Electoral administration, Constitutional Territorial Integrity of National Regional States , and institutional sequencing in the Ethiopian Federal system : Constitutional inquiry and reflection on SIMRET V. NEBE

This Constitutional inquiry and reflection deals with the issues that intersects Constitutional and administrative law ,issues that arise from and are associated with SIMRET v. National Election Board of Ethiopia(here in after SIMRET v. NEBE).Despite the withdrawal of the case before the final decision , it remains essential to examine the critical constitutional and statutory questions regarding territory and autonomy of constituent units of the Federation, and the legal and competency limits on electoral administration under the Ethiopian Federal Constitutional system. The reflection clarifies the concept of constitutional territorial integrity of regional states as a framework for understanding the legal status of inter-state boundaries and the constitutionally entrenched territorial allocation of the Federation under the FDRE Constitution. It suggests that these boundaries are constitutionally established, linked to identity, and can only be changed through strict constitutional procedures, particularly those outlined in Articles 46 to 48, in conjunction with Articles 2, 39, and 50. As such, this underlines that FDRE federalism has large territorial dimension and operates under a principle of institutional sequencing that requires a constitutional presumption or the occurrence of territorial determination before an administrative implementation, in case a dispute arises.Any departure from this sequence not merely constitutes an administrative injustice and irregularity ,but a breach of constitutional structure.When a breach of such kind happens, restoring constitutionally established territorial arrangements and following the constitutionally required procedures for territorial determination is vital for maintaining electoral legitimacy, ensuring institutional competence, and preserving the structural integrity of Ethiopia’s federal constitutional order. To this end, the paper reflects that constitutional restoration can be enabled through vigorous judicial protection of constitutional rights and by controlling ultra -vires administrative action and administrative unilateralism.By applying this framework to the SIMRET v. NEBE dispute, the analysis shows the constitutional and statutory limits on electoral administration and how the case reveals fundamental tensions between electoral administration and extra-legal territorial characterization-classification-allocation, especially when administrative decisions impact constituencies whose territorial status has not been determined through constitutionally required procedures.The paper further strengthens its arguments by referencing to the FDRE Federal Supreme court Cassation bench decision on NEBE V. Harrari National Congress ,which explicates the limits of electoral administrative authority and confirms that the election Board must implement the established constitutional and statutory frameworks rather than reinterpret or suspend them. Additionally, the discussion includes comparative constitutional jurisprudence, to place Ethiopia’s federal constitutional design within a larger constitutional theory concerning the issues of institutional limits and structural stability.The analysis also engages with competing historical narratives about territorial claims and disputes, with particular focus to contests in Amhara and Tigray regions. In so doing, it shows that ,while the narratives might have historical importance, they do not hold doctrinal weight within the existing constitutional order, which is shaped by a constitutional rupture and legal reconstitution after 1991 to 1995.