Ethiopia: Gender Equality On Trial: How Ethiopia’s Law Schools Stumble Over Inclusion As Recent Moot Court Misstep Exposes Systemic Fault Lines

Addis Abeba — Ethiopia’s journey toward gender equality is fraught with struggle and misinterpretation. One recurring issue is the widespread misunderstanding of affirmative action for women, particularly in academic and professional spaces. Affirmative action is often perceived as an undeserved advantage given to women, rather than being recognized as a corrective measure rooted in constitutional, regional, and international human rights commitments.

Underlying much of this discourse is a fundamental misunderstanding of gender itself. In both public and academic settings, including law schools, gender is often narrowly understood as an issue concerning women alone, rather than a relational concept that structures the experiences, expectations, and opportunities of both genders in Ethiopia. This limited view distorts the purpose of gender inclusion policies and reinforces the very inequalities that such measures aim to address.

Increasingly, there is apprehension surrounding the success and growing number of female law students in Ethiopia. A recent incident highlights this issue: from 16-18 May, 2025, Mizan Tepi University hosted the 9th National Moot Court Competition, a simulated court proceeding where teams of law students argue a fictional case before a panel of judges. At this competition, the Dire Dawa University team faced penalties for fielding an all-female team. Notably, the organizers permitted the team to advance to the oral rounds knowing its all-female composition after the first round, exposing a troubling inconsistency and lack of procedural clarity.

This raises serious questions about the organizers’ oversight, as the issue should have been addressed at registration or an earlier stage, providing the team with an opportunity to comply with the rules they claim to have been violated. Penalizing the team at a late stage, without prior warning, undermines fairness and further constitutes an unjust application of the rules of procedure.

Furthermore, the penalties imposed were also quite severe: non-compliance would result in Dire Dawa University being barred from national moot court competitions for two consecutive years, and both the coach and the team members would be prohibited from participating in any capacity in future editions of the competition. Such treatment reflects deeper anxieties within legal education regarding gender inclusion and demands critical reflection on how female students’ participation is interpreted and enforced in practice.

Having said that, though, there are also law schools in Ethiopia that have previously sent all-female teams to represent their universities, leading to great achievements such as Hawassa University, Haramaya University, and Jimma University. Some won, including Addis Ababa University, Arba Minch University, and Dire Dawa University. The presence of an all-female moot court team has never been an issue. It is unclear if the current shift to exclude and penalise an all-female team stems from the fear that they might win, as they have consistently proven their competence by achieving victories, despite being underrepresented in competitions.

Penalizing progress

While some may try to twist this into a claim that men are being excluded, that is not the argument. To clarify the selection and screening process for the Dire Dawa University team, many people assume that, since the team is all female, male students were excluded. However, it’s important to note that the university has not excluded male students. In the pre-selection stage, eleven students competed, including five male students, and the three female students were selected based on their performance to represent the university through a fair process.

Last year’s 8th National Moot Court Competition was held at Assosa University, and both Jimma and Dire Dawa universities were represented by all-female teams, with Dire Dawa University ultimately winning. Again, this is not about excluding male students; it is about recognizing the structural barriers women continue to face in legal education and exposing how a rule meant to promote balance was misapplied against a group that still struggles for space. The organizers’ failure to address the team’s composition at registration and only applying the rule at the oral stage is a procedural lapse.

Fairness requires timely notice and not retroactive enforcement. If rules matter, so does institutional accountability. Though the Ethiopian Law Schools Association (ELSA) has publicly stated on their LinkedIn account that they had no role in organizing the competition or in the decisions made, it is notable that individuals closely associated with the association were involved in key aspects of the event. This is relevant because ELSA, an all-male institution based on its social media presence, reflects a broader institutional culture, one that becomes evident in how gender issues are understood and addressed in legal academia.

Ironically, one of their members tried to justify the all-male composition by stating that all law school deans are male, despite the existence of female deans currently and previously. They claim that since women are not stepping up to take positions, they are not represented by their own fault, shifting the blame onto women, a strategy we all recognize from our time in law school. Instead of addressing the root causes for the limited representation of women in dean positions, which stem from systemic sexism and gender bias in academia that we are reluctant to discuss, they naively argue by implying that the lack of women in dean roles is solely due to women’s lack of ambition, shifting responsibility from discriminatory structural barriers that shape academic leadership. This kind of gender-based prejudicial attitude is tragically presented and voiced without consequences in places that are meant to teach future legal professionals.

Returning to the issue of the students, while some started to argue that the increasing number of female students in educational institutions is raising a cause for concern, reports present a different story: despite higher enrollment, due to high dropout rates, many girls do not complete their education. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index (2024), Ethiopia ranks 136th out of 146 countries in educational attainment, underscoring persistent gender disparities that limit women’s access to quality education. Similarly, the Ethiopian Gender Development Index (2021) highlights obstacles that restrict women’s access to education and full participation in public life. Afrobarometer surveys (2024) further reveal persistent gender gaps in education, demonstrating that while a majority of Ethiopian citizens approve of the government’s efforts to promote gender equality, many do not believe additional measures are necessary.

Due to the situation of women in Ethiopia, Article 35 of the Ethiopian Constitution, as well as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (Article 4) and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Article 2), the Beijing Platform for Action, and the African Union’s Agenda 2063, specifically guarantee women the right to affirmative measures designed to address the historical and structural disadvantages they have endured, continue to face, and, regrettably, are likely to encounter in the future. These provisions are not symbolic gestures; they are legal responses to deeply entrenched inequalities.

Yet many continue to perceive gender-based affirmative action as a privilege granted to women, rather than a tool for ensuring substantive equality. This misperception becomes painfully evident when qualified women succeed. Their achievements are frequently undermined, attributed not to merit but to supposed special treatment. In contrast, when women begin to outperform men in academic settings, the reaction is often disbelief, sometimes followed by calls to extend affirmative action to male candidates and initiate a toxic competition between men and women. Such reactions reveal a fundamental lack of understanding regarding why these measures exist in the first place.

Affirmative action or unfair advantage?

Affirmative action is a measure taken to correct systemic imbalances that apply to both men and women. In the Ethiopian context, specifically, it is targeted at women and girls because they are the group that has been historically excluded, disadvantaged, and underrepresented due to both socio-cultural disadvantages and biological factors. They face interruptions in their education due to menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing, often resulting from abduction, rape, or early marriages. They also navigate societal norms that favor male education and push girls toward domestic roles.

Male students, by contrast, are not burdened by such systemic barriers due to biological reasons; rather, they could face other challenges that are different from the ones female students face. Hence, male students’ underperformance cannot be equated with the structural challenges faced by female students. This is also the case for students with disabilities who have the right to support and accommodations they need but are not granted in a way that affirms their rights and dignity.

And yet, when women overcome these obstacles and excel, they are met not with admiration but with suspicion. Society seems more comfortable with the idea of “empowering” women, so long as they do not surpass men. The moment female excellence challenges male dominance, even if only statistically, the narrative shifts toward restoring a so-called balance. This mindset reflects a deeper problem: a reluctance to see gender relations outside a zero-sum frame. Instead of celebrating interdependence and shared success, we persist in interpreting any female advancement as male decline. Female achievement should not provoke resentment or alarm; it should be recognized as the fruit of resilience in the face of adversity. We must resist the urge to frame success in hierarchical terms. The aim of gender equality is not to flip the script but to rewrite it entirely. Until we understand that, we will continue to empower women in theory while resenting their success in practice, and that is profoundly objectionable!