Ethiopia’s parliament has ratified an amendment to the country’s Mass Media Proclamation that dramatically reshapes how the Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA) is governed. The changes transfer nomination powers for the EMA’s leadership to the executive, strip away transparency and conflict-of-interest safeguards from board appointments, and consolidate licensing and disciplinary powers within the Authority itself, effectively hollowing out institutional checks designed to protect regulatory independence.
Taken together with an intensifying pattern of arrests, raids, and threats against reporters, the legal changes mark a decisive shift that risks transforming the regulator from a potential defender of media pluralism into an instrument of state control.
The mechanics of capture
Before the amendment, the House of Peoples’ Representatives (HoPR) appointed the EMA’s director general through a public nomination process that include reserved seats for civil-society and media representatives, as well as a ban on political-party membership for board members.
Under the new framework, the Prime Minister gains the power to nominate the director general; board composition rules have been left vague; and key transparency and conflict-of-interest provisions have been removed. Licensing, suspension, and fines, which were previously subject to board oversight, are now exercised directly by the Authority’s leadership.
These are not minor bureaucratic edits; they fundamentallyalter where accountability sits within Ethiopia’s media regulatory structure.
Why it matters
Regulatory independence depends not only on what the law says but on how power is distributed. Effective safeguards include separation of appointment powers, open selection processes, protected tenure, pluralistic board membership, and procedural checks on enforcement.
By shifting nomination to the executive and weakening oversight, Ethiopia’s new law concentrates appointment power and removes critical guardrails against political interference. This concentration of adjudicatory and enforcement powers in an executive-nominated leadership undermines the EMA’s credibility as an impartial regulator.
A worsening press climate
The legal tightening comes amid a hostile environment for journalists. Independent reporting from conflict-affected regions, especially Tigray, continues to draw violent retaliation. Journalists have been shot at, detained, had their equipment seized, and received death threats while reporting.
A recent Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) investigation documents multiple cases of media workers being told to “stop filming or I will shoot,” underscoring the extreme risks faced by reporters covering postwar instability.
Beyond individual attacks, Ethiopia’s press freedom ranking has slipped, and international monitors have noted a pattern of harassment and legal pressure on independent outlets, deepening the climate of fear and self-censorship.
Consequences for journalists and outlets
- Greater vulnerability to arbitrary punishment. With licensing and disciplinary powers now concentrated under executive influence, editorial lines that displease political actors can be swiftly punished through license suspension, revocation, or fines, tools that can bankrupt outlets or deter advertisers.
- Increased self-censorship. Journalists and editors may avoid politically sensitive reporting, from elections to military operations, to reduce risks. This self-censorship erodes accountability and weakens the public sphere.
- Marginalization of local independent voices. In volatile regions like Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia, where information is scarce and control is tight, these legal changes further isolate local journalists already exposed to violence and intimidation.
Government framing, and why it rings hollow
Officials defend the amendment as a technical reform meant to streamline operations and reduce bureaucratic overlap. They argue that clearer lines of authority make the EMA more efficient.
However, procedural reforms that eliminate transparency, civil-society participation, and conflict-of-interest protections do not enhance governance; they concentrate power. At a moment of continued political instability and an approaching election cycle, the timing suggests a calculated effort to consolidate control over the media narrative, not mere efficiency.
The broader political logic
Two dynamics underpin the amendment:
- Crisis centralization: Governments facing security threats often tighten information control under the guise of maintaining stability.
- Electoral advantage: Ahead of elections, incumbents tend to pursue legal and administrative tools that weaken critical media and limit independent scrutiny.
In Ethiopia, both logics converge, reinforcing a system that prioritizes control over pluralism.
What real safeguards look like
Independent regulation requires:
- Open and competitive board appointments.
- Conflict of interest bans and political neutrality.
- Balance representation of journalists and civil society.
- Transparent rulemaking and disciplinary processes.
- Separation between investigative and adjudicatory functions
The April 2025 amendment dismantles many of these elements, undermining the EMA’s role as a buffer between political power and the press.
Conclusion
The April 2025 reforms represent a structural turn toward control, centralizing power over appointments and enforcement in a context already marked by intimidation and violence against journalists.
For Ethiopia’s fragile information ecosystem, this convergence of legal capture and physical repression could suffocate the last spaces for independent reporting. Reversing the damage will require coordinated domestic advocacy, vigilant international monitoring, and a renewed commitment to protecting the press as a cornerstone of democratic accountability.