Liberal Party in Turmoil: Angus Taylor Elected Opposition Leader as Susan Lee Announces Retirement from Politics
By Hayyuu Oromia
Feature News
In a stunning political realignment that has sent shockwaves through Australia’s political landscape, Angus Taylor has been elected as the new leader of the Liberal Party and Opposition, decisively defeating Susan Lee in a 34–17 vote of the Liberal Party room. The result, which hands Taylor a commanding 17-vote margin, marks the first time in the Liberal Party’s history that a woman leader has been ousted and effectively compelled to exit public life altogether.
Ms Lee, who made history as the first female leader of the federal Liberal Party, has announced she will tender her resignation to the Speaker and retire from Parliament entirely—bringing a definitive close to a political career that once held the promise of breaking the nation’s highest glass ceiling.
The Numbers That Shifted
According to sources within the party room who spoke to SBS News on condition of anonymity, Taylor secured 37 votes from the 51-member Liberal Party room—a commanding majority that reflected not merely his own support base but a significant cross-over of former Lee loyalists.
“Some of Susan’s own people crossed the floor in that room,” one senior Liberal source said. “That’s what made the margin so devastating. It wasn’t just that Angus won. It was that her own tent had holes she hadn’t seen coming.”
The 34–17 count among voting members represented not merely a defeat but a collapse. For a sitting leader—particularly one who had broken historical ground—to lose by such a margin signaled deep fractures that had been concealed beneath public displays of unity.
‘I Don’t Know What Comes Next’
Emerging from the party room, Ms Lee appeared composed but visibly somber as she addressed waiting journalists. Her statement was brief, personal, and delivered with the restraint of a politician accustomed to public composure—yet carrying undertones of finality.
“I will be tendering my resignation letter to the Speaker,” she said. “I don’t know what comes next. I intend to spend time with my family—to withdraw entirely from public life.”
There was no pledge to contest again. No hint of a return. No fight for redemption. In a matter of sentences, Australia’s most senior female Liberal parliamentarian signaled the quiet close of a chapter that many had hoped would span years.
Colleagues who spoke with her afterward described a woman at peace with her decision, if not the circumstances that precipitated it.
“She wasn’t angry,” one longtime ally said. “She was tired. There’s a difference between being defeated and being done. Susan was done.”
Taylor’s Challenge: Unity Without Concession
For Angus Taylor, the victory presents both opportunity and immediate pressure. Assuming the leadership of a divided party room requires more than numbers; it demands the ability to heal wounds he did not create but from which he has now benefited.
Taylor’s supporters characterize him as a seasoned economic manager with the gravitas to hold the government to account. His detractors—including some who voted for him—wonder whether the manner of his ascension will haunt his early tenure.
“He didn’t just win. He won because Susan’s people abandoned her,” a Liberal moderate said. “That creates expectations. It creates resentments. And it creates questions about what promises were made behind closed doors.”
Taylor himself has not commented on the internal dynamics of the vote, issuing a brief statement thanking his colleagues and paying tribute to Ms Lee’s “historic leadership and dedicated service to the party and the nation.”
The First Woman Curse?
Ms Lee’s departure renews uncomfortable questions within the Liberal Party about its relationship with women leaders—and the political price they appear to pay for occupying the role.
She is the third woman to lead the federal Liberal partyroom, following the tenures of Julie Bishop, who never led the party to an election and was deposed before contesting one, and Tony Abbott’s single term. But Lee’s case is distinct: she was elected leader, contested an election, and was removed before she could lead the party to a second.
“She did what she was asked to do,” a former staffer reflected. “She stabilised the party. She made them competitive again. And this is how it ends—not with a loss at the ballot box, but with her own colleagues deciding they’d seen enough.”
The contrast with Labor’s treatment of female leaders—Julia Gillard was removed by her party, but contested again and remained in Parliament—has not gone unnoticed. Lee’s immediate and total exit suggests a rupture beyond ordinary leadership defeat.
What Remains
Ms Lee’s departure leaves a vacuum not only in the Liberal Party’s leadership but in its parliamentary ranks. Her seat, considered reasonably safe, will trigger a closely watched by-election that will serve as an early referendum on the Taylor leadership and the government’s standing.
For the Liberal Party, the challenge is immediate: present a coherent alternative to a government seeking re-election, while managing the fallout of removing—and effectively retiring—a leader who broke barriers but could not hold her ground.
For Ms Lee, the future is deliberately undefined. “I don’t know what comes next,” she said. For a woman who spent decades knowing exactly what came next—policy briefings, media appearances, late sittings, electorate events—that uncertainty is itself a form of liberation.
Whether it is also a loss—for her party, for women in politics, for the institution of Parliament itself—will be debated long after she has cleared her office and returned to the private life she has briefly, poignantly claimed as her next act.
Ethiopia’s Strategic Crossroads: When Criticism Blurs the Line Between Government and Nation
By Maatii Sabaa
Feature News
In the high-stakes arena of the Horn of Africa, where geopolitics shifts like tectonic plates beneath ancient soils, a troubling pattern has emerged in Ethiopia’s opposition discourse—one that increasingly conflates personal grievances against a sitting prime minister with the nation’s enduring strategic interests.
Over the past several days, Jawar Mohammed, once a close ally of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and now one of his most prominent critics, has launched a series of attacks against Ethiopia’s posture toward the deepening crisis in neighboring Sudan. His criticism, while occasionally resting on isolated facts, appears to systematically strip those facts of their broader strategic context—reducing complex national security calculations to evidence of government incompetence or malice.
The distinction being lost, critics argue, is one upon which stable democracies are built: the difference between the party in power and the state itself.
Facts Without Context: The Strategic Vacuum
Some of the reports circulated by Mohammed and his associates may be factually accurate in their narrowest sense. Ethiopia has indeed sought to protect its strategic interests amid Sudan’s collapse. It has engaged with actors on the ground. It has not adopted the posture of a passive observer.
Yet to present these moves as evidence of strategic folly—without reference to the regional power competition, Ethiopia’s existential stake in Sudanese stability, or the active interventions of other external actors—is to substitute selective outrage for sober analysis.
“The tragedy unfolding in Sudan is indeed exacerbated by foreign intervention,” one regional analyst noted, speaking on condition of anonymity. “But Ethiopia is hardly unique in pursuing its interests. What’s unique is Ethiopia’s vulnerability.”
No country in the region, and perhaps few beyond it, stands to lose more from a permanently destabilized Sudan. Ethiopia shares a 744-kilometer border with its northern neighbor. It hosts hundreds of thousands of Sudanese refugees. Its access to critical trade routes, its management of transboundary water resources, and its exposure to cross-border armed group proliferation are all directly implicated in Sudan’s trajectory.
Egypt and other regional actors are not neutral mediators. They have been actively shaping the conflict’s trajectory to favor preferred belligerents. To suggest that Ethiopia should operate as though this were not the case—or that acknowledging these realities somehow constitutes aggression—reflects what one foreign policy specialist described as “an aversion to the very language of national security.”
The Luxury of Abstraction
Mohammed positions himself as a politician-activist, a hybrid role that in theory could bridge grassroots mobilization and high-level policy engagement. But his recent posture suggests discomfort with the hard currency of statecraft: strategic interest, national security, geopolitical positioning.
In the Horn of Africa—a region defined by proxy competition, transboundary militant threats, and zero-sum maneuvering among rival states—such discomfort is not a virtue. It is a liability.
“States do not have the luxury of moral abstraction when core national interests are at stake,” said a former Ethiopian diplomat who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “You can critique how a government pursues those interests. You can propose alternative strategies. But to pretend that Ethiopia should have no strategy at all—or to frame every strategic move as evidence of malign intent simply because it originates from this prime minister—is not analysis. It’s partisan grievance dressed in policy language.”
The pattern has raised concerns among observers who note that Mohammed, widely believed to harbor ambitions for higher office, appears to be adopting what one analyst termed a “scorched-earth posture” not merely toward the Abiy administration but toward the Ethiopian state itself.
Governments Change. Geography Doesn’t.
This conflation carries implications beyond the immediate policy debates.
Governments are transient. Parties rise and fall. But strategic geography is stubborn. Ethiopia’s long-term national interests—its access to the sea, the security of its borders, the stability of its neighborhood, the viability of its water security arrangements—will outlast any single administration.
A credible political alternative, analysts argue, must demonstrate the capacity to distinguish between the party temporarily in power and the permanent interests of the nation. It must show that it can inherit the state without seeking to dismantle it.
“Thus far, Jawar has shown a near-pathological inability to make that distinction,” said Meheret Ayenew, a political scientist at Addis Ababa University. “The criticism never stops at the government. It bleeds into delegitimization of the state’s very right to defend its interests. That’s not opposition. That’s something else entirely.”
The Accountability Question
To be clear: critique of government policy is not only legitimate but essential. Ethiopia’s approach to the Sudan crisis, like any foreign policy posture, warrants scrutiny. Questions about coordination, consistency, and effectiveness are fair game.
But critique demands an alternative framework. What, precisely, should Ethiopia be doing differently? Should it abandon its engagement in Sudan entirely? Should it defer to Cairo’s preferred outcomes? Should it pretend that its national security is not implicated in the fate of its neighbor?
These questions, conspicuously absent from Mohammed’s recent broadsides, are the ones that distinguish serious opposition from performance.
Beyond the Immediate
The tragedy in Sudan has already claimed thousands of lives and displaced millions. For Ethiopia, the stakes are not abstract. They involve real security threats, real economic costs, and real humanitarian obligations that will persist regardless of who sits in the prime minister’s office in Addis Ababa.
In such moments, the distinction between government and state matters. A political culture that cannot sustain that distinction is one that struggles to produce durable alternatives—only perpetual opposition.
Whether Mohammed and his allies can evolve beyond this posture remains to be seen. But the clock is ticking. The region does not pause for Ethiopia to resolve its internal political debates.
And strategic interests, neglected or denied, have a way of asserting themselves regardless.
Akkamitti Korri Lammii Buundhaa Aadaa Oromoo Cimsuuf Ta’e?
Kora Lammii akka Dirree Sabaatti: Akkamitti Korri Lammii Buundhaa Hundee Tokkummaa Aadaa Oromoof Mootora Ta’e
Amboo Ejersaatti Korri Lammii Buundhaa ardaalee Jaha jiraniif Aadaa fi Safuu Cimsuuf Ta’e
AMBO EJERSA, OROMIA — Dirree aduudhaan jiidhe naannoo Boojii irratti, sagaleen sirba kora lammii Buundhaa waa’ee eenyummaa fi duudhaalee callisaa, gadi fagoo ta’e waliin walsimsiisaa jira. Wanti akka jalqabbiilammii keessaatti jalqabe gara taatee hawaasaa guddaatti guddateera, korri lammii haaromsa aadaa wajjin haala wal hin tuqneen wal makaa jira.
Dorgommiin Kora Lammii Amboo Ejersaa dargaggoota Oromoo ardaalee adda addaa ja’a: Itayyaa, Amboo, Meexxii, Maatiii, Waddeessaa, fi Shanan irraa walitti fiduun milkaa’inaan walitti fiduun isaa ni yaadatama. Walga’iin isaanii walgahii caalaa; itti yaadanii gocha hawaasummaa deebi’anii walitti hidhamuudha. Kaayyoon giddu-galeessaa, akkuma hirmaattotaa fi qindeessitoonni walqixa ibsaman, waancaa bira darbee kan babal’atudha: Korri lammii aadaa aadaa (aadaa) fi safuu (seera naamusaa fi naamusaa) Oromoo cimsuuf akkamitti humna cimaa ta’uu akka danda’u qorachuuf yaalii walooti.
“Kaayyoon waltajjii marii uumuu ture,” jechuun qindeessaan korichaa ibseera. “Goolii fi qusannaa qofaaf osoo hin taane, haasa’uuf, dhaggeeffachuu fi eenyu akka taane yaadachuuf. Humna korichaa fayyadamuun waa’ee bu’uuraalee keenyaa marii boba’aa jirra.”
Mul’ata kanaaf dhugaa ta’ee, cinaa fi iddoowwan hawaasaa naannoo dirree jiran gara waltajjii marii boonsaatti jijjiiramaniiru-marii hawaasaa bal’aa, gadi fageenya qabu. Maanguddoonni, daawwattoonnis hojiirra oolmaa qabatamaa safuu jireenya ammayyaa keessatti, kunuunsa afaanii fi seenaa afaaniin dubbatamu, akkasumas gahee dargaggoonni akka guca aadaatti qaban irratti ofumaan marii irratti bobba’aa jiru.
”Korri Lammii kun maagneetiidha, garuu haasofni kun qabeenya dhugaati,” jedhan jaarsi buleeyyiin yeroo akeeka isaa ibsan. “Miseensi Kora Lammii Waddeessaa akaakayyuu Itaayyaa irraa dhufe tokko waliin taa’ee waa’ee kabajaa fi hawaasaa haasa’uu arguun… aadaan akkasitti hafuura baafata. Duudhaaleen kun kitaabota qofa keessatti osoo hin taane, gocha keenya guyyaa guyyaa keessatti akka ta’an akkamitti mirkaneessina.”
Miirri garmalee hirmaattota biratti mul’atu gammachuu fi itti quufinsa gadi fagoodha. ”Hirmaachuuf qofa hin dhufne,” jedhe miseensi Kora Lammii Buundhaa irraa dhufe. “Walqabsiisuuf dhufne. Jarreen kana waliin walarguu, achiis nyaachuu fi booda isaan waliin haasa’uu-dallaa ijaan hin mul’anne ni diiga. Akka ummata tokkootti akka cimnu nu taasisa.”
Miira namoota hedduu kan dhageessisan, hirmaattonni saganticha gaalee Afaan Oromoo humna guddaa qabuun wal irraa hin cinne ibsu: “Korre lammii kun waan haalan nama gammachisuu dha,” hiikni isaas, “Lammummaan hawaasaa kun waan gammachuu gadi fagoo, onnee irraa madde fiduudha.”
Korri Lammii Buundhaa Amboo Ejersaa akka moodeela dirqisiisaa sochii aadaa bu’uuraa ta’ee dhaabbatee jira. Meeshaaleen lubbuu ummata tokkoo kunuunsuuf gargaaran yeroo hunda dhaabbilee idilee keessatti akka hin argamne, garuu jaalala waloo kora lammii, dorgommii fi eenyummaa waliinii irraa maddu akka danda’an agarsiisa. Taphi kora lammii yommuu dhihaatu, injifannoowwan waaraa asitti argaman qabxiidhaan osoo hin taane, walitti hidhamiinsa cimee fi waadaa haaromfameen hambaa Oromoo boonsaan fuulduratti ceesisuuf akka madaalamu ifaadha.
The Goal is Deeper Than the Net: How a Kora Lammii—a community pitch Match Rekindles a Nation’s Soul
Subtitle: In Ambo Ejersa, the beautiful kora lammii—a community pitch Becomes a Classroom for Culture, Proving That Our Strongest Defence is Unity
The scene is familiar—a dusty pitch, the sharp cry of a whistle, the unified gasp of a crowd as a ball soars toward the goal. But in the Boji area of Ambo, the familiar scene is telling a profoundly unfamiliar, and more beautiful, story. Here, the Ambo Ejersa Community gathering has become something far greater than a community gathering. It has transformed into a living, breathing symposium on survival.
Kora Lammii of Buundhaa from Itaya, Ambo, Meti, Machi, Wadesse, and Shanen did not just come to compete. They came to convene. In a world where fragmentation is often the default, these generation chose convergence. They built a kora lammii—a community pitch—and upon it, they are rebuilding a community spirit. The real match is not just between teams; it is a collective struggle against the erosion of identity. The victory they seek is the preservation of their cultural soul: aadaa and safuu.
This is the quiet, revolutionary power of what is happening. In the breaks between matches, in the shade of Odaa tree, the kora lammii gathering organically spawns marii boonsaa—deep, communal dialogues. These are not academic lectures, but urgent, grassroots consultations. How do we practice respect (safuu) in a digital age? How do we wear our culture (aadaa) not as a costume for holidays, but as daily armour against assimilation? The gathering is the ignition; the conversation is the sustainable fire.
What these young people in Boji instinctively understand is a truth many societies grapple with: culture is not a museum artifact. It is a muscle. It atrophies without use. It strengthens under collective strain. By using the universal language of community gathering to strengthening the dispersed chapters of their community, they are creating a gymnasium for their Oromumma. They are exercising their shared identity, passing the weight of tradition from elder to youth, ensuring it does not grow weak.
The palpable joy reported by participants—“waan haalan nama gammachisuu dha” (it is something that brings deep joy)—is the most important metric here. This joy is not merely the thrill of sport. It is the profound relief and empowerment that comes from reconnection. It is the joy of speaking your mother tongue freely in a crowd that understands its nuance. It is the joy of seeing your values reflected in the conduct of your peers—in a fair tackle on the field, in the respectful deference to an elder off it.
In an era where globalized culture often flattens uniqueness, the Ambo Ejersa Buundhaa gathering is an act of gentle defiance. It declares that the future need not be a departure from the past, but a continuation of it, adapted on our own terms. These players are not running away from their heritage to chase modernity; they are sprinting toward a future where their heritage is the foundation of their strength.
The commentary from the sidelines, therefore, should be one of keen observation and high praise. This is grassroots cultural innovation at its finest. The kora lammii gathering is proof that the most effective guardians of a people’s spirit are not always politicians or institutions, but can be its youth, a ball, and a collective will to remember. They have remembered that the most crucial goal to defend is the one protecting their very essence. And in that defense, they are finding not just victory, but a deep and abiding joy.
Borana University Mourns a Beacon of Indigenous Knowledge: Professor Asmarom Legesse
Borana University Mourns a Beacon of Indigenous Knowledge: Professor Asmarom Legesse
(Yabelo, Oromia – February 5, 2026) Borana University, an institution deeply embedded in the cultural landscape it studies, today announced its profound sorrow at the passing of Professor Asmarom Legesse, the preeminent anthropologist whose lifelong scholarship fundamentally defined and defended the indigenous democratic traditions of the Oromo people. The University’s tribute honors the scholar not only as an academic giant but as a “goota” (hero) for the Oromo people and for Africa.
In an official statement, the University highlighted Professor Legesse’s “lifelong dedication to understanding the complexities of Ethiopian society—especially the Gadaa system,” crediting him with leaving “an indelible mark on both the academic and cultural landscapes.” This acknowledgment carries special weight from an institution situated in the heart of the Borana community, whose traditions formed the bedrock of the professor’s most celebrated work.
The tribute detailed the pillars of his academic journey: a Harvard education, esteemed faculty positions at Boston University, Northwestern University, and Swarthmore College, and the groundbreaking field research that led to his seminal texts. His 1973 work, “Gada: Three Approaches to the Study of African Society,” was cited as revolutionary for revealing “the innovative solutions indigenous societies developed to tackle the challenges of governance.”
It was his 2000 magnum opus, however, that solidified his legacy as the definitive voice on the subject. In “Oromo Democracy: An Indigenous African Political System,” Professor Legesse meticulously documented a system characterized by eight-year term limits for all leaders, a sophisticated separation of powers, and the Gumi assembly for public review—a structure that presented a centuries-old model of participatory democracy. “His insights challenged prevalent misconceptions about African governance,” the University noted, “showcasing the rich traditions and political innovations of the Oromo community.”
For his unparalleled contributions, he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Letters from Addis Ababa University in 2018.
Perhaps the most powerful element of the University’s statement was its framing of his legacy beyond academia. By “intertwining the mechanics of the Gadaa system with the broader narrative of Oromo history and cosmology,” Professor Legesse was credited with fostering “a profound understanding of Oromo cultural identity.” It is for this work of preservation, interpretation, and transmission that he is declared “a hero—a goota—to the Oromo people and to Africa as a whole.”
Looking forward, Borana University management has called upon its students and faculty to honor his memory through “ongoing research and discourse on indigenous governance systems,” ensuring his foundational work continues to inspire new generations of scholars.
The entire university community extended its deepest condolences to Professor Legesse’s family, friends, and loved ones, mourning the loss of a true champion of Oromo culture and a guiding light in the study of African democracy.
About Borana University:
Located in Yabelo, Borana Zone, Oromia, Borana University is a public university committed to academic excellence, research, and community service, with a focus on promoting and preserving the rich cultural and environmental heritage of the region and beyond.
Remembering Prof. Asmerom Legesse: A Legacy of Oromo Scholarship
By Daandii Ragabaa
A Scholar Immortal: Prof. Asmerom Legesse’s Legacy Lives in the Hearts of a Nation
5 February 2026 – Across the globe, from the halls of academia to the living rooms of the diaspora, the Oromo community is united in a chorus of grief and profound gratitude. The passing of Professor Asmerom Legesse at the age of 94 is not merely the loss of a preeminent scholar; it is, as countless tributes attest, the departure of a cherished friend, a fearless intellectual warrior, and an adopted son whose life’s work became the definitive voice for Oromo history and democratic heritage.
The outpouring of personal reflections paints a vivid portrait of a man whose impact was both global and deeply intimate. Olaansaa Waaqumaa recalls a brief conversation seven years ago, where the professor’s conviction was unwavering. “Yes! It is absolutely possible,” he declared when asked if the Gadaa system could serve as a modern administrative framework. “The scholars and new generation must take this mantle, think critically about it, and bridge it with modern governance,” he advised, passing the torch to future generations.
This personal mentorship extended through his work. Scholar Luba Cheru notes how Professor Legesse’s 1973 seminal text, Gada: Three Approaches to the Study of African Society, became an indispensable guide for her own decade-long research on the Irreecha festival. She reflects, “I never met him in person, but his work filled my mind.”
Ituu T. Soorii frames his legacy as an act of courageous resistance against historical erasure. “When the Ethiopian empire tried to erase Oromo existence, Professor Asmarom rose with courage to proclaim the undeniable truth,” they write, adding a poignant vision: “One day, in a free Oromiyaa, his statues will rise—not out of charity, but out of eternal gratitude.” Similarly, Habtamu Tesfaye Gemechu had earlier praised him as the scholar who shattered the conspiracy to obscure Oromo history, “revealing the naked truth of the Oromo to the world.”
Echoing this sentiment, Dejene Bikila calls him a “monumental figure” who served as a “bridge connecting the ancient wisdom of the Oromo people to the modern world.” This notion of the professor as a bridge is powerfully affirmed by Yadesa Bojia, who poses a defining question: “Did you ever meet an anthropologist… whose integrity was so deeply shaped by the culture and heritage he studied that the people he wrote about came to see him as one of their own? That is the story of Professor Asmerom Legesse.”
Formal institutions have also affirmed his unparalleled role. The Oromo Studies Association (OSA), which hosted him as a keynote speaker, stated his work “fundamentally reshaped the global understanding of African democracy.” Advocacy for Oromia and The Oromia Culture and Tourism Bureau hailed him as a “steadfast guardian” of Oromo culture, whose research was vital for UNESCO’s 2016 inscription of the Gadaa system as Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Binimos Shemalis reiterates that his “groundbreaking and foundational work… moved [Oromo studies] beyond colonial-era misrepresentations.” Scholar Tokuma Chala Sarbesa details how his book Oromo Democracy: An Indigenous African Political System proved the Gadaa system was a sophisticated framework of law, power, and public participation, providing a “strong foundation for the Oromo people’s struggle for identity, freedom, and democracy.”
The most recent and significant political tribute came from Shimelis Abdisa, President of the Oromia Regional State, who stated, “The loss of a scholar like Prof. Asmarom Legesse is a great damage to our people. His voice has been a lasting institution among our people.” He affirmed that the professor’s seminal work proved democratic governance originated within the Oromo people long before it was sought from elsewhere.
Amidst the grief, voices like Leencoo Miidhaqsaa Badhaadhaa offer a philosophical perspective, noting the professor lived a full 94 years and achieved greatness in life. “He died a good death,” they write, suggesting the community should honor him not just with sorrow, but by learning from and adopting his teachings.
As Seenaa G-D Jimjimo eloquently summarizes, “His scholarship leaves behind not just a legacy for one community, but a gift to humanity.” While the physical presence of this “real giant,” as Anwar Kelil calls him, is gone, the consensus is clear: the intellectual and moral bridge he built is unshakable. His legacy, as Barii Milkeessaa simply states, ensures that while “the world has lost a great scholar… the Oromo people have lost a great sibling.”
Asmerom Legesse: Champion of Oromo History and Gadaa System
We are deeply saddened by the passing of Abbaa Gadaa Professor Asmerom Legesse, a towering African intellectual whose scholarship stands among the most consequential contributions to Oromo history and African political thought.
Abbaa Gadaa Professor Asmerom Legesse, an Eritrean social anthropologist trained at Harvard University and later a distinguished professor at institutions including Boston University, Northwestern University, Swarthmore College, and Yale University, devoted rare rigor and integrity to African knowledge systems. Yet his true stature was not defined by titles, but by the seriousness with which he treated the Oromo Gadaa system.
At a time when African societies were routinely dismissed as lacking political sophistication, he refused to reduce Gadaa to “custom” or folklore. Through disciplined research and cultural immersion, he framed Gadaa as an indigenous constitutional order—built on rotating generational leadership, codified law (seera), institutional checks and balances, accountability, and collective sovereignty.
His landmark work, Gadaa: Three Approaches to the Study of African Society (1973), introduced the world to the depth and coherence of Oromo political organization. Decades later, Oromo Democracy: An Indigenous African Political System (2000) further clarified Gadaa as an egalitarian democratic system whose institutional logic long predates modern Western models. These works remain core references for understanding Oromo governance and for challenging enduring stereotypes about African political thought.
Abbaa Gadaa Professor Asmerom Legesse understood what many still refuse to acknowledge: Oromo history is not marginal, not invented, and not secondary to anyone else’s narrative. It is a complete intellectual tradition—deserving serious documentation, protection, and transmission. By recording Gadaa with scholarly precision, he did more than study Oromo society; he defended it against erasure and misrepresentation.
For this reason, Oromo communities came to hold him in special esteem, symbolically recognizing him as an “Abbaa Gadaa”—a guardian of truth and a custodian of a threatened heritage. Beyond Oromo studies, he wrote on Eritrean refugees, and wider questions of displacement, power, and justice in the Horn of Africa, embodying the responsibilities of a public intellectual.
We at OROMEDIA express our heartfelt condolences to his family, colleagues, students, and all communities touched by his life and work. We also offer our deep gratitude for the intellectual ground he helped secure for generations of Oromo scholars and citizens. His scholarship did not merely preserve the past; it equipped future generations with evidence and language to assert historical truth.
Rest in power, Abbaa Gadaa Professor Asmerom Legesse. Your work lives on, wherever Gadaa is studied, defended, and lived as a testament to indigenous Oromo democracy and African intellectual greatness.
Oromo Community Mourns a Great Scholar: Asmerom Legesse’s Impact
Feature Commentary
A World Mourns an Intellectual Giant: Unified Tributes Honor Professor Asmerom Legesse, Scholar of Oromo Democracy
4 February 2026 – The global Oromo community, alongside academic and cultural institutions, is united in profound grief following the passing of Professor Asmerom Legesse, the preeminent scholar whose life’s work defined the study of the Oromo Gadaa system. Hailed as a “towering scholar,” “global voice,” and “steadfast guardian,” his death has prompted a powerful wave of tributes that collectively affirm his unparalleled role in bringing an indigenous African democratic tradition to the world stage.
Across statements from scholars, activists, and organizations, a consistent narrative emerges: Professor Legesse was far more than an academic. He was a truth-teller, a bridge-builder, and a revolutionary intellectual who dedicated his career to the reclamation and elevation of a system long marginalized by colonial and oppressive narratives.
Scholars and Leaders Reflect on a Transformative Legacy
Prominent voices have emphasized the transformative nature of his work. Scholar Asebe Regassa called him a “pioneer of Gadaa studies,” whose “groundbreaking anthropological work” ensured he will be “remembered forever.” Tayiba Hassen Kayo noted his “unwavering commitment” left an “enduring mark on academia and on the Oromoo people,” ensuring his life’s work “will never be forgotten.”
The personal dimension of his scholarship was highlighted by Israel Fayisa, who poignantly described him as “Eritrean by birth and Oromo by choice,” a scholar treated “like an enemy by many Ethiopianist scholars merely because he dedicated his life to revealing the truth.” This sentiment underscores the courageous stance his research represented.
A Legacy of Global Recognition and Cultural Pride
His work is credited with achieving what once seemed impossible: securing global academic respect for an indigenous African system. As Visit Oromia stated, his research “gave international recognition to one of Africa’s most remarkable indigenous governance systems.” Activist Dereje Hawas pointed out that what defined him was “the seriousness with which he treated African and especially Oromo knowledge systems,” elevating them to their rightful place in global discourse.
Activist and journalist Dhabessa Wakjira captured the core of his academic revolution, writing that Legesse “proved definitively that principles of equality, rotational leadership, checks and balances, and the rule of law were not foreign imports to the continent, but were deeply embedded, living traditions.” This work, as Lelise Dhugaa noted, was foundational to UNESCO’s inscription of the Gadaa system as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2016.
A Community’s Deep Personal Loss
For the Oromo people, the loss is both intellectual and deeply personal. The tribute from Olumaa Qubee expresses this communal grief: “Oromoon fira guddaa tokko dhabe” (“The Oromo people have lost a great sibling”). The call for schools and institutions to be named in his honor within Oromia reflects a desire to anchor his legacy physically in the land of the people he championed.
As tributes from colleagues like Zewdu Lechissa remember the “truly brilliant scholar and a kind soul,” the collective message is one of both mourning and determined continuity. Professor Asmerom Legesse’s pioneering scholarship did not merely document the Gadaa system; it restored a pillar of Oromo identity and gifted the world a timeless model of democracy. His legacy, as echoed by all, will undoubtedly “continue to inspire generations.”
Unpacking the Controversies in General Gonfa’s Narrative
Feature Commentary: Unpacking the Narrative – A Rebuttal to General Hailu Gonfa’s ETV Interview
By Daandii Ragabaa
February 1, 2026
A recent interview given by General Hailu Gonfa, a former high-ranking member of the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), to Ethiopian state television (ETV) has sent ripples through political and activist circles. Presented as a “tell-all,” the interview was a stark narrative of disillusionment with the OLF/OLA, peppered with allegations of foreign manipulation and internal failure. For the state broadcaster, it was a coup—a former insurgent commander validating state narratives. For many observers, however, it was a performance laden with contradictions and historical revisionism that demands scrutiny, not passive acceptance.
General Gonfa’s core thesis is one of victimhood at the hands of the Eritrean government (Shaebia) and strategic confusion within the OLF/OLA. He paints a picture of being used, misled, and ultimately betrayed. Yet, a closer examination of his own points reveals a narrative more complex and less absolving of his own agency.
1. The Eritrea Conundrum: Pawns or Strategic Partners?
Gonfa claims they went to Eritrea not out of hatred for Ethiopia, but to oppose the system, following the path of Eritreans themselves. He then details a three-month military training at Camp Ashfaray, a period of intense hardship. The critical question he sidesteps is: what did he and his comrades believe they were building towards in Asmara? Did they receive a political program from the OLF leadership? As senior military cadres, did they simply execute orders without understanding the overarching political strategy? His portrayal reduces seasoned officers to naive children, which insults both their intelligence and the gravity of their decision to seek foreign military training.
2. The Phantom “Russian Assignment” and Internal Discord.
He recounts a meeting in Russia where OLF members approached him, but they could not agree on a common agenda for working inside Ethiopia. He claims he was later given a vague, “impossible” national assignment. This raises a fundamental question: if there was such profound disagreement on core strategy before undertaking major actions, why proceed? The attempt to blame subsequent failures on a pre-existing lack of consensus suggests a failure of leadership and collective decision-making, not merely the deceit of others.
3. The “Oromia Republic” Straw Man.
This is perhaps the most disingenuous claim. Gonfa asserts a foundational disagreement over the goal of an “Oromia Republic,” which he labels a “colonial agenda.” He claims this deadlock was irreconcilable. Yet, the public record shows that figures like General Kamal Galchu, in a VOA interview, spoke openly about the possibility of a republic after achieving liberation. Furthermore, the OLF’s own political programs have historically navigated the spectrum between self-determination and possible independence based on a popular referendum. To frame a central, debated political aspiration as a shocking, divisive “colonial” plot is a gross misrepresentation of the struggle’s own intellectual history, likely tailored for his current audience in Addis Ababa.
4, 5 & 7: The Shaebia Scapegoat and the Mystery of Betrayal.
Gonfa dedicates significant time to blaming Eritrea for their imprisonment and manipulating the OLA’s military wing. He describes a mysterious Colonel “Xamee” who allegedly controlled them. This narrative of total Eritrean control sits awkwardly with his other claims of internal OLA agency, such as the alleged refusal of some army units to follow orders in 2018. If the OLA was merely a puppet, how did it exercise such defiance? His testimony about Colonel Abebe (allegedly now a Brigadier General in the OLA) is particularly damaging but presented without context or corroboration. It creates a convenient fog where all failures can be attributed to a shadowy foreign hand, absolving internal leadership of critical misjudgments.
6. The Uncomfortable Transition from Refugee to Parliamentarian.
Gonfa’s personal journey—from an economic refugee with a Swedish passport to a member of parliament—is presented as a triumph of resilience. Yet, it unavoidably invites questions about the pathway from armed opposition to state legitimization. He speaks of the hardships of struggle, but for many watching, the stark contrast between the described suffering and his current official position underscores the complex, often ambiguous, transitions in Ethiopian political life, where former enemies can become state stakeholders.
8 & 9: Rewriting the Homecoming and the Gadaa Model.
He claims that upon returning to Ethiopia, they chose to work on national issues within the political system, respecting the existing OLF leadership. This sanitizes what many saw as a major split and a demobilization. His praise for the “Gadaa model” of conflict resolution, now being adopted in Amhara region, rings hollow. It appears less as a genuine endorsement of traditional systems and more as an endorsement of the federal government’s current policy of co-opting ethnic administrative models, a far cry from the Gadaa system’s principles of sovereignty and self-rule.
Conclusion: A Performance with a Purpose
General Hailu Gonfa’s interview is less a revelation and more a strategic repositioning. It is an effort to construct a personal and political narrative that reconciles a past of armed rebellion with a present of state accommodation. In doing so, it simplifies a multifaceted struggle into a story of foreign deception and internal error, draining it of its political substance and reducing it to a series of personal grievances and bad partnerships.
For the state, it is a useful narrative: the rebels were confused, controlled by Eritrea, and have now seen the light. For the still-active struggle, it is a warning about the power of state platforms to reshape history. For critical observers, it is a reminder that every testimony, especially those given in such loaded circumstances, must be read not just for what is said, but for the silences it cultivates and the interests it serves. The truth of the Oromo struggle, in all its sacrifice, complexity, and ongoing evolution, lies not in this single curated confession, but in the totality of its lived history, which is far messier, more principled, and more enduring than this interview suggests.
The Unquenchable Flame: Amajjii and the Living Memory of Oromo Resistance
By Dhabessa Wakjira
OROMIA – Across the highlands and valleys of Oromia, and within diaspora communities spanning the globe, the Oromo people are preparing to observe Ayyaana Amajjii—a day that is far more than a cultural anniversary. It is a living chronicle of resistance, a solemn vow of continuity, and a beacon of collective identity lit against a backdrop of enduring struggle. As one message proclaims: “AYYAANA AMAJJII BAGA GEESSAN!” – “Happy Amajjii Holiday!”
Celebrated for over 40 years, Amajjii commemorates a pivotal historical moment of defiance. Its roots lie in “a history of resilience in the Oromo freedom struggle and the heroism of Oromo fighters,” a day when a courageous few secured a landmark victory against formidable enemies. This singular event is etched into the Oromo consciousness not merely as a past triumph, but as an eternal wellspring of strength.
“Amajjii is a symbol of the endurance and perseverance that defines our entire struggle,” explains a community historian. “It is a holiday that surpasses all others, a flame we keep alive to illuminate the path to Oromo freedom from within the darkness of oppression.”
This year, the commemoration carries a particularly profound weight. The community gathers in what is described as “a time of difficulty and darkness,” marked by reports of severe hardship, drone strikes, militia violence, and widespread military crackdowns. “This brutal oppression wounds us,” the message states, “but without losing hope, we resist fiercely and honor our Amajjii, learned from our ancestors.”
It is precisely in such moments of intensified pressure, the tradition holds, that the history of Amajjii becomes most vital. The day serves as a crucial space—a sanctuary in time—to reaffirm unity, recommit to the quest for a dignified and egalitarian society, and honor the foundational values of respect and justice. The ceremony itself is a multi-faceted lesson in the Oromo liberation narrative.
The central, unifying ritual is the lighting of the Amajjii bonfire atop the highest hill. This “Xomboorrii Amajjii” is far more than a fire; it is the primary symbol of Oromo freedom. As its flames climb skyward, it is seen as broadcasting a powerful message: a message of true liberty, of emerging from subjugation, of unbreakable hope rising from the ashes of despair, and of light piercing a profound darkness.
“Amajjii is the day we remember the Oromo freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives without hesitation to liberate and protect Oromia and its people,” the commemoration note affirms. This act of remembrance is inextricably linked to the deep Oromo tradition of honoring elders and pioneers—those who preserve culture, offer guidance, and advocate for justice. Amajjii is, in essence, the national-scale enactment of this duty of respect.
The 2026 observance is therefore framed not just as a look backward, but as a strategic reaffirmation for the future. It is a time to “renew our pledge” to continue the struggle, bolstered by the conviction that Oromia will ultimately be a place where rights are asserted and the Oromo nation is honored in its unity and freedom.
From the ancestral hills of Oromia to community centers worldwide, the lighting of the Amajjii fire this year will be a potent, silent, and luminous declaration. It asserts that memory is resistance, that collective ceremony is a form of resilience, and that an unquenchable flame, passed down through generations, continues to light the way forward.
AYYAANA AMAJJII GAARII! – A dignified Amajjii to all!
Oromedia 