Human right report on Gambela 2012

Affected Communities
“Over the three years of this program all households of the indigenous inhabitants of rural
Gambella are to be moved. In the first year, 2010/2011, villagization has occurred in
woredas in Gambella region: Gambella, Godere, Gog, Abobo, Dimma, and to some extent
in Itang and Jor. These woredas are for the most part Anuak, and these are the areas that
are closest to the major infrastructure of the region, such as the main roads and the largest
towns. These are also the areas of most intensive agricultural land investment.
Eight villages out of the total of sixteen that Human Rights Watch obtained testimony from
already existed prior to the villagization process—villagers were being moved from
scattered settlements to an existing village. The other eight villages were mostly located in
dry, arid areas away from any dry season water sources such as a major river. Usually the
areas were known to the Anuak as they often had used that land in the past as part of a
shifting cultivation land use pattern, but had abandoned it due to decreased soil fertility.53″

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN THE VILLAGIZATION PROCESS
“We want you to be clear that the government brought us here… to die…
right here…. We want the world to hear that government brought the Anuak
people here to die. They brought us no food, they gave away our land to the
foreigners so we can’t even move back. On all sides the land is given away,
so we will die here in one place.
—An Anuak elder in Abobo woreda, May 2011.
The government’s plan asserts that the villagization process is voluntary, as does the letter
from the minister of federal affairs which states that “[villagization] was fully conducted on
voluntary basis and with the full consent and participation of the beneficiaries.”57 But
Human Rights Watch’s research found the process to be far from voluntary and has been
accompanied by widespread human rights violations, including forced displacement,
arbitrary arrest and detention, beatings, rape, and other sexual violence. Residents have
been denied their rights to food, education, and adequate housing. These problems were
similar for all areas in Gambella that Human Rights Watch visited.
The villagization process began in mid to late 2010, depending on the area. The first
meetings between government officials and the community would be held several months
before the move was to occur. In most cases these meetings were held in mid-2010.
Government officials were usually from the woreda level, although for larger communities
or those close to major towns regional or federal officials would be present. Usually there
would be some regional police present, but participants said that security forces were
usually at a minimum for the first meeting.
It was at these initial meetings that communities were first notified that they would be
moved in the coming months. If communities were not cooperative, or indicated their refusal to move, the next meeting, usually several weeks later, involved visits from the
Ethiopian army, regional police, local militias, and government officials.58
Residents described to Human Rights Watch that any refusal or inquiries was met with
beatings, arrests, or intimidation from the army. A woman from Abobo woreda said:
The first meeting was just with the kebele government officials, but we
refused their [villagization] plan. They then arrested the village chief at
night; the soldiers took him to the police station and he was there for one
month. Then the next time the district officials, police, army, and militias
showed up. They called a meeting, and nobody said anything because of
the soldiers’ presence.59
In some cases the authorities told the villagers ahead of time when they should move. But
for the most part, when it was time to go, government officials, accompanied by police and
military, arrived and told them they should move.
Soldiers accompanied the villagers to the new sites and supervised the multi-week tukul
(traditional hut) construction period. The distance from the old to the new villages typically
involved a walk of two to five hours, though in Dimma woreda some people were relocated
up to 12 hours away by foot. Once the villagers built the tukuls, the army typically left.
The moves began in October or November 2010, just prior to harvest time. Stated
government promises were similar for all villages: the authorities would provide schools,
health clinics, access to water, grinding mills, cleared land for crops, and food aid for
seven to eight months. However, despite the promises of schools and clinics, the regional
government’s plan shows that these were not planned for the majority of villages. In short,
the authorities did not tell the villagers the truth.60 Some communities were also promised
tools, agricultural inputs, clothes, and mosquito nets.”

“Human Rights Watch found that the actual assistance to the villagers invariably fell far
short of the promises. Of the villages visited by Human Rights Watch, a grinding mill
building had been completed in two, and a school and clinic had been built in one, but
none of these was operational.61 The authorities provided a very limited amount of food aid
to only five of these villages, and just two villages had any land cleared by the government
for agricultural production. When it became apparent that little or none of the promised
infrastructure or food was to be provided, some villagers simply abandoned the new
villages. Some returned to their old farms, while many of the able-bodied men fled into the
bush, to South Sudan, or to the UNHCR refugee camps in Kenya, leaving women, children,
the sick, and the elderly behind.62
The claims by Human Rights Watch that Gambellans are leaving Gambella to the refugee
camps of Kenya were refuted by Minister of Federal Affairs Shiferaw Teklemariam who
claims that this assertion is “further evidence of baseless allegation and total fabrication”
and that “if this was even remotely true, there must certainly have been an official report
from UNHCR….There is no such report, simply because there are no such refugees.”
According to UNHCR, Kenya’s refugee camps have 1,474 refugees and asylum seekers of
Gambellan origin as of May 201163 and 2,155 Gambellans as of December 2011,64 an
increase of 681 in the last seven months. Fifty recent arrivals were interviewed by Human
Rights Watch at the UNHCR refugee camp in Dadaab in June 2011. Community leaders
within Dadaab’s Anuak community report that 613 Anuak have arrived at UNHCR’s Ifo
refugee camp in Dadaab during the last four months of 2011 (October to December 2011).65
The photo below taken in June 2011 shows an Anuak refugee cultural celebration at the
UNHCR camp in Kenya.

Forced Displacement
“We were told, “If somebody refuses, the government will take action”—so
the people went to the new village—by force.
—Villager in Abobo woreda, May 2011.
Gambella’s first year of the three-year villagization program has mirrored the forced
displacements of Ethiopia’s past villagization efforts. Virtually all of the villagers interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that their move was
an involuntary, forced process. While all villages reported being engaged in some form of
“consultation,” it took the form of government officials “informing” people that they would
be moved to a new location. Villagers said that in many of these meetings, they did not
utter a word for fear of reprisal by the authorities. And their fears were justified: those who
expressed concern or question the government’s motives were frequently threatened,
beaten, and arrested by police or soldiers. A villager told Human Rights Watch:
The government came and talked to the village elders and those that are
influential. Then the government together with the soldiers and elders
called us for a meeting where we were told we were to be moved. There was
no consultation or opportunity for dialogue, they were just informing us.
Those that spoke up are considered “inciters,” and five of them were
arrested from the two villages. They were in prison for between 20 days and
one month, and were released on the condition they do not speak against
villagization. So either they are silent or they flee.
Despite the intimidation, arrests, and beatings, some communities refused to move to the
new villages. The government tried different techniques to persuade them, including
dialogue, intimidation, and violence, but several of these communities continued to refuse
and have been allowed, thus far, to stay put, but for some of them at a very high cost. A
person from Dimma woreda said: “People left their crops behind then tried to return. Those
who refused to go had their houses burned down by soldiers. Crops were destroyed. In [the
village], where there were many mangoes and some sugar cane, government soldiers
burned 100 houses.”67
In Abobo and Gog woredas people who left the new villages tried to return to their old
farming areas. Some communities have been allowed to go back to their old farms, given
the absence of food available at the new villages. In the majority of these cases women,
children, and the sick have remained in the new villages. The minister of federal affairs
stated that “They have also all the right to return to their original locations whenever and if
they want.”68 It is evident that this has not occurred in all cases. A former Okula resident said: “If you go back [to the farm] to get materials or for washing, you get harassed and
beaten. They [the army] say we are shiftas [bandits]. They say that ‘You black men are our
slaves.’”69 A former Dimma woreda resident said: “The [army] told us ‘If you go back, we
will destroy the old hand pump.’ There is no hand pump in our new village.”70
Forced Displacement from Urban Centers
Without providing a credible reason, the government is also moving Anuak from urban
areas into new rural villages. In at least four urban areas (Gambella town, Dimma town,
Pugnido, and Abobo town), Anuak—and only Anuak—who were not civil servants or among
the few Anuak business owners, were told by the authorities that they needed to leave
town and settle in nearby villages. This process began in November 2010.
An Anuak from Dimma town recounted:
People from Dimma town were moved too. “We have a project here and you
must go. Civil servants and businesses can stay—all other Anuak must go,”
government told us. There are more and more Highlanders in Dimma town
now. As Anuak move out of Dimma, Highlanders move in immediately—from
Tigray, Amhara, Wollo. There is very good business in Dimma for gold. Even
students had to leave Dimma—“There is a school where you are going” [there
was not]. All Anuak have left Dimma, if you do not go, you get arrested.71
None of the reasons stated by the government, or the rationale expressed in the plan,
readily explain urban displacement. The Gambella Regional Government’s Villagization
Plan makes no mention of moving indigenous people such as the Anuak from urban areas
to the new villages.
In Gambella town two main types of displacement are occurring: people who live along the
Baro River on prime agricultural land on the periphery of town and those who live in the more
dense areas of Gambella, where tukuls are more common. Many of the most egregious
abuses were reported from those displaced from Gambella town. According to an attendee at

a public meeting in December 2010, the Gambella regional governor told people: “Lands you
are using are not utilized. We have investors coming who will use more efficiently. Those
who resist we will take all possible action.”72 Several other interviewees who attended the
same public meeting provided similar accounts of the governor’s statement.73
Displaced Anuak from Gambella town were told to go to the village of Wan Carmie. By May
2011 virtually no one remained in Wan Carmie, fleeing elsewhere. At the time, many Anuak
were still present in Gambella town. Human Rights Watch is concerned that an underlying
reason for the urban-based displacement is government support for private investment.
Instead, individuals were being told that the reason for the forced relocation was the poor
standard of their houses. A former resident explained:
We were told this place should have this type of buildings, and so on and
[the authorities would say] “You have not done that so we will relocate you
to Carmie. You should have certain building standards, so we will allocate
this land to the Highlanders who will build to the standards contained in the
Master Plan. You are not in the right area for that type of construction.”74
A woman moved to Carmie was told by government officials when they visited her farm:
“We have some projects to implement here. [Saudi investor name withheld] needs to use
this area for a market so you must go.”75 Similar testimonies were received from three
different villagers who were displaced from along the Baro River.76
A former resident of Pugnido town said he was told by woreda officials: “You have no land
here. You take your tools and go build a house in the village. We don’t want people here
doing nothing. We will make this area for business and farming.”77
A former Dimma resident told us: “They held a town meeting in Dimma where we were told
‘if you have no job, all Anuaks should go away.’ A few days later, soldiers and district officers were in town to tell people it was time to go … some people resisted, so soldiers
were ‘active.’”78 In three of the four woredas where urban Anuak are being relocated
(Gambella, Abobo, and Gog woredas) significant agricultural land investment is happening.
In the fourth woreda (Dimma) there is increasing investment in the gold mining industry.79
Suppressing Dissent
The Ethiopian government’s longtime tactic of stifling opposition to programs and policies
through fear and intimidation is evident in the implementation of the villagization program.
Citizens cannot voice their concerns without fear of reprisal, including possible arrest or
mistreatment. The government has effectively silenced any public opposition to the
program; there is no mechanism for communities to express their views or have a
constructive dialogue; and many indigenous people inside Ethiopia were nervous about
speaking to Human Rights Watch for fear of reprisal by the government.
The army or police were present at many, perhaps most, public meetings—an intimidating
presence given the longstanding history of military abuses against the local population.80
The security forces carried out many beatings and arbitrary arrests in a public fashion,
perhaps to show what would happen to those that oppose the policy.81 One resident
opposed to the villagization process said: “If we say any of this to them, they twist it and
we go to jail.”82
One man described what happened to his friend following a public meeting on
villagization in Gambella town:
“If people are not being told why, do we have to go?” my friend [name
withheld] said at the public meeting. This meeting took place in the day,
then in the night, people were beaten by the EDF [Ethiopian Defense Force,
army] and accused of mobilizing farmers against villagization. Two of my
friends were beaten, arrested, and taken to hospital [he showed photos of

two beaten friends]. The next day there was another meeting. And my friend
[who had spoken up the day before] got emotional at the meeting. When
the meeting was over the EDF followed him into town at night and shot him
from behind through the neck [showed photograph]. The two army officers
were at the earlier meeting.83
The Ethiopian government has permitted very little media coverage of the program within
Ethiopia. As a result, outside of affected areas there appears to be very little if any
awareness of the program among ordinary Ethiopians. International media attention has
also been stifled, with journalists subjected to questioning when staying in villages in
areas where villagization is taking place. A Human Rights Watch researcher was
questioned by woreda officials who told him, “We hear that foreigners are poking around
trying to find out about villagization, and taking what villagers say, twisting it, and making
our government look bad.”84
Fear of speaking out about the villagization program and the suppression of information
and dissent also extends to government employees. According to former civil servants who
spoke to Human Rights Watch, many government employees are afraid to say anything for
fear of losing their job or other forms of reprisal. For those who expressed concern about
the program or seek clarification, the outcome was threats, demotion, or, in at least three
cases known to Human Rights Watch, arrest.85
A regional government worker, who was demoted twice and eventually imprisoned for
three months for questioning villagization, explained:
I asked “Why do people need to go?” If you ask this then they will target
you. I said “We should consult with them to see what they want, then it
could be successful. They told me I was anti-government: “We have told
you to go and tell the villages. You have refused. From this day on we will
study you and your background.” Once you raise a question you are always
targeted from regional to village level and your name will be recorded

If villages resisted in any way or the program was not being carried out as quickly as
desired, woreda or other junior government officials were targeted and blamed for the
problems. Often this targeting took the form of demotion, firing, or occasionally arrest.87
This happened at both the regional level and the woreda level. A former woreda
development agent told Human Rights Watch:
Farmers in our woreda did not want to go. The woreda reported to the region
that farmers are refusing to accept. The governor asked the woreda
chairman to investigate. He did—“Yes, they are resisting. What shall we
do?” he asked the governor. The governor told him that five development
agents should be suspended from their job, and that he will bring in the
soldiers. So that is what happened.88
Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
The Ethiopian government has arrested individuals who expressed concern about the
villagization process during meetings, traditional leaders of “anti-villagization”
communities, and elders or young men accused of “inciting people to refuse.” In several
woredas where communities were not cooperative, government officials were also
detained or arrested. Human Rights Watch received credible accounts of arbitrary arrests
in 9 of the 16 villages we obtained testimony from; the overwhelming majority were men
who had spoken up during the initial meetings.
Those arrested have typically been detained for under two weeks, though some have been
held much longer. Human Rights Watch is unaware of any of these individuals being
charged with any offense, or appearing before a judge.89 Many of the arrests appear to
have been carried out publicly, and appear to have been used as a tool to intimidate and
instill fear among the rest of the population.
Human Rights Watch interviewed three community leaders who were detained for openly
questioning the government’s policy during the meetings. They were not charged, were
never brought before a judge, and were released after several weeks on the condition that

they would support the moves, would no longer speak out against the policy, and would
mobilize their community to move.90 Another community leader said:
In our village, old men were arrested because they expressed concern—five
of them. They were told they were “anti-villagization.” They are still in
Gambella prison since [their arrest] around November [2010]. These village
heads had a private meeting and they decided against villagization, and
they would tell government when they came. They told them two weeks
later, and they were arrested for “not being cooperative.”91

Beatings and Assaults
There have been many reports of government soldiers assaulting and beating people
during the villagization process. Available information suggests that the overwhelming
majority of these beatings happened when people expressed concern about villagization
during meetings, or when they actually resisted when it was time to move. This happened
mainly between October 2010 and January 2011 in many villages, including almost all of
the villagized areas in Dimma and Gog woredas; Ukuna and Chobokir in Abobo woreda;
Opagna and Wan Carmie in Gambella woreda; and around Gambella town.
Many beatings also took place during construction of the tukuls in the new villages, where
displaced people were forced to build their own new homes. Soldiers supervised the
building of these tukuls; in some cases soldiers were camped out near the villages, in
other cases they would arrive in the morning and leave in the evening. In these cases,
soldiers were there to intimidate and ensure that the villagers built their tukuls swiftly. If
villagers were too slow or were seen talking in a group, they became potential targets for
beatings and assaults by government troops. Often this would involve a kick, slap, punch,
or hitting with the butt of a rifle, but other times the beatings would be more severe.
According to one villager:
During construction, there were three situations in which you were beaten:
one, if you are found outside the construction area; two, are sitting in a
group; or three, if two people are seen talking. ‘You are mobilizing,’ they

would say. More than 10 were beaten in our village and most of them ran off
and haven’t returned. It was mostly men beaten.92
Human Rights Watch documented at least seven credible accounts of people dying as a
result of the beatings inflicted by the military and heard of many more that could not be
corroborated. One resident said:
My father was beaten for refusing to go along [to the new village] with some
other elders. He said, “I was born here—my children were born here—I am
too old to move so I will stay.” He was beaten by the army with sticks and
the butt of a gun. He had to be taken to hospital. He died because of the
beating—he just became more and more weak. Two other villagers were
taken to Dimma prison.93
The military appears more likely to use violence against relocated villagers in less
populated areas. For example, more arbitrary arrests, beatings, and deaths were reported
in remote Dimma than in relatively more populous Gambella town. Most of those reported
beaten in the new villages were village leaders or young men, although women and
children were also occasional victims of beatings. One eyewitness said:
One day I went to visit relatives at a [neighboring village]. I immediately saw
the mobilization of people to cut trees. It was almost 5 p.m. One of the
community leaders expressed concern at the late start.… This person was
then beaten in front of everyone and taken away. His hands were tied
behind his back, he was beaten as people watched. They were unable to do
anything, afraid to intervene. Police and woreda officials were also involved
in this beating; they said he was “anti-villagization.” He was held in jail for
one month. There are eight of them that are in danger in that village and are
being intimidated by the army because they were accused of forming an
anti-villagization group.

News of the military’s targeting of young men—considered to be the biggest threat to the
authorities—has spread throughout the region. In some communities elders have told
young men not to come to the government meetings to avoid interacting with the soldiers,
while in many villages young men have just fled into the bush and to South Sudan.95 A
young villager said:
When I went back to my old village to gather belongings I was told [by a
soldier] “Why are you here? You are thieves.” I was then beaten with sticks,
and I still have chest pain. The day before this a friend was killed by
soldiers. He was beaten with guns and sticks, was vomiting blood and died
before we could treat him. He was 19 [years old]. Anuak were crying during
the beating but no one could intervene—there were many soldiers there—
and we are scared of them.96
A woman, formerly of Gog Depache, said:
There was one day we were sitting under the trees, eating green cabbage.
Soldiers called five boys and just beat them badly—three were taken to
hospital, two of them died. The other three are still in serious condition.
There were eight arrests. If you cry for someone who has been arrested or
beaten they say, “He is a shifta [bandit].” They are still in prison. After
witnessing all of this I fled. People are showing up dead along the roadside
or in villages. Two old men were found dead along the road-they were the
ones who had expressed concern at the meeting. Their throats had been cut.
Those that were arrested were those that expressed concern and those that
tried to go back to their farms.97
Rape and Sexual Violence
Human Rights Watch learned of many instances of rape and other sexual violence by
soldiers connected to villagization, and at least one instance of girls being abducted by
soldiers to become their “wives.”

Few young men inhabit the new villages created under the villagization process. Many
have gone back to their original areas to farm. Others have fled military abuses that are
frequently directed at them. The net effect is that in many of the new villages, women,
children, the sick, and the elderly are left largely to themselves. Without the presence of
male villagers the women have been at greater risk of rape and other sexual violence from
soldiers. Rapes appear to occur particularly in areas where women are isolated and alone,
and after dark.
The lack of available water at the new villages has increased the risk of sexual assault as
women are walking longer distances to access water sources. Human Rights Watch is
aware of about 20 rapes in three areas, most of which were alleged to have occurred when
women were alone or travelling long distances to access water. Most of the rapes were
alleged to have involved more than one soldier. Victims of sexual assault with whom
Human Rights Watch spoke displayed various visible injuries. There were also multiple
interviewees from one village that told us that when the army left after tukul construction,
they took with them seven girls to become “their wives.” One eyewitness said:
When the soldiers finally left after the construction period they took seven
young girls with them “for forced marriage.” They took them back to the
Highland areas. I know the girls personally. They were taken right in front of
their parents. They did not resist because the soldiers have guns. They were
all taken in the same day, just at the end of construction.98
At the time of the interviews there was no information of the girls having been
returned to their village.

Read more here in this link http://Waiting%20here%20for%20death%20Gambella%20ethiopia0112webwcover_0.pdf

To everyone, what shall be your judgement ? If not independent what else do you think?