With the passage of time, it became evident that the Proclamation needed to be revised for various reasons. Therefore, the Commission's Establishment and Special Procedure and Rules of Evidence Proclamations were amended on the approval of the House of Representatives. In fact, the revised proclamations have already come into force as of February the 2nd, 2005. However, some people seem to be wondering what amendments were made and why they were made in the first place. Here are the major amendments and the reasons behind them:

Why the Establishment Proclamation was Amended

It was deemed necessary to amend the Commission's Establishment proclamation to:

• Make the Commission's operation and activities be guided with the principle of transparency and accountability,
• Enable it to carry out its activities with better efficiency,
• Enable it to fight corruption and impropriety through investigation, prosecution, prevention and the promotion of ethical values among the society,
• Redefine its powers and duties in line with the Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,
• Make its attention focused on grand corruption, 
• Lay down detailed provisions enabling it to work in collaboration with other relevant investigation and prosecution bodies and 
• ·        Make amendments to some of the provisions in the Establishment Proclamation that were lacking in clarity. 

The Major Amendments Made 

 Amendments Made in the Establishment Proclamation

·         Despite the fact that serious ethical violations are arguably the commonest types of corruption offences punishable by law, there weren't provisions in the previous proclamation defining them clearly. It has, therefore, been proclaimed in the newly incorporated Sub Article Eight of Article Two that serious ethical violations are any violations entailing dismissal as may be provided in appropriate codes of conduct.

·         For the Commission to focus on tackling grand corruption, it has been reasonably necessary to define what these "serious corruption offences" are. Consequently, “serious corruption offence” has been clearly defined in Sub Article Nine of Article Two. According to this article, “serious corruption offence” means:

a) Corruption offences involving huge amount of money committed in highly strategic public offices and public enterprises,

b) Corruption offences involving a public official

c) Corruption offences which cause or are capable of causing a grave danger to the national sovereignty, economy, security or social life.

·         The other provision that needed further polishing and amendment was the one that dealt with the accountability of the Commission. According to the previous proclamation, the Commission was free from any interference or direction by any person though it was accountable to the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, this provision prevented the Prime Minister from giving general direction and extending support to the Commission in areas other than the investigation and prosecution of alleged corruption offences. Thus, it has been provided in the amended proclamation that the Commission shall be free from any interference or direction by any person with regard to cases under investigation or prosecution or to be investigated or prosecuted.

·         In an effort to facilitate the Commission's collaboration and partnership with stakeholders, the phrase "in cooperation with relevant bodies" has been incorporated at the beginning of the list of its objectives.

·         The previous proclamation had a confusing article on whether the Commission has the authority to force public offices and enterprises, whose practices and working procedures it is entitled to study, to implement recommendations it may propose to prevent the commission of corruption in them.

·         On the one hand, it had the implication that public offices and enterprises could be obliged to implement the Commission's recommendations, but on the other, there was a loophole in it that implied that they could refuse to do so.

·         With a view to avoiding the confusion, it has been proclaimed in the revised proclamation that the Commission has the duty and responsibility to prevent corruption by examining the practices and working procedures of government departments and public enterprises, propose recommendations, follow up their implementation and inform or remind the relevant body to take proper measures.

·         The public offices and enterprises should, on their part, recognize that they are obliged by law to accept and implement the recommendations. If the Commission feels that they are showing reluctance and unwillingness to implement the recommendations without sufficient reasons, it has the responsibility to notify pertinent bodies like the Prime Minister’s Office and the House of Representatives of the case so that appropriate corrective measures would be taken.

·         In order to enable the Commission to focus on grand corruption, new provisions allowing it to delegate the investigation and prosecution of corruption offences to relevant investigation and prosecution bodies have been enacted.

·         According to the amended proclamation, there will not be any advisory board for the Commission for it has given the Prime Minister some role to play (in administrative issues only) in guiding the Commission to fill that gap. Besides, there are provisions in the amended proclamation that clearly and emphatically indicate the key role that stakeholders can play in the fight against corruption.

• In the former proclamation, the provision indicating the relationship between the FEACC and regional anti-corruption bodies lacked in clarity and detailed information. Thus, Article 25, which clearly states the mechanisms for the FEACC to work in cooperation with those bodies in a mutually supportive way, has been promulgated in the amended proclamation.

Amendments Made in the Special Procedure and Rules of Evidence Proclamation  

·         With a view to regulating the definition of corruption in accordance with the Penal Code, Article Two has been included as part of the amended proclamation.

·         In the former proclamation, the scope of the application of the proclamation itself wasn't clearly defined and was open for different interpretations. To avoid this confusion, it has been proclaimed in the amended proclamation that the proclamation shall be applicable to corruption offences committed in the Federal and Regional States.

·         Article Ten of the amended proclamation has a more detailed list of properties not subject to restraining order.

·         Article 38 of the previous proclamation, which provides that “if a person who is accused of corruption prefers to remain silent or is unwilling to answer without good cause after the prosecution witness is heard, the court may take his silence as an admission” is found to be unconstitutional and hence cancelled.

·         According to the previous proclamation, a person who is arrested on suspicion of having committed corruption offence shall not be released on bail. Practically, however, this prohibitive provision complicated the investigation process of corruption offences. Thus, it has been promulgated in the revised proclamation that an arrested person for a corruption offence may apply to court to be released on bail. However, a person charged with a corruption offence punishable for more than ten years may not be released on bail.

• Note: The revised proclamations are posted on our Website (www.feac.gov.et). Have a look at them.