By RANIA H.
The arrest and prosecution of General Guesh Gebre, former commander of Army 15 of the Tigrayan forces, have intensified concerns about due process, judicial independence, and the politicization of security institutions in post-war Tigray.
General Guesh appeared before the Tigray Security Forces Central First Instance Court on January 10, 2026, facing three grave accusations: communicating with the enemy, acting with intent to dismantle the army, and disobeying orders issued by senior military leadership.
According to sources, the charges were filed by the Northern Eastern Front.
After a brief hearing, the court ordered that General Guesh remain in detention at the Military Police Station in Mekelle and granted investigators a nine-day adjournment to continue gathering evidence.
An Unprecedented Sunday Court Session
The circumstances of the hearing itself have raised immediate red flags. The court session was convened and a ruling delivered on a Sunday an extraordinary move in a jurisdiction where courts are not known to operate on weekends.
Legal sources say judicial services are customarily suspended on Sundays, and no public explanation has been provided for why this case warranted such an exception.
The unusual timing has fueled speculation that the proceedings were driven by extraordinary pressure rather than legal necessity, further undermining confidence in the independence of the court.
Vague and Undefined “Enemy” Allegation
Particularly troubling is the charge of “communicating with the enemy,” a serious accusation that remains conspicuously vague.
Sources familiar with the proceedings say neither the charge sheet nor the hearing identified who the alleged enemy is whether a foreign force, an internal group, or another actor entirely.
Legal analysts warn that such ambiguity strikes at the heart of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Without a clearly defined allegation, the accused is effectively denied the ability to prepare an adequate defense, raising questions about whether the charge meets even basic legal standards.
Arrest Conduct and Apparent Prejudgment
General Guesh was arrested on January 9, 2026, a day before his court appearance, after being summoned by General Mashu Bayene.
According to multiple sources, he was detained inside the general’s office while still officially on duty. His bodyguards were disarmed, and his vehicle was seized.
Later that same night before the court had meaningfully examined the casethe Tigray Regional Peace and Security Bureau issued a public statement declaring that “no one is above the law.”
Critics argue that the timing of the statement amounts to prejudgment and risks compromising the presumption of innocence.
Such public declarations by executive security bodies, issued in parallel with ongoing judicial proceedings, have further blurred the line between law enforcement and political messaging.
Political Fractures Within the Military
The case unfolds amid deep and unresolved divisions within the TPLF and the Tigray military command.
Following an internal split, most senior army commanders announced on January 15, 2025, that they recognize the TPLF leadership under Dr. Debretsion Gebremichael. General Guesh was among a small minority who opposed that decision.
Although dissenting commanders were officially suspended, General Guesh later stated that he returned to his post after Army 15 personnel urged him to continue leading them, asserting that he had been “called upon to lead” by his forces.
His role during the Pretoria Cessation of Hostilities Agreement has also been cited by analysts as a possible source of internal friction. General Guesh and Army 15 were reportedly involved in efforts to prevent Eritrean (Shabia) forces from taking control of Adigrat—an action that may have placed him at odds with shifting political and military calculations.
A Volatile Security Landscape
The arrest comes amid broader instability within Tigray’s security environment. Other commanders who opposed earlier leadership decisions including General Gebreher Bayene (Wedi Antrru) and General Zewdi Kiros—are reported to be organizing armed groups described as a “Peace Force” in the Afar region, allegedly with backing from Ethiopia’s federal government.
In a previous interview with Channel 4, General Zewdi openly stated that his forces were “preparing to fight the TPLF,” highlighting the depth of fragmentation and the potential for renewed conflict.
As General Guesh remains in custody, the case continues to raise fundamental and unresolved questions about the integrity of the process.
Why was the court convened on a Sunday in apparent violation of established judicial practice? Why has the prosecution failed to clearly identify the alleged “enemy” in a charge that lies at the core of the case? And to what extent are internal political rivalries and military power struggles influencing judicial actions that should, in principle, be insulated from such pressures?
At a time when Tigray is struggling to rebuild institutions and restore public trust after years of war, the handling of this case risks deepening perceptions that justice is being subordinated to political expediency. Whether the proceedings will adhere to established legal norms or further entrench concerns over the politicization of justice remains a critical test for Tigray’s post-war governance.
