O-Dispatch #14: EPO’s Inconsistent Framing in Conflict Reporting: The Case of OLA and Fano in EPO Reports

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (8 minutes)

Introduction The Ethiopia Peace Observatory (EPO), an initiative of the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), is a prominent source of data and analysis on Ethiopia’s complex conflict landscape. Its multilingual, event-driven methodology equips researchers, policymakers, and humanitarian organizations with timely and detailed updates. However, its Situation Updates ( especially December 2024 – June 2025) expose significant disparities in how the EPO frames two major non-state armed groups: the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and the Fano militia.

While the EPO consistently refers to the OLA using the government-preferred label “OLA/OLF–Shane,” it avoids the same practice when describing Fano—despite the Ethiopian government's official and highly charged use of the term “Jawisa” for the group. This inconsistency reflects deeper analytical asymmetries that may skew public and policy understanding of the conflict.

Uneven Political Contextualization

EPO provides layered political context when reporting on Fano, characterizing it as a fragmented, regionally-rooted militia with socio-political grievances. Reports emphasize tensions between Fano and the federal government, the group’s resistance to disarmament, and community perceptions of marginalization in the Amhara region.

In contrast, the OLA is often stripped of any political or historical context. For instance, the April 30, 2025 report attributes violence to “retaliatory OLA/OLF–Shane attacks,” with no mention of the long-standing claims of political exclusion and state violence in Oromia. This flattening of OLA's identity reduces the group to a violent actor devoid of political motivations, contrasting sharply with the more nuanced treatment of Fano.

Imbalance in Attribution of Civilian Harm

EPO reports tend to assign direct responsibility to the OLA for civilian casualties, using emotive language such as “killed women and children.” Meanwhile, reports about Fano often soften or obscure its role in similar incidents, using vague or passive language. The May 14, 2025 report, for example, mentions Fano’s link to 47 abductions but fails to convey the moral and human impact in equivalent terms.

Such inconsistency risks implying a moral hierarchy between the two groups, undermining the neutrality essential to conflict analysis.

Divergent Tactical and Descriptive Terminology

The EPO employs militarized language when describing the OLA, frequently using terms like “ambushes” and “insurgency.” Fano’s actions, however, are often framed in terms suggesting defensive or strategic legitimacy—such as “counter-offensives” and “operations.”

This disparity in terminology shapes external perceptions of legitimacy and threat, influencing how humanitarian actors, governments, and the media respond to each group.

Inconsistent Naming Practices: The Case of “Jawisa”

One of the starkest illustrations of analytical bias in EPO reporting is its inconsistent use of government-preferred labeling. The organization routinely adopts the term “OLA/OLF–Shane” when referencing the Oromo Liberation Army—mirroring a federal narrative that seeks to delegitimize the group by tying it to banned political factions.

Yet the same linguistic precision is conspicuously absent when referring to the Fano militia. Although the Ethiopian government and its supporters commonly use the term “Jawisa” to refer to Fano—especially in online discourse—this designation is never used in EPO reporting.

The term “Jawisa,” meaning “bandit” in Amharic, is deeply pejorative. It was first coined by Daniel Kibret, the Prime Minister’s social affairs advisor, and has since been widely adopted by pro-government voices on social media to describe Fano fighters in the Amhara region. While the term carries strong delegitimizing intent—similar to the implications of “OLF–Shane”—EPO appears selective in its application of such state-endorsed nomenclature.

This discrepancy raises questions about editorial consistency. If EPO chooses to reflect government naming conventions for one group, neutrality demands the same treatment for others—or a rejection of such terminology altogether in favor of neutral alternatives.

Lack of Source Transparency

ACLED and EPO’s reliance on undisclosed sources creates room for bias—especially in regions like Oromia, where independent media is heavily restricted. Without clear attribution of source types (e.g., government-aligned, local, diaspora), there is a risk that dominant narratives—often aligned with state perspectives—are disproportionately reflected, particularly in reporting on the OLA.

Recommendations for Fairer Conflict Reporting

To strengthen analytical integrity and public trust, the following steps are crucial:

• Contextual Parity: Offer balanced historical and political context for all armed actors, including the OLA.
• Equal Moral Weight: Describe the impact of violence on civilians with consistent moral and human framing.
• Standardized Terminology: Use neutral, uniform language for tactical descriptions across actors.
• Naming Consistency: Apply naming conventions uniformly—either adopt or reject all government-endorsed labels equally.
• Source Transparency: Clearly annotate source type, location, and reliability to reduce bias and enhance credibility.

Conclusion

The EPO’s role in documenting Ethiopia’s evolving conflict landscape is indispensable. But its long-term utility depends on maintaining analytical fairness, naming consistency, and editorial neutrality. The selective use of government-derived labels—such as “OLF–Shane” but not “Jawisa”—signals a potentially unintentional but meaningful bias. To ensure equitable reporting, EPO must address these disparities and apply consistent standards across all actors. Only then can it serve as a truly credible and authoritative source of conflict data in Ethiopia.