After studying the practice of different countries, Kitay in his valuable book, Land Acquisition in Developing Countries, differentiates the allocation of expropriation power into two: horizontal allocation and vertical allocation.¹ In the horizontal allocation, the expropriation authority may be given to the legislator, executive or judiciary, while in the vertical one it may be allocated to federal or state governments or their departments and other quasi-government organs, such as, utility and power companies. Of course, the amount of involvement of these organs (horizontal or vertical) differs from country to country.

While the right or power of eminent domain is inherent in the state, it is also dormant until the legislature rouses it into activity by taking steps for the exercise of the power, declaring the objects to which, and the mode and agency through which the power shall move.² In transforming this right or power from a potential one into an active one, the legislature may proceed directly and appropriate the required property by legislative act, or it may proceed indirectly by delegating its right or power to take such property to its chosen agent. In most countries, the legislatures use the second method and allocate power to the executive and judiciary. The basic idea is that in horizontal allocation of authority, the legislature sets out expropriation legislation that determines the public purpose for which land may be expropriated, the procedures which should be followed, and the roles of different organs of the executive branch and that of the judiciary. For example, in the USA what constitutes a public use, although in the first instance a legislative question, is in the last analysis a question of Constitutional Law to be determined by the courts.³ Concerning the powers of the executive and the courts, Kitay elaborates, the executive decides when a project is of public interest, designates the property to be expropriated, and appoints an expert to evaluate the property. Then, a judicial proceeding resolves any dispute over the public purpose and amount of compensation.⁴ The vertical power allocation focuses, on the allocation of power within the executive branch itself; whether a certain project amounts as public purpose and whether land is needed to be expropriated may be decided starting from top by a president or minister to local municipality, as the case may be. In many countries, property valuation is the task of the executive branch; it may be carried out either by panel of external valuators or by staff experts within the executive organ. But, in other countries, the court involves in the valuation process.⁵

Therefore, the trend seems that expropriation may be either purely administrative that excludes the court, or a judiciary in nature, or a hybrid of the two. As we shall see, the Ethiopian expropriation procedure is totally administrative in nature. Likewise, in some countries, such as Singapore, expropriation procedure is purely administrative in nature. Starting from declaration up to compensation and appropriation of land, the procedure is decided by the administrative (executive) body.⁶ Yet, in others, the whole expropriation process falls under the jurisdiction of courts. For instance, in Nicaragua, both the designation of the property for the project and the valuation are the responsibilities of the judiciary.⁷ But, in most countries, the process involves both the administration and courts. For example, in Peru, the first stage is administrative and results in the declaration of public purpose, the designation of the particular parcel to be expropriated, and an initial appraisal of its value. The second stage is a judicial one, wherein the court approves the valuation result and provides an order for land transfer.⁸

Once the application for land and the accompanying “business plan” and “land plan” are made to the relevant authority, the latter must at least make the following inquiries:

Whenever the administration decides on expropriation, the woreda or municipality calls a public meeting to explain the purpose. Public discussion should not be understood as a “notice” for the latter will be another stage. Public discussion is a procedure actually practiced by all regions and cities, although it is not mentioned in the Federal Expropriation Proclamation. Public discussion is also a proposed and actually practiced procedure in many countries.¹⁷ Public discussion provides an opportunity for people to learn more about the project, to receive answers to their questions about the process and the procedures and to voice their concerns. Open public discussion enables the government to appreciate the concern of the people and to create smooth environment for the project’s undertaking. If the public is not clear about its benefit and the compensation packages before the commencement of the project, conflict may arise. Taking this into consideration, the Ethiopian government gives more focus to this stage as compared to others. From the interviews conducted with officials and affected farmers, it has been learned that in Amhara Region as well as in Addis Ababa, the government usually sends higher government officials to discuss with the affected people.¹⁸ Sometimes, though, the officials simply exaggerate the benefits to be accrued to society, and this causes frustration when the expectation was not met. This has been observed, for example, in the field visit made in Rib Irrigation Dam Project in the Amhara region, where farmers who lost their land complained that what was promised to them by the officials during the public discussion did not materialize. Further people moved from the Arada, Basha Wolde Chilot and Sheraton expansion areas, confirmed the same frustration. They claimed that officials at the beginning have promised them that they would be given a place (condominium houses) on the same site, not at the periphery.

The purpose of public discussion should be to try to persuade the public to accept the project and cede its land peacefully. From good governance and security perspectives as well, it enables government to hear concerns of the public in a bid to give answers and to avoid tensions. Otherwise, it cannot be considered as a democratic meeting, wherein the people are supposed to accept or reject the project. Expropriation by its nature does not demand the consent of the owner, and demanding consent of owners will be a contradiction in terms.

Under exceptional circumstances, though, the woreda may need approval of the community before it begins a project. Such peculiar situation happens when the development work is supposed to be made by the community for its own use, like rural health centers, roads, or schools. In this respect, the Amhara RLAUP declares that “where the land expropriation activity is directly related with the development of the surrounding society, the case shall be submitted to the kebele people for discussion and obtain a majority vote thereof, before it is decided by the woreda branch office of the Authority to expropriate land for public service.”¹⁹ The wisdom of inserting this procedure is that if the society understands and agrees, first, there will be little resistance to obtain the needed land and fund. Secondly, there is the possibility of compensation being paid by the community itself. This occurs when a local community agrees to give part of the community land as compensation to those who cede their land for the project development. A good example in this case is the rural roads construction in Amhara Region where government connects rural kebeles. The gravel roads pass through farm lands and the Regional Rural Roads Authority does not pay compensation, since the farmers are supposed to be compensated by the rural society.²⁰ The respective kebeles or woreda