is to weaken both. It is therefore incumbent on the government to resist the temptation of rigid sequencing and embrace a more integrated approach. Victims deserve acknowledgment now, not later. Citizens deserve a dialogue that reflects truth, not silence. Ethiopia deserves a process that heals, reconciles, and builds a durable peace. The imperative is clear: dialogue and justice must proceed hand in hand, not one after the other.
