The Federal Board of Pardon has introduced a new directive that, for the first time, formally allows conditional pardons and authorizes the revocation of pardons when beneficiaries violate imposed conditions or commit new crimes after release.
The new framework also expands restrictions on serious crimes, strengthens reconciliation requirements, and introduces stricter procedural standards for pardon applications.
The Directive for the Submission and Granting of Pardon Requests for Convicts replaces a three year old directive which previously governed federal pardon procedures. According to the directive, the reforms are intended to establish a “clear, fair, efficient, and consistent” pardon system while addressing implementation gaps identified in the earlier framework.
One of the directive’s most significant additions is Article 13, which permits the Federal Pardon Board to recommend pardons on a conditional basis. Prisoners who qualify for higher education may receive pardons to pursue their studies, while individuals with special professional skills may be released to continue serving in their professions. The Board may also impose additional conditions it considers necessary to protect public and state interests.
Responding to a question from The Reporter on whether the provision disadvantages prisoners without educational or professional qualifications, Ephrem Abinet, a legal consultant and lawyer, said the primary objective of imprisonment is rehabilitation and reintegration.
“The main goal of putting criminals in correctional facilities is to make them feel remorse about their wrongdoing and reintegrate into society after their release,” Ephrem said, adding that the provision mainly targets young prisoners with university entrance qualifications or ongoing studies who could later contribute professionally to society.
The directive states that conditional pardons must specify obligations beneficiaries are required to fulfill within a set timeframe, while foreign nationals without legal residence permits may receive pardons on the condition that they leave Ethiopia or are deported.
In another major departure from the previous directive, the Board may now recommend revoking pardons if beneficiaries violate imposed conditions without convincing reasons or commit another intentional crime within five years of release.
Ephrem said the new directive also addresses transparency gaps in the previous framework, particularly regarding evidence submission for pardon requests.
“In the previous directive, the correctional facility would simply state whether it opposed or did not oppose the inmate’s pardon,” he said. “The current directive improves this by specifying that the facility provides evidence strictly from an ethical and behavioral standpoint.”
The directive also clearly specifies who may submit pardon requests, including close relatives such as adult and adopted children, and requires proof that court-imposed fines have been paid before applications proceed.
The revised framework further broadens the list of crimes requiring stricter eligibility thresholds. Convicts sentenced for specified serious offenses must serve at least half of their prison term and demonstrate good conduct before becoming eligible to request a pardon.
The directive adds money laundering, crimes against constitutional order, armed rebellion, inciting civil war, aggravated murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, aggravated robbery or banditry, crimes against historical heritage, and grave treason to the previous list.
“Given the gravity of these crimes, requiring the completion of half the sentence as a prerequisite for a pardon is appropriate,” Ephrem said.
The directive also formally introduces a “recidivist” standard, defining repeat offenders as individuals who intentionally commit another offense within five years after serving a sentence or receiving a pardon for a prior crime punishable by at least six months imprisonment. Absence of recidivism is now explicitly listed as a condition for pardon eligibility.
The new framework additionally places greater emphasis on reconciliation between offenders and victims. Prisoners convicted of homicide, attempted homicide, bodily harm, aggravated robbery causing serious injury or death, and intentional arson causing serious injury or death must now provide written evidence showing reconciliation with victims or victims’ families, or demonstrate genuine but unsuccessful efforts to reconcile.
The directive also formally recognizes traditional reconciliation systems practiced within ethnic and community structures. Under the rules, reconciliation conducted through tribal or community-based systems is acceptable if it includes the consent of victims or victims’ relatives.
Ephrem welcomed the recognition of traditional reconciliation mechanisms but argued the directive should have provided broader standards for proving unsuccessful reconciliation attempts.
“An inmate might find the victim and attempt to compensate them, but the victim may simply refuse. That refusal itself should count as a documented effort,” he said, adding that reconciliation attempts in Ethiopia are often carried out through elders, or shimagle, whose testimony could serve as evidence.
In politically sensitive cases involving crimes against constitutional order, armed rebellion, or inciting civil war, the directive requires written confirmation from the president or head of government of the region where the crime occurred stating that the prisoner’s release is necessary for regional peace and that reconciliation through elders has taken place.
