Hi Defend,
If Elias allows us to do a word search for constitution and constitutionalism on this site, I don't think anyone can beat me on campaigning for the constitutionalism. We also need to remember that the Tigray War is also partly a result of constitutional crisis.
DefendTheTruth wrote: ↑03 Aug 2024, 06:05
I was the first on this forum in questioning the validity of Fano's use of force to reclaim "its lost territory"
I know you personally were against unconstitutional annexation of Tigrayan territories. But I am approaching the Fano vs Amhara Regional Government issue methodically. Fano is not holding other region's territory by force. It is the "legal" government of Amhara that is unconstitutionally holding territories of other regions. It is even acting against the constitution of Amhara Region. Why? Because it believes 'might is right'. Now, can
this government accuse Fano of acting illegally? Can a government that prides itself in acting unconstitutionally and illegally, accuse Fano of being unconstitutional and illegal?
Can this government lecture Fano on acting legally?
The Federal Government agreed to return its relationship with Tigray to constitutional order, and to remove Amhara Regional Government forces from illegally occupying parts of Tigray
concurrently with Tigray handing over heavy weapons. A year and half after Tigray handed over heavy weapons per the agreement, the Federal Government has not performed its tasks as per the agreement. Amhara Regional government is still illegally occupying Tigray with the support of the Federal Government. Can the Amhara Regional Government and the Federal Government really have moral high ground over Fano on legality and constitutional rule?