Human Rights appears to be a cover rather than the cause for Britain’s recently suspended aid programs to Ethiopian security sector. An episode that involved a private consultancy firm, Ethio-Somali region and hundreds of thousands – if not more – pound sterling – as HornAffairs‘ investigation indicates .

The Department for International Development (DfID) has indeed suspended “major activities” under the Community Security and Justice program and also the Executive Masters Program in Security Sector Management, as HornAffairs was able to confirm from a source in Britain’s Embassy in Addis Ababa.

The move was accompanied with removal of the relevant documents from DFID’s website – as detected by the anti death penalty group Reprieve at the time and later confirmed by DFID’s remark to The Telegraph. The documents – at least some of them – appear to have been restored later, but not before raising eye-brows.

Reprieve accused DFID for “dodging questions and then secretly shelving embarrassing programs”.

The Telegraph – a media dubbed Torygraph due to its close ties with the incumbent Conservative Party – chose to spin the story in a different way. On Oct. 31, The Telegraph run a stern editorial accusing officials of DFID for being “more concerned with spending [the] money than guarding against possible unintended consequences”. That same day (a few hours later), it soothed its readers with a “good news” claiming that “Britain has suspended most of a £27 million aid program to support Ethiopia’s police force….amid mounting allegations of torture, rape and murder by the regime”.

It was a perfect opportunity to cast both the paper and the government as a human rights defender in the same day and on the same issue – if only the fact were in favor.

The human rights narrative

The hypothesis that the aid suspension was due to human rights concern – hinges on a phrase contained in an annual review of the Community Security and Justice program (CSJ)- which states “DFID confirmed that work in the security sector is particularly high risk from a human rights perspective”.

That vague phrase resonates the wordings of Britain’s Overseas Security and Justice Assistance (OSJA) Human Rights Guidance which applies “to all departmental and agency project/program officers and [government] officials making policy decisions on UK engagement in justice and security assistance overseas”.

According to the manual a “human rights risk assessment process” needs to be undertaken on “whether there is a serious risk that the assistance might directly or significantly contribute to a violation of human rights” and also on “whether there is any reputational or political risk to HMG as a result of the delivery of the project or program”.

In deed, the hypothesis that Britain might have decided to suspend a few programs for human rights reasons seems in sync with recent arrests of bloggers and journalists as well as the quasi-incommunicado incarceration of Andargachew Tsige – a British leader of an Ethiopian rebel group extradited from Yemen five months ago. These developments triggered dozens of British parliamentarians to sign a motion last September and prompted London to post an unscheduled update to the Ethiopian portion of its twice-yearly Human Rights and Democracy Report last month.

DFID’s version

DFID insists the suspension was unrelated to allegations of human rights violations. A source close to DFID told HornAffairs that the decision to suspend the programs was taken at least four or five months ago and that it was “because of concerns about risk and value for money”.

In DFID’s defense, the concern over “human rights risk” of the program are not new. Several earlier CSJ program documents, obtained by HornAffairs, highlighted that there are “reputational risks of working alongside actors frequently cited in human rights violation allegations”. 

For example, a March 2013 Tender document for consultancy service to evaluate the CSJ program stated:

“there are important concerns about the human rights situation in Ethiopia….therefore, a risk that such human rights violations continue and indeed increase, putting at risk the higher-level state-building impact of the program”.

A relatively recent CSJ document argues that:

“there are few direct human rights risks in the CSJ program [as] there will be absolutely no interventions that equip security officials with or train in using weaponry [as it] is all about a people-centered approach to safety and justice”.

In fact, DFID believes – as indicated in one of its documents – the CSJ is vital to “mitigate risks to the broader UK and DFID Ethiopia program arising from security and justice deficits”.

Indeed, the £20 million plus budget of the suspended programs – spread over five years – is insignificant compared to the £365 million annual spending of DFID in Ethiopia. Thus, the suspension doesn’t seem to be a kind of pinch that Addis Ababa would notice.

Nonetheless, the removal of the documents makes DFID’s version of the story suspicious and its claim that “the document was deleted because the program had changed” seems implausible. Not to forget, the possibility that a more recent review document – conducted last July/August – is still being kept from the public.

Squandered Fund

The incongruity between the facts and the stories prompted HornAffairs to knock several doors until a well-placed source in the Ethiopian government disclosed the real causes are “procedural blunders” entailing additional costs.

The source – who was incensed by the human rights penalty narrative yet chose to remain anonymous – said:

“DFID sidestepped hierarchy and launched program activities in Ethio-Somali region….. Each element of the program has to be worked out with the Federal government.”

Several border districts of that eastern region of Ethiopia are frequently named for alleged human rights violation as a result of the conflict with the separatist group ONLF. A 2012 DFID document noted “[the government] is now starting to shift from military to development-led solutions to address instability and rebel groups but there is much more to be done at a strategic level”.

However, the source claimed that the specific area in which the unauthorized program activities were started is not one of the conflict-ridden districts.

The source elaborated:

“They assigned a private consultancy firm, named Adam Smith something, which rushed to start its activities and making noises there”.

HornAffairs was not able to verify the identity of the concerned firm. We reviewed DFID’s monthly spending reports – from April-September 2014 – and learnt that Adam Smith International Ltd is a darling of DFID and received millions under the title “project delivery costs – supplier services” in East and Central Africa.

However, the six months payment log indicates that it was Atos Consulting Limited that collected about half-a-million pound sterling under transaction code 202574 (which appears to refer to the CSJ program) while another supplier – whose name is hidden – had received almost two hundred thousand pound sterling for that same program.

HornAffairs’ source – who is in the upper echelon of the Ethiopian state – stressed that the suspension of the programs was “incidental”, claiming that:

“We simply told them to re-negotiate and re-start the works. I think they are unable to do so because they already spent the budget.”

The source downplayed the technical distinction between the CSJ and the Masters Program claiming that “both are the same….[they are] parts of a security sector package”. That attitude was echoed in a DFID document which states “the National Security Advisor’s office (our main government interlocutor on CSJ) insists that this MSc programme is the foundation of the UK – GoE collaboration in security and justice, without which CSJ would never have been endorsed by [the government of Ethiopia]”.

Concluding notes

In spite of HornAffairs’ ten days long inquiry spanning from London to Addis, we were not able to obtain a smoking gun – something like, a copy of an official letter detailing the matter if one exists at all.

However, we found the account of our source the most plausible.

After all, several DFID documents indicate its excitement for running the only “existing bilateral programs with similar approaches “ in the arena. Its documents claimed:

– “a decision at this stage to halt the CSJ after the design phase would have enormous knock-on negative impact on our reputation with GoE….. A decision to [halt the program] at this stage would likely impact heavily on the HMG- GoE dialogue around democratic governance and human rights. We strongly advise against this option”.

– “[Britain’s] wider relationship with the Ethiopian Government, combined with our background of support to the sector mean that this is an opportunity open to us but not the wider donor community.”

– “As part of the design phase of CSJ, DFID commissioned a mapping of donor support to security and justice in Ethiopia, which provides us with a detailed overview of all bilateral and multi-lateral support…GoE has made clear that it is not at present prepared to consider other donors within the CSJ partnership.”

Therefore, we feel confident to report that the cause of the suspension of the programs was a disagreement between London and Addis Ababa entailing additional costs, lest the program is suspended. Both parties may be trying to sweep the matter under the rug to protect DFID from criticism for squandered funds and to avoid rights-groups’ probing.

HornAffairs will continue digging the story. But then, hopefully, non-establishment British media outlets might take it from here.

———-

Notes

1. Several documents have been consulted for this piece, including but not limited to:

• Business Case and Intervention Summary of CSJ
• Annual review of CSJ
• Tender document for evaluation of CSJ
• Britain’s Overseas Security And Justice Assistance (OSJA) Human Rights Guidance manual
• Business Case and Intervention Summary of the Executive Masters Program
• DFID’s Monthly spending data from April – September 2014

2. Email correspondences between DfID and Reprieve – which HornAffairs obtained from the latter.

3. Descriptive notes:
– “Executive Masters Program in Security Sector Management” aims to provide “Security Sector Management course for 75 Security Sector Officials and to create a cadre of highly educated senior and mid ranking official, able to develop and implement a coherent approach to security sector management”.
– “Community Security and Justice” aims “to deliver improved access to security and justice for men and women across in Ethiopia, building on existing government programs and working with state institutions and local communities, resulting in 1.1 million women with improved access to security and justice”.

*********