Category Archives: Biography
“From Words to Deeds”: PMO Ethiopia Releases Ninth Volume of “From Meskerem to Meskerem”

By Bona Oromia
ADDIS ABABA — The Office of the Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has released the ninth volume of its annual publication, “From Meskerem to Meskerem” (ከመስከረም እስከ መስከረም), a series that documents the speeches, messages, and historical moments of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD).
The publication, now in its ninth edition, continues its mission of preserving the words and actions that have shaped Ethiopia’s journey of change—ensuring that the vision articulated by its leaders is recorded and transmitted to future generations.
Words Express Vision, Actions Transform It
The guiding philosophy of the series is captured in its opening message: “Words express vision; actions transform vision into reality.” Recording and preserving the speeches, messages, and historical events of leaders is described as a crucial way to transmit the nation’s journey of change and its history to future generations.
This ninth volume documents the Prime Minister’s speeches and messages delivered at various events and ceremonies from Meskerem 2018 to Meskerem 2019 in the Ethiopian calendar. It covers a period of significant national transformation—a time when the government’s rhetoric of reform was tested against the demands of implementation.
From Promise to Tangible Asset
The publication is described as telling the story of a journey “from words to deeds, from hope to tangible asset”—a transition from vision to execution and from aspiration to measurable progress. Within its pages are messages that connect national change, development, economic progress, national dignity, and international cooperation with a forward-looking vision for the future.
The volume serves as a concrete testimony to leadership, implementation, and nation-building—a record of the Ethiopian journey of change, from speech to event, from vision to result.
A Record for History
The series is more than a collection of speeches. It is a historical document—a record of the ideas, commitments, and actions that have defined a pivotal period in Ethiopia’s modern history. By compiling and publishing these materials annually, the Prime Minister’s Office ensures that the country’s political discourse and policy direction are preserved in a form that scholars, citizens, and future leaders can study and learn from.
The ninth volume’s release comes at a time when Ethiopia continues to navigate complex economic, political, and social challenges. The publication’s emphasis on “progress verified by action” rather than rhetoric alone reflects a recognition that words must be matched by results.
Read the Full Book
The full publication is available for reading via the following link:
https://pmo.gov.et/…/efb1bd26-fc75-4c5a-96d1…
“Beyond words, progress verified by action. Happy reading!” the announcement concludes.
#PMOEthiopia #FromMeskeremToMeskerem #Ethiopia #Leadership #NationBuilding
Eight Black Women Who Rose to the Highest Levels of Political Power in America

By Dhabessa Wakjira
From the halls of Congress to the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the highest levels of national security, eight Black women have broken barriers, challenged political traditions, and become some of the most influential figures in American political history. Their journeys remind us that Black women have not simply participated in American politics—they have helped shape its direction.
1. Barbara Jordan (1936–1996): The Congresswoman Who Challenged a President
Barbara Jordan was one of the most respected political figures in American history. In 1966, she became the first Black woman elected to the Texas Senate. In 1972, she made history again by becoming the first Black woman elected to Congress from a Southern state since Reconstruction.
Her greatest national moment came during the Watergate scandal in 1974. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, she delivered a powerful speech during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. She defended the U.S. Constitution and argued that no president should stand above the law. Her speech established her as one of America’s most respected political orators.
2. Carol Moseley Braun (1947– ): The First Black Woman Elected to the U.S. Senate
In 1992, Carol Moseley Braun achieved a historic political breakthrough. She defeated Republican incumbent Alan Dixon in Illinois, becoming the first Black woman ever elected to the United States Senate. She served from 1993 to 1999.
During her time in the Senate, she advocated for education, civil rights, and women’s equality. In 1999, President Bill Clinton appointed her U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. She also sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. Her achievement opened another important door for Black women in American political leadership.
3. Patricia Roberts Harris (1924–1985): The First Black Woman in a Presidential Cabinet
Patricia Roberts Harris was a lawyer, diplomat, educator, and government official. In 1965, she became the first Black woman appointed as a U.S. ambassador, serving in Luxembourg.
Her achievements continued under President Jimmy Carter. In 1977, she became Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), making her the first Black woman to serve as a U.S. cabinet secretary. In 1979, she became Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. When that department was reorganised in 1980, she became the first Secretary of the newly established Department of Health and Human Services. She occupied some of the most influential positions in the American federal government.
4. Condoleezza Rice (1954– ): The First Black Woman to Become U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice became one of the most influential women in American foreign policy. In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed her National Security Adviser—the first Black woman to hold that position. In January 2005, she made history again when she became the 66th U.S. Secretary of State, the first Black woman ever to occupy the office.
Her responsibilities included international diplomacy, foreign policy negotiations, and America’s relationships with other countries. She served until January 2009. Her decisions, particularly concerning the Iraq War era, remain subjects of political debate. Nevertheless, her appointment represented a historic breakthrough in American government.
5. Susan Rice (1964– ): The First Black Woman to Become U.S. National Security Adviser
Susan Rice became one of the most influential foreign policy officials in President Barack Obama’s administration. Before becoming National Security Adviser, she served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 2009 to 2013. In 2013, she became the first Black woman appointed National Security Adviser.
The position placed her at the centre of presidential decision-making on international relations, intelligence, defence, and national security. She served until 2017. In 2021, President Joe Biden appointed her Director of the Domestic Policy Council. Her career demonstrates the growing influence of Black women in America’s most sensitive government institutions.
6. Kamala Harris (1964– ): The First Black Woman to Become Vice President
Kamala Harris made American political history. She previously served as District Attorney of San Francisco, California Attorney General, and U.S. Senator. In 2020, Joe Biden selected her as his running mate. After winning the presidential election, Harris was sworn in on January 20, 2021.
She became the first woman to serve as U.S. Vice President, the first Black person to hold the office, and the first South Asian American to become Vice President. In 2024, she became the first Black woman nominated for president by a major American political party. Although she lost the 2024 presidential election, her place in American political history remains significant.
7. Maxine Waters (1938– ): The Long-Serving Congresswoman
Maxine Waters is one of the most prominent Black women in contemporary American politics. Born in St. Louis, Missouri, she moved to Los Angeles, California, where she became involved in community organising and politics. She was elected to the California State Assembly in 1976. In 1990, she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Waters became nationally recognised for her outspoken positions on racial justice, economic inequality, housing, financial regulation, and government accountability. She chaired the powerful House Financial Services Committee from 2019 to 2023. Her influence has made her one of the most recognisable Black women in American congressional politics.
8. Stacey Abrams (1973– ): The Political Strategist
Stacey Abrams is a lawyer, former Georgia legislator, and voting rights advocate. She served in the Georgia House of Representatives from 2007 to 2017 and became the chamber’s Democratic minority leader.
In 2018, she became the first Black woman nominated for governor by a major political party in the United States. Although she narrowly lost the election to Brian Kemp, her political influence grew nationally. She became widely recognised for her work on voter registration, voting access, and electoral participation. Through organisations including Fair Fight Action, she helped bring national attention to voting rights debates. She ran for governor again in 2022 but lost to Kemp. Although she has never served as governor, her influence on modern American electoral politics is undeniable.
What These Eight Women Have in Common
Their political journeys demonstrate how much American politics has changed. Barbara Jordan became a powerful defender of constitutional accountability. Carol Moseley Braun broke the racial and gender barrier in the U.S. Senate. Patricia Roberts Harris opened the door to Black women’s leadership in presidential cabinets. Condoleezza Rice reached the highest levels of American foreign policy. Susan Rice became the first Black woman National Security Adviser. Kamala Harris became America’s first female and first Black Vice President. Maxine Waters became one of the most recognisable voices in Congress. Stacey Abrams became a major force in modern electoral organising.
They did not all share the same political beliefs, strategies, or backgrounds. But each made a significant contribution to the history of Black political representation in America. Their stories remind us that Black women have not simply participated in American politics. They have helped shape its direction.
The Silence of the Press: Ethiopia’s Media Authority Suspends The Reporter Indefinitely

In a decision that rights advocates are calling a watershed moment for press freedom, the Ethiopian Media Authority has revoked the registration of one of the country’s most storied independent news brands — and the clock on its silence has no end date
By Daandii Ragabaa
—
ADDIS ABABA — For more than two decades, The Reporter has been a fixture of Ethiopian public life — a bilingual newspaper that carried investigative reporting, analysis, and the kind of scrutiny that powerful institutions rarely welcome. Its Amharic edition, its English edition, and its digital platforms together formed one of the few remaining spaces where Ethiopian readers could encounter reporting not calibrated to official messaging.
That space, as of this week, has been declared closed.
The Ethiopian Media Authority announced that it has indefinitely suspended the registration certificate of The Reporter — encompassing the Amharic-language Reporter, the English-language The Reporter, and the Ethiopia Reporter digital platforms — effective from the 23rd of the month. The suspension has no stated end date. The institution has been barred from all printing and publishing activity.
A Decision in Full
The Media Authority grounded its decision in the powers granted to it under Proclamation No. 1238/2013, invoking a year of content monitoring that it says confirmed “repeated violations of the law and professional ethics.”
The violations cited are sweeping. The Authority accused the publication of disseminating content contrary to the country’s national interest; of fomenting confusion among the public by inflating political and economic issues; and of spreading distorted information that exerts a negative influence on foreign investment, tourism, and diplomacy. It further stated that the publication had persisted in offering unbalanced reporting that tarnished the country’s image.
According to the announcement, the Authority had previously engaged with the media outlet’s owners and editors, held discussions, and issued final warnings in an effort to secure corrections. But no improvement was observed in the content, it said — and so the suspension was imposed.
A Familiar Script, a Higher Stakes
The language of the decision will be familiar to anyone who has followed Ethiopia’s media landscape in recent years. The Authority has used similar formulations to justify the suspension of other outlets — most prominently Tigray TV, which was shut down indefinitely in the aftermath of the breakdown of the Pretoria Agreement. Earlier this month, the Authority also indefinitely suspended the registration of another independent publication, Addis Standard.
What distinguishes the suspension of The Reporter is not the language but the institution. The Reporter is not a partisan outlet or a niche platform. It is one of the oldest and most established independent newspapers in the country — a publication that has, over the years, trained generations of Ethiopian journalists, hosted debate, and maintained a reputation for professional rigor that even its critics acknowledge.
The closure of a newspaper is never merely the closure of an office. It is the closure of a habit of reading, of a community of writers, of a memory of what independent journalism in Ethiopia can look like.
“National Interest” and the Moving Line
The Authority’s invocation of “national interest” is the crux of the matter, and the source of deepest concern among press-freedom advocates.
The concept is not defined in the announcement. It does not need to be. In practice, “national interest” functions as a moving line — one whose location is determined by the regulator, in the moment, according to criteria it does not disclose. A report on a security operation may be said to endanger national interest. An analysis of economic policy may be said to foment confusion. An investigation into official misconduct may be said to tarnish the country’s image.
The problem with such a standard is not that it is applied too strictly. It is that it cannot be contested. There is no counter-argument the accused can offer against a criterion whose content is never specified. The Authority’s decision cites a year of monitoring, but the monitoring methodology, the specific articles found wanting, and the reasoning connecting them to the cited violations are not made public.
The result is a regulatory environment in which a newspaper can be shut down without ever knowing exactly which words condemned it — and in which every other publication is left to guess.
The Wider Context
The suspension of The Reporter did not happen in a vacuum. It follows a pattern that has accelerated in recent months.
In January, Haymanot Zeleke was appointed Director of the Ethiopian Media Authority — a figure with a long career inside Ethiopia’s state media apparatus, who had previously enumerated the categories of content she considered violations: obscenity, content harmful to youth, disrespect toward women, unverified sourcing. The board of the Authority is chaired by Redwan Hussein, who simultaneously serves as Director General of the National Intelligence and Security Service — an arrangement whose implications for press freedom are difficult to overstate.
In September, Tigray TV was suspended indefinitely and barred as a source. This month, Addis Standard was suspended. This week, The Reporter. The sequence is not random. It is a consolidation — a steady, methodical narrowing of the space in which independent journalism can operate.
Meanwhile, the country’s political and security situation remains fragile: the collapse of the Pretoria Agreement, renewed fighting in the north, a restive Oromia, and strained relations with Eritrea. In such moments, the temptation to treat information as a weapon to be controlled rather than a public good to be protected is at its strongest.
What the Newspaper Leaves Behind
The Reporter’s closure will not be felt immediately in the way a power outage or a road closure is felt. Its absence will accumulate slowly, in the stories that go unreported, the questions that go unasked, the readers who gradually forget that a newspaper once held the powerful to account.
But for the journalists who worked there, the end is immediate. Their bylines are suspended. Their investigations — some of them months or years in the making — are frozen. Their sources, who trusted them, are left exposed. And their colleagues at other publications are left with a single, inescapable question: am I next?
The Authority has framed its decision as a matter of law and professional ethics. The newspaper’s defenders frame it as a matter of survival — of an independent press in a country that has never fully allowed one to flourish. Both framings can be true at once. What cannot be disputed is that a newspaper that existed last week does not exist this week, and that the decision to end it was made by an institution whose chairman also runs the country’s intelligence service.
The Reporter’s presses have gone quiet. The question now is how long the silence will last — and who will be left to break it.
—
The Ethiopian Media Authority’s decision was announced in an official statement. The Reporter has not issued a public response at the time of publication.
Who Speaks for the Oromo? A Scholar’s Challenge to the Single Story of Liberation

In a provocative new essay, Dr. Sultan Abda Neja argues that no party, army, or intellectual owns the Oromo struggle — and that true liberation may be measured by whether those who disagree with it are still free to speak
By Dhabessa Wakjira
It is a question that cuts to the heart of one of Africa’s most consequential political debates — and one that, until recently, was rarely asked so directly in public.
Who has the right to define the goals and future of the Oromo liberation struggle?
In a new essay by Dr. Sultan Abda Neja, published under that very title, the scholar and commentator does not simply answer the question. He dismantles the premise that it has a single answer at all.
His thesis is as simple as it is contentious: the Oromo people are not politically homogeneous, and no organization — not the Oromo Liberation Front, not the Oromo Federalist Congress, not the Prosperity Party, not the armed Oromo Liberation Army — holds an exclusive mandate to speak for them. The right to define the destination of a people’s struggle, he argues, belongs to the people themselves.
The Argument at Its Core
Dr. Neja’s essay opens by acknowledging what is beyond dispute: the Oromo have endured political domination, land dispossession, cultural marginalization, and unequal representation. These historical injustices, he writes, “laid the foundations of modern Oromo nationalism and the demand for self-determination.”
But he draws a careful distinction. Recognizing historical injustice, he argues, “does not automatically establish that dismantling Ethiopia is the only possible solution.” Nor does it prescribe a single political destination.
The essay takes direct aim at a tendency among some scholars, commentators, and activists to equate the political program of the OLF — independence for Oromia — with the aspirations of the entire Oromo nation. While acknowledging the OLF’s historic contribution, Dr. Neja insists that the struggle’s history is far more plural than its most vocal interpreters allow.
He traces that plurality through a gallery of figures and movements: Haile Fida of MEISON, who advocated socialist transformation and the resolution of the nationalities question; Hussein Suura of the Ethiopian National Liberation Front, which sought liberation for all Ethiopian peoples on the basis of equality regardless of ethnicity, religion, or class; and General Tadesse Birru and Mamo Mezemir of the Mecha-Tulema Self-Help Association, who pursued Oromo empowerment and education within Ethiopia before state repression radicalized their politics.
These figures, he argues, prove that “Oromo political aspirations were not exclusively associated with the pursuit of an independent Oromia.” They also included efforts to democratize and transform Ethiopia while defending Oromo identity and rights.
A Question of Mandate
The essay’s most pointed intervention concerns the relationship between armed struggle and democratic legitimacy.
The existence of the Oromo Liberation Army, Dr. Neja writes, “may reflect genuine grievances, political exclusion, insecurity, or the failure of democratic institutions.” These conditions deserve serious examination. But military strength, he argues, “does not automatically establish a democratic mandate to determine the political future of an entire population.”
Any movement claiming to fight for liberation, he insists, must explain what political order it intends to establish, how it will protect civilians, accommodate political disagreement, safeguard minority communities, and ensure accountability.
“A movement that claims to fight for the people’s freedom,” he writes, “must also defend their freedom to disagree with the movement itself.”
It is a standard he applies consistently — to the OLF and OLA, to the Prosperity Party, and to federalist organizations alike. The PP, he argues, “must be judged by its actual record in protecting Oromo rights and regional autonomy, not merely by the presence of Oromo politicians in government.” Federalists must demonstrate how their proposals can prevent renewed centralization while protecting the rights of all citizens.
Self-Determination Is Not a Synonym for Independence
At the heart of the essay lies a conceptual clarification that carries significant political weight.
Self-determination, Dr. Neja reminds readers, is a broad principle concerning the right of peoples to determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. It is enshrined in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recognized in Ethiopia’s 1995 Constitution, including the right to secession under Article 39.
Independence, he argues, is one expression of that right — but not the only conceivable outcome. Meaningful autonomy, democratic federalism, and constitutional reform may also realize collective political rights.
He also raises a practical warning. Secession from a multinational country in which Oromia itself is home to multiple Ethiopian nations and nationalities, he notes, carries “complex security and economic consequences.” The post-independence crises of Eritrea and South Sudan, he suggests, offer cautionary lessons.
The burden of argument, he insists, applies to everyone. Advocates of independence must explain how an independent state would guarantee democracy, security, economic opportunity, minority protection, and accountability. Advocates of federalism must show how federal institutions can protect genuine regional autonomy and prevent renewed centralization.
“You cannot defend the people’s right to self-determination,” he writes, “while denying them the freedom to reject your preferred political destination.”
Has Liberation Already Been Achieved?
The essay does not shy away from the question that divides Oromo politics most sharply today: whether the Oromo have already been substantially liberated, or whether liberation remains incomplete until a referendum decides between independence and continued membership in a democratic Ethiopian federation.
From the OLF’s traditional perspective, full liberation requires the freedom to determine political status, including the option of independence. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, by contrast, has argued that the central historical questions — recognition of Afaan Oromo, cultural identity, and regional self-administration — have been substantially addressed, leaving governance, democracy, security, and development as the unfinished challenges.
Dr. Neja does not declare a winner. He notes that the question of majority preference “would require credible public consultation.” But he observes that many Oromo political actors, including federalist advocates and some within the OLF and PP constituencies, increasingly emphasize democratizing the federation and strengthening Oromia’s constitutional autonomy rather than pursuing independence as an inevitable destination.
This, he writes, presents “a serious challenge to the traditional OLF narrative, particularly among younger generations who have grown up experiencing Afaan Oromo in education and regional administration.”
The Boundaries of Oromummaa
Perhaps the essay’s most delicate argument concerns identity itself.
Oromummaa, Dr. Neja writes, represents a shared sense of Oromo identity, historical experience, cultural belonging, and collective consciousness. It should not be transformed into an ideological instrument through which one organization determines who qualifies as a legitimate Oromo.
He surveys the diversity of Oromo thought on nationalism itself — from scholars who treat it as fuel for struggle to those skeptical of ethnic nationalism, and to the Prime Minister’s own criticism that Oromo nationalism “belittled the Oromo.” These differences, he suggests, are not evidence of authenticity or betrayal. They are evidence of intellectual life.
“Political disagreement is not betrayal,” he writes. “Supporting a different constitutional arrangement does not make someone less Oromo.”
An Oromo who supports independence is entitled to that preference. An Oromo who supports democratic multinational federalism is equally entitled. An Oromo who participates in the Prosperity Party “does not lose their Oromo identity because of that political choice.”
“Organizational loyalty is not the measure of national identity,” he writes, “and historical contribution is not an unlimited democratic mandate.”
From Resistance to Governance
The essay builds on Dr. Neja’s earlier work, From Resistance to Governance: Jawar Mohammed’s Progressive Patriotism and the Oromo’s Role in Redefining Ethiopian Nationalism, in which he explored the shift of Oromo political agency from resistance toward institution-building.
That shift, he argues, demands more than opposition. It requires demonstrating the capacity to build and sustain democratic institutions — accountable government, public security, economic opportunity, and democratic participation.
And it requires a willingness to answer hard questions. He poses two to those who present independence as the only legitimate solution: Would an independent Oromia permit its citizens to advocate a different constitutional arrangement, including a renewed relationship with Ethiopia? Would opposition parties compete freely, and would political opponents enjoy equal protection under the law?
He poses the mirror-image questions to those who defend the federal status quo: Would the federal government genuinely respect Oromia’s constitutional autonomy, even when regional leaders disagree with federal policies? Would citizens be free to criticize the government without being accused of undermining national unity?
“The democratic legitimacy of a state,” he concludes, “cannot be determined solely by whether it is independent, federal, or unitary. It must also be measured by whether citizens can participate freely in political life, challenge those in power, exercise their rights, and change their leaders peacefully.”
A Conclusion That Returns the Question
The essay ends where it began — with the people, not the organizations.
“The Oromo people need neither an imposed union nor an imposed independence,” Dr. Neja writes. “They need the freedom to choose their own political future.”
No intellectual, political party, or armed movement, he insists, has the exclusive right to make that choice on their behalf.
“That right belongs to the Oromo people themselves.”
It is a conclusion that will satisfy neither the movement’s staunchest partisans nor the government’s firmest defenders. But it is one that insists on something increasingly rare in polarized political debates: that the most radical act of liberation may be the willingness to let people disagree.
Dr. Sultan Abda Neja’s essay, “Who Has the Right to Define the Goals and Future of the Oromo Liberation Struggle?” is available in full through the author’s publication channels.
The full article can be viewed as follow:
A Family’s Gratitude and a Call for Dignity: The Ahmad Gishee Memorial Statement

By Dhabessa Wakjira
October 31, 2026 — In a statement released to the media, the family of the late Ahmad Gishee has expressed profound gratitude to friends, relatives, and the wider Oromo community for their support during a time of inconsolable grief, while also issuing a powerful call for responsible communication and respect for the family’s privacy.
The statement, titled “A Statement of Gratitude, Honour for a Life Lived, and a Pillar for the Legacy of Ahmad Gishee,” opens with a direct address to Ahmad’s friends, loved ones, relatives, and the broader Oromo public. “In this time of heart-breaking grief caused by Ahmad’s passing, we say thank you and we are grateful for standing with us, for encouraging us, and for sharing our pain,” the family writes.
Gratitude for a Community’s Support
The family’s gratitude is expansive and specific. They thank those who, “without hesitating,” stood by Ahmad when he needed help. They acknowledge those who traveled from far distances to attend his funeral and those who demonstrated that Ahmad was “a son of the broader Oromo nation” to the family and the district. “You have been a strong force for us to bear this heavy grief,” the statement reads. “Your honour is immense, immense!”
The family also requests that the community remember Ahmad in their prayers and supplications, and that they seek forgiveness and reconciliation on his behalf.
A Life Lived Without Regret
The statement offers a portrait of Ahmad as a man who lived his life fully and on his own terms. “The time Ahmad lived on this earth was very short. But he had no regret about the way and manner in which he lived his life,” the family writes. Before departing for the afterlife, Ahmad left a message for those he left behind: he had lived his life as he wished, he would not change anything, and he had done and seen much of what he wanted to do and see in his life.
When the time of death came to him, the family says, Ahmad confirmed to them that he was prepared. “This has given us some peace of mind,” they write. “The sorrow that struck us with his heart-breaking departure has shaken us. The wound created in our hearts has pained us.”
A Legacy of Achievement and Connection
In his short life, Ahmad achieved much and cultivated many friendships. He was a man who “embraced the Oromo nation broadly” and “sacrificed to the extent of his capacity.” His death revealed just how beloved and respected he was. The memorials and tributes being prepared for him, the family says, demonstrate not only that he was a strong man but that he was “a son of the entire Oromo nation.”
The family finds great comfort in knowing that Ahmad’s life held profound meaning for many people. They have resolved to honour his life, to respect the legacy he left behind, and to work to complete the tasks he had undertaken. “His work is foundational,” they write, “and this legacy must be passed from generation to generation.”
A Warning Against Misinformation
The statement takes a serious turn as the family addresses a troubling development: the spread of unverified information and harmful rumors about Ahmad’s life and death. “As people who have a responsibility to look after their community, we are seeing many who are opening empty spaces among these people,” the family writes. “Unverified, harmful, and baseless news is spreading without limit in the community’s social circles.”
Some of this information, the family says, has touched the emotions of family, relatives, and loved ones, and some displays a lack of respect for the family and for Ahmad himself. “This is putting pressure on the family,” they state. “We strongly and respectfully ask that unverified information, false news, or various speculations—especially on social media—not be spread.”
At this time, the family says, what helps Ahmad and them is to seek forgiveness for him and to offer encouragement to the living. “Give thought and human respect to him and his family. Refrain from raising irrelevant matters, spreading, publishing, and reporting things that have no basis—and prevent others from doing so!”
A Call for Responsibility
The family uses the statement to reflect on the power of words and actions. “We have great respect for those who, in this role, recognize that their words and actions have caused harm, and who apologize sincerely,” they write. “When we speak about the lives of other people, we want to remind each other that it is a great responsibility to weigh the good and the harm it carries.”
The way we live together and our relationships as a community must be characterized by compassion, respect, and self-restraint, the family argues. “Words create wounds that do not heal easily; actions bring harm that later requires correction. A painful experience must serve as a lesson for others, helping them understand emotions, and enabling them to cultivate kindness and humanity within themselves. We believe Ahmad’s passing must be a strong force for this.”
Honouring Ahmad’s Legacy
The family acknowledges the many people, both within the country and abroad, who have expressed their desire to honour Ahmad’s life and sacrifice together. “We are grateful for this! Your thoughts are greatly encouraging us. We have great gratitude for your efforts.”
The family extends an open invitation for support and participation in preserving Ahmad’s legacy. “Together, we believe we can pass on the life he lived and the principles he believed in to future generations. For the positive change he brought to the lives of many people, we have great hope that we can follow in his footsteps and honour him in a meaningful way.”
A memorial program for Ahmad will be organized in the near future, and a short-term committee is being established to coordinate it. Further information will be communicated promptly.
A Request for Privacy
In a pointed conclusion, the family states that it has not authorized the collection of any financial or other form of support at this time. “Until further information is communicated to you, we respectfully ask that you understand and respect the decision and direction the family has taken.”
The statement ends with renewed gratitude. “For the kindness, compassion, prayers, and support you have given us, we want to again express our great gratitude in Ahmad’s name. Your support has a meaning beyond words for our family. Thank you all once again.”
Maatii Ahmad Gishee (The Family of Ahmad Gishee)
October 31, 2026
This feature story is based on the family’s official statement. For further information about the memorial program, please await official communication from the family committee.
Lallaba Galataa fi Yaadannoo: Maatiin Ahmad Gishee Hawaasa Oromootti Dhaamsa Garaawaa Ergate

(Onkololeessa 31, Bara 2026) Aartii fi aadaa Oromoo keessatti, duuti nama jaallatamaa fi kabajamaa ta’e gadda cimaa hawaasa keessatti uuma. Ahmad Gishee—ilma saba Oromoo, jaalala fi kabajaa guddaa qabu—lubbuu dhabuun isaatiin maatiin isaa fi hawaasni bal’aan gadda onnee nama cabsu keessa jiraatu. Yeroo kana keessatti maatiin Ahmad Gishee lallaba galataa fi yaadannoo hawaasa Oromootti erganii jiran.
Galata Hawaasaaf
Lallabni maatii keessaa, duraan duraan, hiriyoota Ahmad, jaalalloo, darabootaa fi hawaasa bal’aa Oromootiif galata guddaa dhiyeesseera. “Gadda onnee nama cabsu yeroo keessa jiru kanatti, nu bira dhaabattanii, nu jajjabeessuu fi miidhama keenna nu waliin hirachuu keessaniif, ulfaadhaa, wayyamaa,” jedhanii maatiin ibsaniiru.
Maatiin Ahmad akka jedhetti, “Gargaarsinii fi ergaan gara-nyaattoo, tumsinii fi dhaamsi keessan madda obsaa nuu ta’ee jira; kanaafillee galata guddaa nu biraa qabdani.” Yeroo Ahmad gargaarsa barbaadetti, firaa fi hiriyyoon uduu hin hifatin isa bira dhaabbatanii jiran. “Haga inni darbellee, fageenna dheeraa irraa imaluun geegessaa isaa tolchitan. Ahmad ka saba bal’aa Oromoo ta’uu isaa maatii fi aanaa maratti argisiiftan. Gadda ulfaata kana akka obsinuuf humna jabaa nuu taatan. Ulfinni keessan dacha, dachaadha!”
Jireenya Gabaabduu Garuu Hiikkaa Guddaa Qabu
Ahmad jireenya isaa keessatti milkii hedduu arge, jaalalloo baay’ee horate. Ummata Oromoo bal’aan wal-baratee, waan haga humna isaa gumaachee lufe. “Yeroon Ahmad lafa tana irra jiraatee baay’ee gabaabduudha. Garuu inni haalaa fi akkaataa jiruu dabarse irraa gaabbii hin qabu,” jedhanii maatiin ibsaniiru.
Inni gara fuula akeraa deemuun duratti warra bira turaniif dhaamsa darbee jira. “Jireenna isaa akka fedhii isaatti jiraateera. Waan tokkollee jijjiiruu akka hin barbaanne, waan jiruu isa kessatti godhuu fi arguu fedhu hedduu isaa akka godhee fi arge dubbate. Hireen du’aa yoo isa geette, akka qophaa’aa ture nuuf mirkaneesseera. Kun haga tokko tasgabbii sammuu nuuf kennee jira.”
Dhaamsa Hawaasaaf: Oduu Soba irraa Of Qusachuu
Maatiin Ahmad hawaasa Oromootti dhaamsa guddaa erganii jiran—oduu dharaa fi soba miidiyaa hawaasaa irratti tamsa’aa jiru irraa of qusachuu. “Oduu dharaa, hamaa fi hasaassaa daangaa hin qabnetu marsaa hawaasummaa irratti tamsa’aa jira. Wanti gariin, maatii, firaa fi jaalalloo miira tuqaa jira. Kun ammoo maatii obsa dhooggaa jira.”
“Odeeffannoo ragaa hin qabne, oduu sobaa ykn tilmaama adda addaa, keessattuu miidiyaa hawaasaa irratti, akka hin tamsaafne cimsinee kabajaan isin gaafanna. Yeroo ammaa kanatti wanti Ahmadii fi nullee nu gargaaru, isaaf araarama kadhatuu; ka jiruuf ammoo jajjabinna kennuu callaadha. Isaa fi maatii isaatiillee, yaadaa, kabaja namoomaa kennaa. Ardha irraa kaasaatii, waan qabatama hin qabne, facaasuu, maxxansuu fi himuu irraa of qusadhaa—walillee ittisaa!”
Yaadannoo fi Dhaala
Maatiin Ahmad namoonni hedduun, biyya keessaa fi alaa, gadda callaa uduu hin taane; jireenya Ahmad waliin kabajuu fi gumaata isaa yaadachuuf qophii godhuu qabu jedhanii yaada nuun geettanii jirtan. “Kanaaf wayyamaa! Yaadni keessan, guddisee nu jajjabeessaa jira. Carraaqiiwwan keessan kanaaf galata guddaa isinif qabna.”
Nutis dhaala inni nuuf dhiisee darbe kana akka eeggamuuf waliin hojjechuu waan barbaanuuf, deeggarsa fi yaada, akkasumas hirmaannaa keessan garaa gutuun feena. “Waliin taanee, jireenya inni jiraate, duudhaalee inni itti amanee dhaabateef, dhaalootaaf dabarsuun waan aaga jennee amanna.”
Murtii Maatii: Deeggarsa Maallaqaa Hin Barbaadan
Maatiin Ahmad hubachiisuu barbaade, yeroo ammaa kana deeggarsa maallaqaa yookaan gargaarsa bifa biraa kamiyyuu akka walitti qabamu hayyama akka hin kennin. “Odeeffannoo dabalataa hanga isinitti himamutti, murtii fi ejjennoo maatiin qabate kana akka hubattan kabajaa guddaan isin gaafanna.”
Galata Xumuraa
“Gaarummaa, gara-laafina, kadhannaa fi deeggarsa nuuf gootaniif irra deebi’uun galata guddaa maqaa Ahmadiitiin isiiniif galchuu barbaanna. Deeggarsi keessan maatii keennaaf jechootaan ibsuu caalaa hiika guddaa qaba. Mara keessanuu ammallee irra deebinee galatoomaa isiniin jenna.”
Maatiin Ahmad Gishee, Onkololeessa 31, Bara 2026.
Maatii Ahmad Gishee — Lallaba galataa fi yaadannoo hawaasa Oromootti erganii jiran.
Reflections on Professor Beyene’s Essay: A Call for Evidence, Clarity, and Intellectual Honesty in the Oromo Nationalist Discourse

By Hambisa Belina, Morgan State University
In a political landscape too often shaped by rhetoric and presumption, Professor Beyene’s recent essay stands out as a model of what rigorous intellectual engagement should look like. As a scholar reading his work, I found the piece both eloquently written and intellectually engaging—a rare combination that invites readers not merely to agree or disagree, but to think more carefully about the contested narratives shaping political discourse across Ethiopia and the wider Horn of Africa.
Situating the Debate in Historical and Regional Context
What makes Professor Beyene’s contribution particularly valuable is his skill in exploring the historical circumstances and political happenstances that evoke our collective memory. He does not treat contemporary debates as isolated phenomena but situates them within a broader historical and regional context, encouraging readers to grapple with enduring questions of identity, power, historical justice, and political legitimacy. This contextual approach is essential. Too often, discussions about nationalism and self-determination are conducted in a historical vacuum, as if the grievances and aspirations of today emerged from nowhere. Professor Beyene resists that tendency, reminding us that the present is always in conversation with the past.
The Insistence on Evidence
One of the article’s most compelling contributions is its insistence on evidence-based argumentation. Professor Beyene rightly questions the frequent assertion that Oromo nationalism has somehow crossed the line from demanding its own rights to infringing upon the rights of others. This is a serious accusation, and as he argues, it should be supported by concrete evidence rather than broad claims or political rhetoric. His call for a more rigorous examination of these allegations is both justified and necessary.
I concur with Professor Beyene’s observation that I have not seen any Oromo political party or prominent Oromo politician advocate for the repression, subjugation, or denial of the rights of other societies. This is not a claim of perfection—all political movements should be subject to scrutiny and criticism. But such criticism must rest on verifiable facts rather than assumptions or unfounded characterizations. The distinction matters, not only for the sake of fairness but for the integrity of public debate itself.
The Responsibility of Clarity
At the same time, I believe it is important for Oromo nationalists to continue articulating clearly what Oromo nationalism stands for and what it seeks to achieve. Greater clarity regarding its principles, objectives, and vision for coexistence can help dispel misconceptions, strengthen public understanding, and foster more constructive dialogue among Ethiopia’s diverse communities and the peoples of the wider Horn of Africa. This is not a concession to critics but a strengthening of the movement’s own foundation. A nationalism that knows what it stands for is better equipped to withstand misrepresentation and to build the alliances necessary for lasting peace.
Vigilance Against Misrepresentation
Moreover, Oromo political thinkers, legal experts, intellectuals, and political organizations should remain vigilant against efforts to misrepresent, delegitimize, or slander Oromo aspirations. They have an important responsibility to defend and explain the legitimacy of Oromo efforts to restore political authorship over their land, resources, laws, institutions, culture, and language. Such vigilance is necessary not only to counter mischaracterizations but also to ensure that the movement remains anchored in democratic principles, justice, equality, and respect for the rights of all peoples and all individuals. The struggle for Oromo rights is, at its core, a struggle for the right to define one’s own future—and that right must be exercised with the same commitment to justice that the movement demands for itself.
A Timely and Important Contribution
Ultimately, Professor Beyene’s essay raises an important challenge: political accusations should be assessed on the basis of evidence, not presumption. His thoughtful intervention serves as a valuable reminder that discussions about nationalism, self-determination, political rights, and historical justice are best advanced through careful historical analysis, intellectual honesty, and a commitment to factual debate. In that regard, his essay is a timely and important contribution to an ongoing conversation about the future of Ethiopia and the broader Horn of Africa.
As scholars and citizens alike continue to navigate these contested questions, the standard Professor Beyene sets—evidence over assumption, clarity over ambiguity, and intellectual honesty over political convenience—offers a path toward more constructive dialogue. It is a standard worth upholding.
Hambisa Belina
Morgan State University
ORCID | Google Scholar | LinkedIn
The Man Who Would Redefine Ethiopia

Jawar Mohammed’s “Progressive Patriotism” and the Oromo Question: A New Chapter in Ethiopia’s National Story
By Sultan Abda Neja, Ph.D.
—
For much of modern Ethiopian history, the question of who owns the nation has been answered in blood, in policy, and in silence. It is a question that has haunted the Oromo people—Ethiopia’s largest ethnolinguistic community—for generations. Their relationship with the modern Ethiopian state has been shaped by conquest, land dispossession, political exclusion, and cultural marginalization. Yet something is shifting. The old binary of Oromo resistance versus Ethiopian state nationalism is being challenged—not by a soldier, not by a separatist, but by a media-savvy activist-turned-thinker named Jawar Mohammed.
At the heart of this shift is a deceptively simple concept: Progressive Patriotism. It is Jawar’s attempt to articulate a political framework in which Oromo identity and Ethiopian national belonging are not mutually exclusive. It asks a new question: Can Oromo nationalism help redefine Ethiopian nationalism from within?
—
The Long Road from Resistance
To understand the weight of Jawar’s proposition, one must first understand the weight of history. Oromo nationalism did not emerge in a vacuum. It grew out of the expansion and consolidation of the modern Ethiopian state, the incorporation of Oromo territories, and subsequent struggles over land, language, religion, and political representation.
The Ethiopian state-building project, for much of its history, was associated with centralized authority, cultural homogenization, and the marginalization of groups whose languages and political identities differed from those of the ruling elite. The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), founded in 1973, became the most prominent expression of Oromo resistance. But even then, Oromo nationalism was never monolithic. Some advocated independence; others supported multinational federalism, stronger regional autonomy, or a democratic Ethiopian state.
The 1995 Constitution, which formally recognized the rights of nations, nationalities, and peoples—including the right to self-determination up to secession—represented a significant shift. Yet constitutional recognition did not automatically produce democratic governance. The political crisis that culminated in the 2014–2018 protests exposed the limits of the existing order. Oromo protesters mobilized against political exclusion, human rights abuses, and the proposed expansion of Addis Ababa into surrounding Oromia.
Then came 2018. Abiy Ahmed, an Oromo politician, became prime minister. It was a moment of symbolic triumph—an Oromo had reached the highest office in the land. But symbolism, as Jawar would later argue, is not transformation.
—
Jawar’s Intervention: From Resistance to Governance
Jawar Mohammed’s political trajectory—from a fiery activist and media owner to a prominent voice in the debate over Ethiopia’s future—mirrors the broader evolution of Oromo political consciousness. His call for a transition from resistance politics to governance politics, and from ethnonationalism to broader nation-building, represents a significant shift.
In his writings and interviews, Jawar argues that Oromo politics must evolve beyond its traditional oppositional orientation. A movement that has historically defined itself through resistance must now demonstrate its capacity to govern, build institutions, deliver public services, and contribute to national stability. Political legitimacy cannot be sustained indefinitely through historical grievances alone.
This is not to suggest that Jawar asks Oromos to abandon their identity or their legitimate demands. Rather, he challenges the assumption that protecting Oromo interests and building a common Ethiopian political future are mutually exclusive. Given the Oromo people’s demographic significance, geographical position, cultural influence, and historical role in Ethiopia, their political participation is essential to any sustainable project of national reconstruction.
In a recent interview on Kallatti Media, Jawar explained that Ethiopian nationalism should not be understood as an identity or political project owned exclusively by historically dominant groups. Oromos, like other peoples of Ethiopia, have an equal right to define, shape, and participate in the national project. An Oromo can embrace Ethiopian citizenship, contribute to national unity, and take pride in a shared political identity without surrendering Oromo cultural identity or constitutional rights.
From this standpoint, Progressive Patriotism challenges the historical tendency to associate Ethiopian nationalism with cultural assimilation, political centralization, or the dominance of one group. It opens the possibility of an inclusive nationalism in which belonging to Ethiopia does not require becoming less Oromo.
—
The Goobana Question: Heroes, Traitors, and the Politics of Memory
Jawar’s concept of Progressive Patriotism extends beyond constitutional arrangements. It also engages with the politics of memory—specifically, the way political movements construct historical narratives that distinguish heroes from traitors.
In his text, Goobana: The Hero-Traitor Narrative in the Oromo Struggle, Jawar examines how the figure of Goobana Daacee—a historical Oromo figure remembered as a collaborator with Emperor Menelik II and, consequently, a traitor—has been used within the Oromo national movement. The narrative of betrayal, Jawar argues, can serve important political purposes: it mobilizes communities, establishes collective memory, and defines political loyalties.
But when a movement moves from resistance to governance, such narratives become liabilities. A movement operating in opposition can organize its political identity around a clear distinction between the oppressed and the oppressor, resistance and collaboration, liberation and betrayal. A political movement that enters government, however, must negotiate competing interests, govern citizens with different identities, and build institutions that extend beyond its original constituency.
Jawar suggests that political movements may need to move from a resistance narrative toward a governing narrative. Figures previously condemned may be reassessed; figures celebrated may be subjected to new scrutiny. The task, he argues, is not to replace every hero with a traitor, but to create a political culture in which historical disagreements can be examined without becoming grounds for denying citizenship, identity, or political legitimacy.
—
The Abiy Paradox: An Oromo Leader, but an Oromo-Empowering Government?
The question of Oromo ownership of Ethiopian nationalism cannot be separated from the political trajectory of Abiy Ahmed. His rise to power in 2018 symbolized the opportunity to translate Oromo political mobilization into democratic transformation at the national level.
His early reform agenda generated expectations of political liberalization, reconciliation, and greater openness. His government’s peace initiative with Eritrea further strengthened the image of a leader seeking to move beyond longstanding regional hostility. But the subsequent political project—associated with the formation of the Prosperity Party in 2019 and the language of Medemer—proved contentious.
Supporters interpreted Medemer as an attempt to overcome political fragmentation and the limitations of ethnic-based party organization. Critics, including Oromo nationalists, argued that it weakened the political and institutional protections established under multinational federalism. The war in Tigray, the subsequent armed conflicts in other regions, political polarization, and serious allegations of abuses by state and non-state actors exposed the limitations of a political transition that did not produce a broadly accepted democratic settlement.
The broader lesson is that an Oromo’s accession to the center of Ethiopian power does not automatically mean that Oromo nationalism has achieved its democratic objectives. An Oromo-led government is not necessarily an Oromo-empowering government, just as an Ethiopian national identity is not necessarily an exclusionary identity. The decisive issue is the character of the institutions and policies through which political power is exercised.
—
The Critics Speak: Progressive Patriotism Under the Microscope
Jawar’s Progressive Patriotism has not gone unchallenged. Critics from across the political spectrum have raised important questions about its conceptual clarity, its practical implications, and its relationship to the status quo.
Moges Zewdu Teshome argues that Jawar conflates multinational federalism, multicultural federalism, and a multicultural unitary state—distinct institutional arrangements that cannot be resolved simply by democratizing an allegedly flawed constitutional structure. He advocates revisiting the constitutional order, strengthening an inclusive civic identity, and building a political community in which citizenship is not subordinated to ethnic affiliation.
Professor Messay Kebede challenges Jawar’s claim that ethnonationalism has become effectively irreversible, reasoning that political identities and institutions are historically constructed and can therefore change. He proposes democratic or civic nationalism as a more coherent alternative, arguing that inclusive democratic institutions can protect cultural diversity without making ethnic political sovereignty the organizing principle of the state.
Benti Geleta Buli, through a sentiment analysis of Jawar’s proposal, notes that the term “progressive” remains inadequately defined and could become a rhetorical framework that preserves the status quo rather than resolving Ethiopia’s political divisions. He presents constitutional patriotism as a more constructive alternative grounded in shared constitutional values, democratic participation, and inclusive citizenship.
And in my own earlier critique, I argued that Jawar’s distinction between “centripetal” and “centrifugal” political forces unfairly portrays ethnonationalist movements while underemphasizing the historical injustices, assimilationist policies, and authoritarian practices that gave rise to them. Appealing to right-wing Ethiopian nationalists by equating their historical responsibilities with those of ethnonationalist movements risks undermining the legitimate struggles and sacrifices of nations and nationalities, including the Oromo people.
These critiques are not dismissive. They are, in fact, a sign of the seriousness with which Jawar’s intervention is being taken. They demand that Progressive Patriotism move beyond slogan and toward institutional specificity.
—
Toward a Constitutional Patriotism: The Roadmap
If Progressive Patriotism is to become more than a rhetorical compromise, it must be grounded in concrete institutional commitments. One possible way to clarify it is to connect it to constitutional patriotism—attachment to a political community based on shared constitutional principles, democratic institutions, equal citizenship, and fundamental rights rather than ethnic or cultural uniformity.
For Ethiopia, such a framework would require at least five commitments:
1. Meaningful regional self-government and the rights of nations, nationalities, and peoples must be constitutionally protected.
2. Federal and regional governments must be accountable through genuinely competitive political processes and an independent judiciary.
3. Minorities within regional states must enjoy equal citizenship, cultural rights, security, and political participation.
4. National institutions must be accessible to citizens regardless of language, ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation.
5. Disputes over federal authority, regional boundaries, resources, and political representation must be resolved through credible constitutional procedures rather than coercion.
Beyond these constitutional commitments, a pragmatic roadmap for Oromo ownership of Ethiopian nationalism requires several practical steps: protecting political pluralism within Oromo society, democratizing multinational federalism, establishing credible national dialogue, creating effective mechanisms for accountability, promoting an inclusive national historical narrative, and defining Progressive Patriotism institutionally.
It also requires a crucial conceptual separation: national unity must be separated from unconditional support for a government. Citizens should be able to oppose a prime minister, criticize the federal government, or demand constitutional change without being branded enemies of Ethiopia. Likewise, support for Oromo rights should not require unconditional loyalty to an Oromo political organization.
—
The Future of Ethiopian Nationalism: A Shared Project
The most important question, ultimately, is not whether Oromo nationalism should disappear into Ethiopian nationalism or remain permanently opposed to it. It is whether both can be transformed through democratic institutions so that neither requires the political subordination of the other.
Jawar Mohammed’s Progressive Patriotism is an attempt to articulate a framework in which ethnic identity and shared national belonging can coexist. Its credibility depends on democratic institutions, constitutional protections, political pluralism, and an explicit rejection of coercive assimilation. Abiy Ahmed’s experience illustrates the dangers of attempting to build national cohesion by weakening the political forces and constitutional guarantees through which historically marginalized communities sought recognition.
The future of Ethiopian nationalism will depend on whether the country can build a political community in which unity is freely sustained rather than coercively imposed, ethnic identities are protected rather than demonized, and national citizenship is shared rather than monopolized.
Oromo nationalism’s most consequential contribution to Ethiopia may ultimately be its capacity to help transform Ethiopian nationalism from an inherited claim of state authority into a genuinely shared project of democratic citizenship. That is the promise of Progressive Patriotism. Whether it becomes a reality depends not on the eloquence of its advocates, but on the institutions through which it is enacted—and on the willingness of all Ethiopians, Oromo and non-Oromo alike, to engage in the difficult, patient work of democratic negotiation.
The question is no longer whether the Oromo belong to Ethiopia. The question is what kind of Ethiopia can belong equally to Oromos and all other citizens. The answer, if it comes, will not be found in slogans or in the shadow of a single leader. It will be found in the constitution, in the ballot box, and in the everyday practice of citizenship.
—
Sultan Abda Neja, Ph.D., is a political analyst and author specializing in Ethiopian politics, federalism, and ethnonationalism. His work has appeared in Borkena and other outlets.
The full article can be accessed:
The Irony of Faisal Roble’s Attack on Oromo Nationalism: A History of Somali Expansionism

By Asfaw Beyene
I was taken aback by recent comments from two prominent political commentators of Somali ethnicity, Farah Maalim and Faisal Roble, both associated with Nairobi’s political circles. My focus here is on the remarks made by Faisal Roble.
In an interview with a media outlet unfamiliar to me, Faisal Roble expressed concern about what he described as the growing number of “ultra-nationalists” among the Oromo. He claimed that these nationalists had become so numerous, indeed, “huge” in number, that the phenomenon posed a danger to Ethiopia.
He then asked why Oromo nationalists had become so radicalized, suggesting that the movement’s supposed extremism might be explained by its being relatively new and youthful. As evidence of what he called the “pervasive” nature of Oromo nationalism, he alleged that Oromo nationalists were making territorial claims extending as far as Mogadishu, Djibouti, Yemen, Kenya, and Eritrea.
By the time I finished listening to the interview, I found myself wondering whether Faisal Roble had confused Somali ultra-nationalists with Oromo nationalists. Nearly every characteristic he attributed to Oromo nationalism seemed far more applicable to the historical record of Somali expansionist nationalism.
His argument deserves careful examination.
The Contradictions in Faisal Roble’s Argument
First, the history of radical nationalism in the Horn of Africa cannot be discussed without examining Somali expansionism. Somali nationalism has a long and complicated history. Its expansionist manifestations, particularly the ideology of Greater Somalia, contributed to regional wars, territorial disputes, and political instability. Somalia’s own experience with authoritarian rule, civil war, and state collapse demonstrates the destructive potential of nationalism when it becomes inseparable from territorial ambition and political exclusion.
It would be simplistic to attribute Somalia’s decades of instability entirely to nationalism. Nevertheless, the historical consequences of expansionist and pervasive Somali nationalism are too significant to ignore.
Second, Faisal Roble describes Oromo nationalism as a danger to Ethiopia. This assertion raises a fundamental question: a danger to which Ethiopia? If Oromo nationalism seeks equality, self-determination, political representation, and the protection of Oromo rights, it can be considered a danger only to a political order that refuses to recognize those rights.
A political movement demanding justice for a historically marginalized people should not automatically be characterized as extremist. The distinction between legitimate national aspirations and exclusionary ultra-nationalism is essential.
Third, Faisal portrays Oromo nationalism as a new and youthful phenomenon.
This reflects a troubling misunderstanding of Oromo history. The historical roots of Oromo collective identity, political institutions, resistance, and struggles over sovereignty extend back centuries. The Oromo played a major role in the political transformations of the Horn of Africa during the sixteenth century, long before the emergence of the modern Ethiopian state.
Modern Oromo nationalism took shape through subsequent historical experiences, particularly the incorporation of Oromo territories into the expanding Ethiopian Empire during the nineteenth century. To describe Oromo nationalism simply as a new movement is to overlook this long historical trajectory.
Fourth, Faisal alleges that Oromo nationalists claim territories extending to Mogadishu, Djibouti, Yemen, Kenya, and Eritrea. This is perhaps the most extraordinary part of his argument. I have yet to encounter a credible statement by a recognized Oromo political party, organization, or prominent nationalist leader asserting territorial claims over Mogadishu, Yemen, Eritrea, or Djibouti.
If Faisal possesses such evidence, he should present it. Which Oromo political organization has made these claims? When were they made? In what official document or public statement? Without such evidence, these allegations amount to a sweeping and potentially inflammatory misrepresentation of Oromo nationalism.
The irony is striking: the territorial ambitions he attributes to Oromo nationalists bear a much closer resemblance to the historically documented ideology of Greater Somalia. This leads to a more important question: Why has Faisal Roble chosen this moment to launch such an attack on Oromo nationalism? To explore that question, we must examine the emerging political connections between Nairobi, Mogadishu, and Jijjiga.
The Nairobi–Mogadishu–Jijjiga Nexus
Recent political developments in the Horn of Africa raise questions about the relationships among Somali nationalist networks, political actors in Somalia, and political movements operating within Ethiopia’s Somali Region. Nairobi has long served as an important center for Somali political, commercial, and diaspora activity. Its significance as a meeting place for politicians, businesspeople, and opposition figures is well established. However, the existence of these networks does not, by itself, establish that they operate under a coordinated political agenda.
What concerns me is the possibility that certain political actors are attempting to exploit regional tensions, territorial disputes, and opposition alliances to advance a renewed expansionist agenda. This concern becomes particularly important when viewed alongside recent political developments in Ethiopia and the changing alliances among armed and opposition movements.
The Minnesota Fraud Cases and the Nairobi Connection
Recent federal fraud prosecutions in Minnesota have also drawn attention to the movement of stolen public funds into overseas investments, including real estate in Kenya. Among the individuals named in connection with these cases, several of them have investments in Nairobi realestate. The diversion of funds intended to feed vulnerable children is deeply disturbing. Such misconduct betrays taxpayers’ trust, harms the communities these programs were designed to serve, and unfairly tarnishes the reputation of the many honest, hardworking Somali Americans who have contributed to their communities and American society. Criminal responsibility rests with the individuals involved and should never be generalized to an entire ethnic or immigrant community. Nevertheless, for Oromos and Kenyans, reports of property acquisitions by individuals indicted in the Minnesota fraud cases, in a city (Nairobi) where allegations of a nonexistent Oromo ultranationalist movement have suddenly surfaced, raise legitimate concerns. This does not imply any connection between those implicated in Minnesota and political figures in Nairobi. Rather, the broader question is whether illicit financial networks, political influence, and regional nationalist agendas intersect in ways that warrant further investigation.
The ONLF and the Changing Political Alliances in Ethiopia
In September 2026, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) was reported to have joined a coalition known as the Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival, bringing together seven armed and opposition organizations opposed to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration.
The ONLF has historically pursued Somali self-determination in Ethiopia’s Somali Region. Its political trajectory must also be understood in the context of the broader history of Somali nationalism and the territorial disputes that have shaped relations between Ethiopia and Somalia. The changing fortunes of opposition alliances, including those associated with the TPLF, may have created opportunities for other political movements to reposition themselves.
I am particularly concerned that some advocates of Somali expansionist nationalism may see these developments as an opportunity to revive older territorial ambitions. Faisal Roble’s political commentary and Farah Maalim’s reported statements about support for the ONLF deserve examination in this context, despite political sympathy for an organization should not be confused with proof of operational involvement in its activities. The critical issue is whether opposition to the Ethiopian government is being used to advance legitimate political demands or to reopen territorial conflicts between neighboring communities.
Moyale, Borana, and the Politics of Territorial Expansion
Recent tensions around Moyale and Borana territory have intensified these concerns. Moyale lies in a historically sensitive borderland where Oromo and Somali communities, including Borana and Garri populations, have longstanding relationships shaped by trade, migration, political competition, and periodic conflict.
Reports of violence, including the alleged killing of a 13-year-old girl and the reported refusal to return her body to her family, are deeply disturbing. These allegations demand an independent investigation, accountability, and justice for the victim’s family. No territorial or political dispute can justify the killing of a child. This is extreme nationalism in action.
Of particular concern are reports that a Somali national flag, rather than the flag of Ethiopia’s Somali Regional State, was raised in contested territory. If verified, such an act would carry political significance extending beyond an ordinary local dispute. It would raise questions about whether the conflict was being framed in terms of Somali national territorial ambitions rather than local administrative boundaries. This is why I do not believe the tensions should be dismissed simply as a dispute between the Garri and Borana communities both of whom are Oromos and both of whom speak Oromo language. There is a larger historical and political context that deserves examination.
The timing of Faisal Roble’s remarks, following heightened tensions and Oromo reactions to events in the area, is striking. His criticism of Oromo nationalism appears to reflect a broader political anxiety about Oromo resistance to territorial encroachment. Whether this interpretation is correct requires further evidence. Nevertheless, it provides a compelling reason to examine the historical record of Somali expansionist nationalism.
Greater Somalia: The Historical Irony
Perhaps the greatest irony in Faisal Roble’s accusations is that the territorial expansionism he attributes to Oromo nationalists closely resembles the ideology of Greater Somalia. The Greater Somalia project was not an imaginary accusation invented by political opponents. It was an explicit political objective promoted by extreme Somali nationalist movements and successive Somali governments. Its central ambition was to unite Somali-inhabited territories across the Horn of Africa under a single political entity. This included the Somali Republic, the Ogaden and other Somali-inhabited territories of Ethiopia, the Northern Frontier District of Kenya, and Djibouti. The five-pointed star on Somalia’s flag historically symbolized these five Somali territories.
Under Siad Barre, this ideology became closely associated with military expansionism and the attempt to alter established international borders by force. Thus, the history of Somali ultra-nationalism is not merely a history of territorial ambition. It is also a warning about the destructive consequences of authoritarianism, militarization, and exclusionary political identity.
Against this historical background, Faisal Roble’s portrayal of Oromo nationalism as uniquely expansionist becomes especially difficult to understand.
The Western Somali Liberation Front and the Ogaden War
The Western Somali Liberation Front (WSLF) provides one of the clearest historical examples of ultra nationalism and the territorial objectives associated with Greater Somalia. Supported by the Somali government, the WSLF operated in eastern Ethiopia and played a significant role in the conflict that culminated in the 1977 – 1978 Ogaden War. The name Western Somali Liberation Front itself reflected a territorial conception in which parts of internationally recognized Ethiopian territory were regarded as belonging to a broader Somali nation.
During the war, Somali forces advanced into substantial portions of eastern Ethiopia before being defeated by Ethiopian forces. The conflict had devastating consequences for the region and its civilian populations, the broader military campaign and associated political movements affected Oromo communities and territories. But the central point is undeniable: territorial revisionism was an explicit component of the Greater Somalia project, manifested as ultra nationalism. These fanatical adventures to alter boarders by force led to the disintegration of the Somali state apparatus and the mushrooming of warlords.
Where, then, is the equivalent documented Oromo nationalist program claiming Mogadishu, Yemen, or Eritrea? If Faisal Roble wishes to make that comparison, the burden of evidence rests with him.
From the WSLF to the ONLF
The decline of the WSLF and the emergence of the ONLF marked an important transformation in Somali nationalist politics in Ethiopia. The ONLF emerged in the 1980s and eventually became a major political and armed organization advocating self-determination for ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia. Although the ONLF and WSLF differed in their organizational structures, political circumstances, and stated objectives, their histories are connected to the broader question of Somali national identity and political sovereignty in the Horn of Africa.
The relationship between Somali nationalist movements and Oromo liberation organizations has also been complex. At different times, their interests have converged around opposition to Ethiopian central governments. At other times, territorial competition, political rivalry, and conflicting national aspirations have generated serious tensions. Historical attacks of Somali extremists on Oromo liberation figures, including the 10 massacred at Shinniga in 1980 have deeply saddened the Oromo people, leaving a historical scar. Faisal shall pour no more fuel to these historic wounds and respect the brotherly sentiment that existed between Oromos and Somalis for centuries.
The Somali Abo Liberation Front and the Struggle Over Oromo Territory
During the 1970s, the Somali government supported extremist Somali movements operating in southern Ethiopia, including areas historically associated with the provinces of Bale, Sidamo, and Arsi. These regions were primarily inhabited by Oromo populations. The SALF mobilized some communities in these areas to suit Somalia’s regional political and military objectives. Unlike the WSLF, which focused primarily on Somali national claims in eastern Ethiopia, the SALF’s activities extended into areas where Oromo identity and political aspirations were central. It was a clear expansionist and extremist move to annex some Oromo territories including the Garri.
Following Somalia’s defeat in the Ogaden War, the Oromo Abo Liberation Front (OALF) emerged reflecting changing political identities and alliances. The precise organizational relationship between the SALF and OALF, including claims about formal renaming and changes in political affiliation, remain beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, the broader history illustrates an important point: Somali state-sponsored political and military movements were active in territories inhabited by Oromo communities, and the growing national aspirations of Somali extremism was already evident decades ago.
This is the historical context in which false accusations of Oromo territorial expansionism must be evaluated. It is important to note that out of such piles of political extremism was born Al-Shabaab, whose emergence was also shaped by a different mix of ideology, state collapse, and extremist politics. There simply are no parallels to such extremism in the Oromo body politics, reason why Faisal’s statement itself comes as extreme.
Who Is Really Promoting Expansionist Nationalism?
Faisal Roble’s comments raise questions that cannot be avoided. Why are political commentators such as Faisal Roble and Farah Maalim devoting so much attention to the alleged dangers of Oromo nationalism while appearing less concerned about the documented history of Somali territorial expansionism? Why portray Oromo demands for political rights and territorial security as extremist while failing to apply the same scrutiny to the ideology of Greater Somalia? And why should Oromo opposition to perceived territorial encroachment be interpreted as radicalization rather than as a legitimate concern about security, identity, and political rights?
These questions are especially important given the continuing challenges facing Somalia itself.
Somalia has struggled for decades with state fragmentation, armed insurgency, political instability, and the difficulty of establishing effective authority across its territory. Regional and international assistance, including sacrifices made by Ethiopian forces, has played a significant role in efforts to restore security. I have no doubt that many of these forces come from Oromia.
Rather than reopening old territorial disputes, political leaders and commentators should devote greater attention to peace, accountable governance, economic development, and cooperation among the peoples of the Horn of Africa.
This is not an argument against Somali nationalism as an expression of cultural identity or legitimate political aspiration. Nor is it a criticism of Somali people, whose communities have suffered enormously from war, displacement, and political instability. It is an argument against expansionist ultra-nationalism, regardless of who promotes it.
Conclusion: The Danger of Historical Amnesia
Faisal Roble’s criticism of Oromo nationalism suffers from a fundamental contradiction. He warns against an alleged Oromo expansionist movement without identifying credible evidence of the extraordinary territorial claims he attributes to it. Yet the historical record contains extensive documentation of Somali nationalist movements that openly pursued territorial revisionism across the Horn of Africa.
The Greater Somalia project, the WSLF, the Ogaden War, and the history of Somali-backed political movements in southern Ethiopia are not matters of speculation. They are part of the region’s political history.
None of this means that Oromo nationalism should be exempt from criticism. Any nationalist movement can become intolerant, exclusionary, or extremist. Oromo nationalism, like every other political movement, should be judged by its principles, conduct, and respect for the rights of others. But criticism must be grounded in evidence, not sweeping accusations or historical distortions.
If Faisal Roble believes that Oromo nationalists are claiming Mogadishu, Yemen, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Kenya, he should identify the organizations, leaders, statements, and documents that substantiate his allegations. Until then, his claims remain unsupported.
The peoples of the Horn of Africa have suffered enough from territorial wars, political manipulation, and competing nationalist ambitions. They deserve a future based on mutual recognition, historical honesty, and respect for one another’s rights. The real danger to Ethiopia and the wider Horn of Africa is not the legitimate expression of Oromo or Somali national identity. It is the revival of expansionist ideologies that treat the territories and rights of neighboring peoples as objects of political conquest. That is the danger Faisal Roble should be addressing rather than projecting onto Oromo nationalism the very expansionist tendencies that have already caused so much suffering in the region.
The Pen and the Sword: Remembering Jaal Kumsaa Buraayyuu, a Titan of the Oromo Struggle

By Dhabessa Wakjira
In the long and arduous history of the Oromo people’s struggle for self-determination, the weapons of resistance have not only been rifles and guerrilla tactics; they have also been the pen, the novel, and the printing press. On July 15, 2025, the Oromo nation lost one of its most formidable intellectual warriors. Jaal Kumsaa Buraayyuu (Kumsa Burayu Balo)—a prominent nationalist, author, journalist, and political activist—passed away, leaving behind a monumental legacy that fundamentally shaped Oromo literature and political consciousness.
His life was a testament to the power of words in the face of state repression. From the rural heartlands of East Wallagga to the global stage of international exile, Kumsaa Buraayyuu dedicated his life to ensuring that the Oromo story was not just preserved, but weaponized for liberation.
Forging a Cultural Renaissance
Born in November 1969 in the Horro Guduru zone of East Wallagga, Oromia, Kumsaa grew up immersed in the rich oral traditions and cultural heritage of his people. This early exposure to indigenous knowledge would become the bedrock of his later work.
The 1990s were a pivotal time for Ethiopia. As the brutal Derg regime collapsed, Kumsaa Buraayyuu emerged as a pioneering voice in the Oromo cultural recovery movement. In 1993, he authored Suuraa Abdii (The Picture of Hope), one of the earliest and most influential novels written in Afaan Oromo. The novel was not just a work of fiction; it was a searing, critical examination of the oppressive realities of the Derg regime. For a people whose language and history had been systematically marginalized, Suuraa Abdii was a radical act of reclaiming identity.
Furthermore, Kumsaa was an early and fierce advocate for the expansion of Afaan Oromo literacy using the Qubee (Latin) script. Recognizing that a language is the lifeblood of a culture, he championed the written word as the primary vehicle for Oromo emancipation.
The Cost of Truth
Kumsaa’s literary brilliance was matched by his journalistic courage. In 1993, he co-founded the Madda Walaabuu publishing and advertisement organization, which became a vital hub for Oromo intellectual thought. He also served as an editor for early Oromo political and cultural magazines, most notably Odolee.
Through these platforms, Kumsaa provided a space for Oromo voices that the state wanted silenced. But speaking truth to power in Ethiopia carries a heavy price. Because of his relentless work and his advocacy for Oromo rights, Kumsaa faced severe political persecution and imprisonment under the incoming EPRDF regime. The state recognized what many already knew: his ideas were a threat to their centralized, hegemonic control.
Exile and the Unyielding Struggle
Faced with the impossibility of continuing his work safely within Ethiopia, Kumsaa was forced to flee in 1996. After a brief period in Djibouti, he resettled in Australia in 1997. Yet, for a true patriot, exile is not a retreat; it is merely a change of battleground.
From his new home in the Global South, Kumsaa Buraayyuu remained highly active in the political struggle. He joined the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF/ABO), dedicating his strategic mind to the cause. From 1998 to 2009, he served as a senior OLF official and led the OLF South Pacific branches, organizing and mobilizing the Oromo diaspora across Australia and New Zealand.
In an era where the Ethiopian government and its allies actively abused their influence in international media and institutions to demonize the Oromo people and their organizations, Kumsaa’s diplomatic and journalistic work in the Pacific region became an essential counter-narrative. He understood that the struggle for Oromia had to be fought simultaneously in the homeland and in the halls of international opinion.
A Legacy that Breathes
Jaal Kumsaa Buraayyuu was a bridge between the traditional oral historians of the past and the modern, globalized digital activists of the future. He understood that the Gadaa system, the ancient democratic governance model of the Oromo, was not just a relic of history, but a guiding philosophy for a better future—one rooted in human security, compromise, and consensus.
His passing on July 15, 2025, is a profound loss to the Oromo nation. He leaves behind a generation of writers, readers, and activists who were inspired by Suuraa Abdii and who learned the Qubee script through his advocacy.
Though Kumsaa Buraayyuu is gone, the “picture of hope” he painted through his life’s work remains. He proved that while the state can imprison the body, it can never imprison the Afaan Oromo language, nor the indomitable spirit of the people who speak it.
May his memory be a blessing, and may his legacy continue to fuel the fight for freedom, justice, and self-determination for generations of Oromos to come.




