Ato Nesibu Sebhat Plagiarized the EPRP’s Creative Works – By LJDemissie

February 15, 2017

Ato Nesibu Sebhat

“I want to write so that the reader… can say, ‘You know, that’s the truth. I wasn’t there, and …but that’s the truth.’”, Maya Angelou

Critic’s note: I roughly translated and/or paraphrased my understanding of the writer’s narration from Amharic into English because my Amharic typing skills are rusty. Nothing is lost in a translation and/or in a paraphrase since I analyzed only the stories’ one aspect which is their settings’ locations. This critical analysis contains “competing nouns”. Thus, for clarity and specificity, I used a person or a thing name repeatedly instead of a pronoun. The images in this analysis were adapted from Google Images.

Reading Ato Nesibu Sebhat’s book titled ፍጹም ነው እምነቴbugged me so much because its stories are incoherent with his situation that he was a detainee, and some of his dishonestly presented stories are personal to me. Hence, I objectively and critically analyzed his assertions concerning the Higher-15’s detention camp’s reign of terror in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

I aim to prove whether his description of the Red Terror he claimed to be his experiences are retold, imagined, speculated or fabricated stories. Thus, I will evaluate and compare only one aspect of his stories which is the setting’s location. I will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Sebhat wrote something he never experienced and try to pass of as the truth and so by extension it means that he is dishonest. In other words, I will lay bare beyond doubt that Sebhat retold, he speculated, he imagined, or he fabricated the stories and dishonestly marked them as an honest account of his experiences.

To persuade an audience, he made an appeal to irrelevant authority, among others, known professors who don’t have any knowledge about the detention camp. Although his stories just didn’t add up, his endorsers made an appeal to emotion and praised the book without fact-checking and providing objective reason. They stood behind the book and asserted that it was a true story so that you, the reader, should also read and believe it too. And they endorsed it.

Since the book’s plots are riddled with “serial lies” and it is dishonestly labeled as true story, its narration cannot be corrected. It has to be rewritten. Therefore, I ask the book’s endorsers to consider withdrawing their endorsements, namely: Prof. Ghelawdewos Araia (pp. 381), Prof. Getachew Begashaw (pp. 382-383), Fantahun Tiruneh (pp. 384), Kiflu Ketema (pp. 385), Million Alemayehu (386), Girma Degefa (pp. 388), Konjit Berhane (pp. 389) and Tesfaye Woldeyohannes (pp. 392). I also encourage those who contributed their true history or their art work to the book to consider asking the author to stop selling their history and/or art work.

Within the 1966 E.C Ethiopian revolution context, Sebhat intended his book to be his autobiography. One of his plots was he was brutally tortured; he was incapable of using a toilet by himself, let alone to take a step and he was detained (pp. 179-198). And hence one expects his detention stories were his experiences at his detention camp’s cell. However, his stories were from across Ethiopia. How was that possible?

Well, Sebhat transitioned through time and space, appeared everywhere around the clock and he speculated, he imagined, he fabricated tales of terror using people’s worst nightmare scenarios of the Red Terror. Or he retold others stories. In other words, during the Red Terror, he was among his people in spirit twenty-four seven.

Moreover, he plagiarized, invented information and claimed they were his experiences and history. He failed to accurately write an executed detainee’s history (pp. 267). Making matters worse, he refused to correct and continued to sell his book. He portrayed real people as characters. He fraudulently explained his role in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations’ (H.S.I’s) immigration fraud case against Kefelegn Alemu Worku. A man sentenced for twenty years for unlawful procurement of citizenship, making false statements on immigration documents and identity theft. Sebhat hid a petition against Worku, which Sebhat received from Ethiopia, from everyone. He made up quotes and attributed them to his former detention mates. He also quoted and/or used a whole conversation he had with them without their permission. Some suspected he might have secretly record their chitchat.

Human Rights Watch has labeled [the Ethiopian Red Terror] it ”one of the most systematic uses of mass murder by a state ever witnessed in Africa.” according to The New York Times.

Every author has an agenda; what is Sebhat’s hidden agenda?

When I read the news that Sebhat published a book about the Red Terror, I didn’t intend to read the book because it wasn’t my genre. But I read some of the book’s reviews. I thought he did a good job because his reviewers gave his book good reviews. Based on recommendation and encouragement from a dear friend, I read a borrowed copy of the book in March 2016. I tried to make a purchase; I didn’t find it in market places a year after it was published, September 2014 Gregorian calendar (G.C), September 2007 Ethiopian calendar (E.C).

Before reading the book, whenever I heard of his sufferings from his former detention camp mates it broke my heart. I wanted to have an opportunity to meet him. Unfortunately, I never met him. But I had a chance to chat with him a few times over a telephone during Worku’s immigration fraud trial in Denver, Colorado. Based upon the book’s contents, it appears Sebhat’s agenda was to come across as an all-knowing character, to worship the EPRP and to claim every possible credit for himself. He did this by stabbing someone else in the back. Of course, this did not do him justice; let me explain:

  1. Although Sebhat was only an ordinary member of the EPRP’s youth league, he ended up plagiarizing or inventing and representing the party’s hierarchy as his own creation.


  1. Sebhat forced his political views down the readers’ throat, which would be deeply troubling for a sane mind. For instance, he claimed people loved the EPRP’s members. They hated MESION’s members because they worked closely with the Derg (pp. 318, pp. 320). He asserted that he played a role to reunite the reintegration of the MESION’s members in communities’ social activities such as weddings and funerals (pp. 324).


  1. Sebhat bragged about children under the age of thirteen (pp. 67) and fourteen (pp. 128) taking part in the EPRP’s military. He said they served as lookouts and messengers of notices to rivals (pp. 67, pp. 119 and pp. 128-129). Using children for military purpose was immoral then; however, it is banned in today’s world. He also said they participated in protest rallies under the party’s armed squad (teenagers) protection (pp. 146-147).


  1. When the U.S. Attorney’s Office, ICE and H.S.I went against Worku, Sebhat didn’t give credit for those who deserved it. He back stabbed someone else and claimed undeserving credits to glorify his ego, which is absolutely disgraceful.

A parenthetically heartbreaking story

A relative told me Mulugeta Kidane Mariam’s (one of the Higher-15’s best teenage table tennis players) gut-wrenching history when he was held prisoner at the detention camp. They inhumanly tortured him. A lack of medical attention turned his legs to green. Because they thought he couldn’t have survived his torture wounds, they executed him. They threw his body on a street in Addis Ababa to terrorize people. His neighbor, a girl less than fifteen years old, who was held captive, saw him suffer in despair which ended up traumatizing her. Then she lost her mind. When I think about them, I feel sad and angry. I used to play ping pong with them. The story’s essence is Nesibu Sebhat’s pain and suffering are typical stories of the Red Terror’s victims, including my brother, sister, cousins and dear friends.

The plagiarist, Sebhat, showed contempt for the EPRP

  1. From the EPRP’s revolutionary song titled ለዘመናት”, Sebhat plagiarized the words ፍጹም ነው እምነቴ” and used them for his own book title. Worse yet, he stole the whole song, and included it in his book (pp. XV), copyrighted it as his own creation to make a name for himself and for money (pp. II).


  1. Although Sebhat was the EPRP’s ordinary youth league member when he was in the tenth or eleventh grade (pp. 311), he explained the party’s and its sister organizations organizational structure as if he planned and organized them. He also graphically illustrated the reporting relationship in the party (pp. 59-68).

Fair judgments: “A charge of plagiarism can have severe consequences, including expulsion from a university or loss of a job, not to mention a writer’s loss of credibility and professional standing.” “Plagiarism is despised given that it is stealing someone’s mind, the manifestation of themselves.” Simply stated plagiarism is considered unforgivable theft in any form of writing.

Regrettably, the EPRP doesn’t have anyone to protect its creative works. So, under the watchful eyes of its founders and former members, including Kiflu Tadesse, a politburo member, Nesibu Sibehat not only robbed it of its writing legacy by publishing it in his book and/or on his website, but he also copyrighted it as his own creation to make money and a name for himself.

A person with genuine authority can generate information because he/she has knowledge. Based on the information Sibehat presented, he didn’t have authority or knowledge to regenerate the party’s organizational structure. He plagiarized or invented the party’s hierarchy he provided in the hope of being admired and also to make money.  In other words, the party’s structure narrative and flowchart he published are not possible for his position or experience as an ordinary youth league’s member (the plot) of the youth league. Not knowing his own boundaries caused him to mismatch his plot (the scenes) with its narration (the texture).

“Any story or novel is, in essence, a series of scenes strung together like beads on a wire, with narrative summary adding texture and color between.

I didn’t dress my writing up by resorting to technical explanations to appear more intelligent. In fact, I learned the literary words’ dictionary definitions, except for “setting” to articulate this analysis from Longman Advanced American Dictionary. The following are their definitions:

  • A setting is the context [of a story] in which all of the actions take place. For example, what is the time period, the location, the time of the day, who is present?
  • Plot: the events that form the main story of a book, movie, or play.
  • Scene: a single piece of action that happens in one place in a movie, book etc.
  • Texture: the way the different parts are combined in a piece of writing, music etc.
  • Color: to influence the way someone thinks about something, especially so that they become less fair or reasonable.

Do I have to recognize others perspectives?

One may ask why a critic like me cares about the EPRP’s creative works while its members turn a blind eye to the fact they are plagiarized. One might argue the party is divided, and its creative works are abandoned. The endorsers helped Nesibu Sebhat preserve its creative works. So they need to be encouraged and credited instead of being accused of helping the plagiarist.

The potential counterarguments against me are fair. But my argument is stronger because stealing someone else’s creative work is not acceptable. The party’s original creative works are their creators’ treasures and, by extension, the party’s. They deserve a shelf’s space across Ethiopia’s schools. If one needs to use them, one should use them fairly, and quote with proper citation. One shouldn’t plagiarize them to use them to make a name and collect donations as Sebhat did. Moreover, I’m not accusing the endorsers for only encouraging the author to steal the song so many martyrs chanted, but also they allowed him to invent information about the party. I felt they let him disrespect my martyred brother, cousin and me so I’m mad at his contempt.

To explain, tens of thousands of people were sacrificed for the EPRP’s cause to create a new Ethiopia. I paid a heavy price just for singing its revolutionary songs, one of which “ለዘመናት”, which Nesibu Sebhat plagiarized and sold. If I imagined then (when in seventh, eighth or ninth grade) the party wouldn’t have anyone to protect its legacy, I wouldn’t have dared to risk my life by shouting its slogans and singing its songs, along with others, at its martyrs’ funerals; I championed their cause. Knowing the party didn’t lose its cause to create a “New Ethiopia”, I don’t understand why its members remain silent concerning Sebhat’s act.

Although the evidence presented above is adequate to encourage the endorsers to withdraw their endorsement of Sebhat’s book, I included additional proof to convince them further. Since my Amharic typing skills are rusty, I roughly translated and/or paraphrased the writer’s narration from Amharic into English. Nothing is lost in a translation, in a paraphrase or my understanding of the author’s narration because I analyzed only one aspect of the stories which is the setting’s location.

Nesibu Sebhat pulled the wool over the professors’ eyes

Plots: (what is really going on): Sebhat was tortured twice for a total of ten hours within a fifteen hour period (pp. 187-189), which disabled him. For months, he was incapable of using a toilet by himself, let alone to take a step (pp. 187-191). Nobody was allowed to leave his/her cell after midnight. And also prison guards closed the cells’ windows and doors, said Sebhat (pp. 206).

Dishonesty, self-deception and selfish motives led Sebhat to fail to relate his plot (collection plot of scenes) with their narration

Texture: (critic’s note: Sebhat speculated and gave the following specific visual details): everybody pretends they are sleep, but they eavesdrop to follow what is going on. One can hear a door open from a distance and a sound that isn’t distinct. Everyone suspects they opened room #3’s door. Around dawn 3 a.m. to 4 a.m., the chaos around room #3 and room #4 increases. Those to be executed get out by turn and get their hands tied behind their back. They used the garden to the left and the filed in front of the detention for an execution (pp. 206).

Since the killers get nervous after they spilled human blood, their subordinates are expected to help them mask their fears by providing them with happiness and hospitality. So they loudly chatter and roll with laughter to encourage the killers to relax. Following a long period of chaos, about sun rise, we (the detainees, including Sebhat) hear the sound of a truck. As soon as the truck arrives, the usual detainees kept on standby throw our brothers and sisters bodies on the truck (pp. 206-207).

Critical analysis: absolutely, one imagines the detainees eavesdropped to follow what is going on around the detention camp during an execution. However, the narration (texture) is Sebhat’s imagination; hence, it is a pack of lies. To illustrate, while being inside his detention cell, transitioned into time and space, dipped into the captives’ mind and described what they think. Then Sebhat moved into the investigation room, dipped into the killers’ mind and fabricated tales about their fear triggered by executing people, and their assistants’ effort to help them to relax. He then portrayed designated captives used to throw detainees’ remains on a truck. Put differently, since he was in a detention cell, his narration doesn’t reconcile with its scenes. Thus, it is his speculation concerning an execution.  In all fairness, he illustrated his suspicion and called it a true story.

Nesibu Sebhat, in spirit, was among his people twenty-four seven

Scenes: Sebhat claimed that the gun shots from the executions were also intended to terrorize a district’s residents. He asserted, due to fear of the gunshots, children were alarmed and parents cried all night long (pp. 207).

Fair judgments1: the scene above is pretty bad because it is his speculation from his prison cell, which he presented as his experience.  His story parents cried and the children were alarmed all night long isn’t believable. To make it sound believable, instead of saying the parents cried and the children were alarmed all night long, maybe he should have said they all cried all night long. Or the children cried and the parents were alarmed all night long.

Texture: (critic’s note: Sebhat imagined and wrote the following screenplay). After an execution, swarms of parents visit prisons (pp. 207).

Fair judgments2: during the Red Terror, it is given that detainees’ parents’ swarmed prisons every day. But, in the above scene (action), Sebhat showed his carelessness. He used the truth he heard and created the scene to retell stories. To discover the truth, one needs to answer one of the following questions. Did Sebhat visit prisons across Ethiopia after an execution night? No, he didn’t visit prisons across Ethiopia because he was held captive. Did Sebhat receive reports from execution observers across the country?  No, Sebhat didn’t say he received a report regarding executions. Thus, he made the scene.

Texture: Nesibu Sebhat claimed that the gun shots from the executions were also intended to terrorize a district’s residents. To pay their last respect, mothers take food with them to prisons. Since they weren’t allowed to cry, they stood near the prison and looked around at the fence, executioners, the prison’s gates… the parents don’t dare to talk among each other (pp. 207).

They paint their children pictures in their mind. They imagine a bullet ridden skull of their son or daughter’s whose body is thrown on a street facedown like a body they saw somewhere. Then they wake up from their nightmare; they call the Virgin Mary’s name and bow. They hear a sound your daughter isn’t here in their head, and imagine one throwing her clothes to them. They call Saint Urael’s name; raise their arms into the skies and pray. An anonymous’ father hears a sound in his head that an action is taken against your son. He says Allah Bismillah and kisses the ground (pp. 207-209).

Fair judgments3: as a spirit, Sebhat moved around Ethiopia, including Higher-15’s residents’ home and detentions’ cells. And then he surmised people’s frightening nightmares and portrayed it as his experiences. As if the detainees’ parents were his characters, he put words into real people’s mouths and made them say what he wanted them to say. And he presented his fabricated stories concerning their fear as an eyewitness account, and called it a true story to sow the seeds to his embarrassment.

Put differently, Sebhat snuck into everyone’s home and narrated what is happening in resident’s minds. He also snuck out of the detention camp’s gate and described what was going on around there. He forgot he previously said he was held captive, and was disabled and incapable to use a toilet without a help, let alone walk (pp. 187-191). Showing he isn’t even a good liar, he used his imagination to portray people’s worst nightmare and invented the play and engaged readers with visual details as if he eye witnessed the events. He called it a true story.

Did Nesibu Sebhat’s aunt buy him a cake?

Scenes: first, Sebhat stated “after the Derg nationalized his mother’s land and urban rental properties, the plentiful grains they used to have for their food were in scarce supply (pp. 36-37). His mother didn’t accept this so she moved to her farm in Yerer, Ethiopia. Since she didn’t like to sit idle, she started to sell tela and tej. When she had some extra grains, sometimes she brought some for them (pp. 37). His brother moved to his mother and became a peasant (pp. 295). His aunt’s husband is a father of eight who didn’t have much income (pp.180).

Second, Sebhat said the first time he brought his girlfriend home his aunt served them a cake. They ate the cake that his niece served them (pp. 104). Third, he said his mother took care of him since he was released. After he joined a university, he had a three birr daily allowance. His brother and his sisters generously gave him what they had (pp. 338). When he graduated, his mother gave him a graduation party that lasted for two weeks in which she entertained their relatives and guests with food and drinks (pp. 339).

Critical analysis: Since Sebhat’s cake scene appeared unexpectedly, it gave unanticipated color to his scene which is good. But it is ill-matched with its plots. To illustrate, he stated food was in scarce supply; his aunt was impoverished. Yet he claimed his extremely poor aunt served them a readily available cake.

If Sebhat’s reason to create the cake scene was to romanticize his moment – sweethearts losing their virginity together – matching it with his plots could have glamorized his moment. For example, using a food they eat often or maybe a treat his brother used to purchase for him, he could have romanticized his love scene by one of the following: my aunt/nice served us: bread and tea, Kolo and tela (pp. 11), boiled grain and water (pp. 181-182), or Pasti and tea (pp. 13), a pastry made of fried dough.

Sebhat’s claims he had a three birr daily allowance and a graduation celebration which lasted for two weeks lacked a plot. He needed to state his brother and sisters’ new sources of income. Based on his plot that his mother was barely able to feed her children, she couldn’t have afforded to give him that much allowance or to throw a party that lasted for two weeks. I analyzed this trivial scene because I was staggered when I read it. Every action counts and serves a purpose in writing. A minor distraction in a plot, scene, texture and color matters.

Aschalew said Nesibu Sebhat didn’t make an effort to locate Tufa in the Assimba paltalk room; he talked about him only once

Plot: Sebhat claimed that he always talked about Kefelegn Alemu Worku in the Assimba paltalk room for at least five years. Sebhat said, after he told his audience what Worku did at the Higher-15’s detention camp, Sebhat repeatedly told the audience that this notorious man, Worku, changed his name to “Tufa” and entered to Canada from Kenya. And Sebhat pleaded with the audience for information wherever they hear the name “Tufa” (pp. 357).

Fair judgments: based on my experience reading Sebhat’s book, he habitually likes to take credit for himself by lying. Hence, to discuss his assertion that he made an effort to locate Tufa for five years, I contacted Aschalew – who administered the Assimba paltalk room along with Sebhat when he claimed he always asked the paltalk room’s attendees’ information on Tufa.

Aschalew said Sebhat only once he told us (the room’s attendees) a person named Tufa, Kefelegn Alemu, attends various paltalk rooms. Aschalew added he replayed Sebhat’s statement on Tufa when they (the writer and him) interviewed Kiflu after he identified Worku in Denver. Aschalew underscored, as all the other discussions and interviews of the paltalk room over the last ten years, this interview is also recorded and archived.

Nesibu Sebhat hooked his readers with a dishonest surprise

Scenes: Sebhat claimed his plea for information on Worku in the paltalk room wasn’t wasted (pp. 357). When the time came, his phone rang and Tufa was found. Sebhat said he got angry and started sweating and shouting when he heard the news from Samuel who called him and told him Worku was found. After a brief exchange of some words with Samuel about Worku, Sebhat said he took Kiflu’s phone number from Samuel and called Kiflu immediately (pp. 358).

Sebhat asserted that, beforehand we (Kiflu and him) exchanged greetings, he asked Kiflu to tell him how Kiflu found Worku… (Critic’s note: the two people never spoke with each other (pp.363)). Sebhat narrated Kiflu’s statements on how he identified Tufa in a five-page in which Sebhat made Kiflu sounded as if he reported to his superior how he identified Worku. Sebhat added that they conferred (Kiflu and Sebhat), and then he permitted Kiflu to pass on his information to authorities (pp. 359-364).

Critical Analysis: Sebhat did a great job in hooking his readers with a surprise. He engaged them anew and launched or started his screenplay “my phone rung and Tufa was found. Yet Sebhat has fallen prey to his dishonest mindset and narrated a web of lies. He manipulated the story’s chronology, which when he heard the news about Worku, and presented it inaccurately for effect and to dramatize his plot, collection of scenes.

His blatant lies made me angry because I knew important details about Worku’s situation before reading Sebhat’s fake stories.  Moreover, I didn’t like Sebhat’s narration tone of how Worku was located and identified because Sebhat was unfriendly to Samuel and Kiflu in which Sebhat portrayed them as his inferiors and dishonestly drew attention to himself. Also his statement that he conferred with Kiflu before he passed on his information to the authorities triggered my curiosity about what they conferred. In addition, I wondered why they (Kiflu and Sebhat) didn’t exchange greetings before they talked about Worku. To find the truth, I discussed the issues above with Aschalew and Kiflu.

Aschalew told me he and Sebhat weren’t on good terms when Sebhat’s book was published. Hence, Sebhat’s claim that he heard the news about Worku from Samuel is a lie which is intended not to give credit to Aschalew.  He added since he knew Sebhat was detained at the Higher-15, he told Sebhat about Worku that he was located and identified in Denver. And those who identified him needed the former Higher-15’s detainees to testify against him. Because Sebhat wanted to testify, he gave Aschalew permission to pass on his information to those who needed it. Aschalew then gave Sebhat’s full name and telephone number to Kaleabe, who told Aschalew about Worku and asked Aschalew to find former Higher-15 detainees.

How I Discovered Aschalew

I reached Kaleabe – Dr. Samuel Ketema’s friend and I asked him how he found Nesibu Sebhat’s, information. Kaleabe said he received it from Aschalew. Kaleabe added his long time friend Samuel told him about Worku, and asked Kaleabe to try finding one who knows Worku at the Higher-15’s detention camp. Since Aschalew knows many members of the EPRP, Kaleabe told Aschalew about Worku and asked Aschalew to find somebody who knows Worku at the Higher-15’s detention camp. Aschalew called Kaleabe back and gave him Sebhat’s full name and telephone number, and then Kaleabe gave it to Samuel.

Kaleabe said for many years he participated in the Assimba paltalk room, where he met Alulla (Sebhat) Kaleabe never knew Sebhat by his full name until Aschalew gave it to Kaleabe. He said he only knew Sebhat by his nick name, Alulla. Kaleabe told me he never heard Sebhat mentioning Worku’s name in the Assimba paltalk room through the years Kaleabe participated. He added, if Sebhat mentioned it as often as he claimed he did, Kaleabe would have remembered it given that he knew Worku in person in Nazreth, Ethiopia before the Red Terror. At the end of the review, I posted a story Kaleabe told me about Worku’s father.

Do I know Kaleabe?

I contacted Kiflu Ketema to discuss the book. A subject we talked about was how he found Nesibu Sebhat’s telephone number. Kiflu said his brother, Samuel, received it from his friend Kaleabe and gave it to Kiflu and asked him to call Sebhat because Kiflu was detained at Higher-15 and Sebhat wanted to testify against Worku. So Kiflu called Sebhat and asked/confirmed if he would be willing to testify. He expressed his willingness so Kiflu passed on Sebhat’s information to the FBI or the H.S.I. Kiflu advised me to call Kaleabe, and gave me Kaleabe’s telephone number to let me learn where Samuel found out Sebhat’s telephone number.

Who called Sebhat first Samuel or you I asked Kiflu? Kiflu wasn’t certain.  Kiflu thinks Samuel didn’t call Sebhat to tell him about Worku because Samuel didn’t know Sebhat, or Samuel wasn’t detained at Higher-15. Since Kiflu was the FBI, CIA, and/or H.S.I’s contact person concerning Worku’s case, Kiflu thought he called Sebhat.

Kiflu also told me Dargie, called and told him that Dargie received Kiflu’s telephone number from Sebhat and expressed Dargie’s willingness to testify against Worku. Kiflu added, Sebhat called him at another time and told him that Feleke also wanted to testify, and Sebhat gave Kiflu the telephone number of Feleke (pp. 364), which Kiflu passed to the FBI or the H.S.I. I noted Sebhat didn’t provide important details about how Dargie and Feleke information reached the authorities. Why did Sebhat remain silent on it? From his silence, I inferred that he wanted to appear and that he is the one who passed on their information to authorities.

Kiflu said he didn’t tell Sebhat the whole story how Worku was located and identified during their first telephone conversation because Kiflu didn’t know Sebhat to talk with him like that. Furthermore, Kiflu said he noticed the story’s timeline inaccuracy when he proofread Sebhat’s manuscript but ignored it. He added he gave Sebhat more than twenty-pages of major corrections, including important dates in Ethiopian history corrections and let go some minor inconsistencies such as their first telephone conversation.

I also mentioned to Kiflu that Sebhat’s tone of voice during their conversation was an authoritative way of speaking which assigned Kiflu an inferior quality. I asked him why he let it happen. He said other people who read the book gave him similar feedback that the writer portrayed himself as a superior. Kiflu explained his motive to make Worku to receive justice wasn’t to gain recognition or fame.

Since Sebhat said he conferred with Kiflu before letting him passing on his information to authorities, I asked Kiflu what they conferred. Kiflu said they didn’t conspire anything against Worku before they witnessed against him because there wasn’t anything to plot about.

A witness who saw Worku killing detainees said didn’t make an effort to reach Nesibu Sebhat

Scenes: “for unlawful procurement of citizenship, making false statements on immigration documents and identity theft” case against Worku, Sebhat claimed that it was necessary and so he was looking for a witness who saw Worku killing detainees. Sebhat also said while he was looking for a witness who saw Worku killing captives a witness who saw Worku killing detainees made an effort and reached Sebhat. And then he made an arrangement for the witness speak with the authorities (the FBI, ICE and/or H.S.I) and testify against Worku (pp. 367).

Fair judgments: THIS IS A SHAMELESS LIE that led me to conclude Sebhat is a compulsive liar. I have facts to prove my statement against his character. If I need more evidence, I will go to great lengths to provide. I challenge him to refute my statement against his moral fiber!

Why Nesibu Sebhat hid a petition against Kefelegn Alemu Worku from everyone?

Plot: the writer, Sebhat, said to strength the ICE and/or H.S.I’s case against Worku the author contacted the former Higher-15’s detainees in Ethiopia and asked for their collaboration to gather documents about Worku that would show he was sued due to his participation in the Red Terror and sentenced to death in absentia (pp. 365).

Critical analysis: did the FBI, ICE or H.S.I request Sebhat to gather information against Worku from Ethiopia? Did Sebhat inform the FBI, ICE or H.S.I that he received a petition against Worku? Why didn’t Sebhat tell those who testified against Worku with Sebhat that he received the petition? Why didn’t Sebhat mention it in his book?

An anonymous source told me that to strengthen the case against Worku he gathered a petition from 28 living witnesses who live in Ethiopia. Then he mailed it to Sebhat in the USA via DHL. To confirm that Sebhat received the mail, he emailed an anonymous. From Sebhat’s silence on such important document, the petition is strange. I inferred that he didn’t discuss the petition in his book because he didn’t want to give credit to an anonymous and, by extension, the petitioners.

I thought I should hear about the petition because I followed the case against Worku. Out of curiosity, I asked Kiflu Ketema whether he knew about it. Kiflu said he didn’t hear about the petition. I also asked Kiflu whether Sebhat was assigned by the FBI, ICE or H.S.I to gather information against Worku. Kiflu said they both took the initiative and looked for Worku’s pictures, but he doesn’t remember whether Sebhat told him his attempt to gather documents from Ethiopia.  Kiflu added, since the FBI, ICE and H.S.I handled the case, Sebhat’s self initiated effort to gather legal documents against Worku from Ethiopia appeared unnecessary. To clarify, Kiflu said the FBI through the State Department obtained legal documents against Worku from the Ethiopian government and let Kiflu read it at its office in Denver.

It appears that Sebhat didn’t share the petition with Worku’s prosecutors.  His silence on the petition led me to assume he didn’t want the petitioners to have a chance to testify against Worku, their torturer. Thus, Sebhat didn’t do his best to strengthen the case against Worku, the notorious man who tortured Sebhat inhumanly. I inferred Sebhat’s intent for contacting his former detention mates in Ethiopia was to set up a scene for his book (I heard he was in a process of writing the book). He briefly mentioned his effort in his book to appear as if he put the most effort into the case. Since he hid the petition from those who participated in the case against Worku, he wasn’t a good team player.

My friend, Sebhat Attributing invented quotes is lying

I spoke with some real people Nesibu Sebhat used in his book. They told me he used his unpolished writings as a weapon to spread lies and fake stories, which stunned them. They also told me he also used their names and stories without their permission and attributed to them his invented quotes.

Nesibu Sebhat doesn’t like tell it like it is so he deceived, including known Professors

Prof. Ghelawdewos Araia: in his endorsement texts, stated Nesibu Sebhat presented his stories in a theatrical historical narration which makes them a good read. I giggled at Araia remarks because Sebhat’s stories are nothing but a mixed bag of conflicting true historical narrations and fake screenplays. I tried to reach Araia without success.

Prof Getachew Begashaw: in a two-page letter, Begashaw highly recommended the book as the main evidence that reveals the EPRP’s youth league’s members’ commitment for the struggle to create a democratic Ethiopia. He suggested the book be used by Ethiopian history students and the new generation (pp. 382-383).

I contacted Begashaw and briefly discussed my observations regarding his remarks. And asked him why he highly praised and endorsed the book. He said Nesibu Sebhat, the author, gave him a manuscript and told him it is a true and accurate story. As a result, he took Sebhat’s word for it and then endorsed the book. Begashaw told me not to be concerned about sharing my observations with the reading communities. He also advised me to write a professional review to make it widely readable. Incidentally, he said he joined the EPRP’s fighters in the Assimba Mountains and fought against the Derg. I’m glad he told me this story because it is a great story.

Kiflu Ketema: I asked Kiflu why he endorsed the book. He said suggested about twenty-pages of major corrections on the Sebhat’s manuscript. And he let go, ignored, some of the stories and endorsed it just to please the writer. He encouraged me to present my thoughts about the book.

The book could have been of significant value if the author wasn’t dishonest

If it didn’t contain plagiarized works and invented quotes, if it wasn’t written with an inconsiderate mindset that worships the EPRP, if it wasn’t meant to glorify the writer by deceiving people, if it wasn’t meant to undermine people mentioned in the book, if it wasn’t meant to disinform, misinform and mislead novice readers and to make money and a name for himself, the book could have been of significant value.

The author’s worst lies are the ones he told to his family members. He deceived his sister, who was tormented by watching him being tortured (pp. 187). She cared for him as a sister and as if she was his mother (pp. 103-104). Though he said she supported him through thick and thin (pp. 378)), he fooled her by telling her his book is a true story. He told her to use it to teach her children. He misled his brother who was more like his father and his friend (pp. 378-379) by the same lies with which he deceived his sister.

Nesibu Sebhat’s contribution

I heard Sebhat’s stories regarding Worku’s crime broadcasted by a FM radio in Addis Ababa on the internet. I thought the message’s theme – human rights abusers will be served justice no matter how long it takes – was great although the stories were inaccurate. To clarify, the stories were manipulated facts by which Sebhat blurred the truth with his fake stories to glorify his role in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, ICE and H.S.I’s case against Worku.

A word about Kefelegn Alemu Worku’s father

Kaleabe said he knew the Higher-15’s detention camp’s executioners, including Worku in person for several years before the Red Terror began. Worku and his parents lived in Nazreth, Ethiopia. Worku’s father was a good man. He established a respected social organization that helped people during a family member’s death. Members of his communities had a high regard for him.

Another executioner – now residing in Florida his mother was married to a royal family member after she gave birth to her executioner son. She lived her life for the moment. When the Derg nationalized her income generating properties, she wasn’t able to feed her family. Hence, her killer son didn’t have much to eat. Kaleabe used to feed him at his parents’ home. When Kaleabe was detained in Addis Ababa, the monster killer came to the prison where Kaleabe was arrested when looking for a certain prisoner.

Conclusion, I needed to be a loud voice to the EPRP, my dear friends, my family member and myself. So I lay bare what they/I think privately and made my case. That beyond a reasonable doubt I proved Nesibu Sebhat dishonestly marked his book as a true history and, by extension, he is unethical and dishonest. I also proved that he intended to disinform, misinform and mislead novice readers and to make money and a name for himself at the expense of others reputation, including his endorsers. I accused him of plagiarism and dishonesty. I blamed his endorsers for encouraging plagiarism and helping to spread fake stories as true stories. I asked them to consider withdrawing their endorsements to correct history, discourage plagiarism and dishonest writings. I used vicious words like: plagiarist, unethical, lied, dishonest and manipulate for the lack of better words to make my points.

Some of the book’s context doesn’t match with Sebhat’s experience. Even worse, he expressed his feelings as an all-knowing character, which worships the EPRP and demonizes other political parties of the day, and in which he failed to draw a lesson from his teenage experiences. For example, to discover a better understanding of his experiences, answering questions like the following might have helped him to find the truth: would the EPRP or MESSION have been any better than the Derg? Might they have governed by the rule of law?  Might they have been democratic, transparent and accountable? Is using children for the EPRP’s military purposes such as lookouts and messengers something to brag about or to be embarrassed and ashamed?

The book’s great message though the facts were manipulated to glorify Sebhat is that Human rights abusers will be served justice no matter how long it takes. For a casual reader, the book appears to contain true stories. For a critical reader, it is an irritating read. It is like “sleeping on a mattress with its springs broken” because Sebhat’s authority, his experiences, his setting’s location and his stories’ locations don’t match up. I encourage my readers to consider reading the book with a big grain of salt because a reader would learn Sebhat’s ethical standard and how not to write inconsistent lies.

“Books are mirrors: you only see in them what you already have inside you.” – Carlos Ruiz Zafón, The Shadow of the Wind

Lastly, at my parents’ home, one early morning about 8 a.m. during the winter time, my youngest brother, who was eight years old, was playing in the front yard. As I was walking to a gate, I heard gunshots from an automatic weapon. I also heard my little brother letting out a scream of terror, mommy, mommy (እማማ, እማማ) as he was running towards the backyard where his mother was. Feeling or trying to appear brave, I tried to encourage him not to be afraid instead of attempting to ease my brother’s fear.

Then through a fence, I overheard someone shouting save me, save me. I also heard onlookers saying they hit him, but they didn’t kill him. I didn’t try to figure out who shot at whom, but suspected the EPRP’s squad might fire at their enemy. I had mixed feelings about the situation. Shortly afterwards, I forgot what I experienced and went back to play table tennis. About a year later, I realized my mistakes: not making an effort to comfort my brother from his traumatic moment ever. And not showing deep sympathy for the person who was hit by bullets. A decade later, I told my brother what happened and what I did. I asked him if he remembered it. He said he didn’t remember anything. I wished he had remembered it because I wanted to apologize. Not being able to apologize made me live with regret. Even worse, my brother’s scream and the guy’s voice, who begged people to save him, still frighten me.

Although I wish I didn’t need to write this critical analysis, I reacted and wrote it in honor of the Higher-15’s detention camp detainees, my high school friends, tutors, teachers and my family last year. From reading the book and writing the analysis, I learned that one doesn’t know what makes one react. I always feel shocked and angry when I hear about the brutal crimes committed during the Red Terror. But I never imagined writing this piece concerning the Higher-15’s detention camp’s Red Terror horrors. I never expected one would attempt to dishonestly glorify her/himself with the terrifying experiences at the detention camp. Oh, I forgot Commander, Asnake used to torture his friends to save his life.

When a dear friend told me about the book’s stories and recommended and encouraged me to read it, I reacted and wrote an unpublished commentary before reading the book. The piece isn’t published because my friend whom my article defended told me the author admitted a mistake and apologized.

I’m thankful for the hospitality I received from my dear friends. I’m grateful and deeply indebted for the free education I received from my sophomore to senior high school tutors and teachers, including my music, drawing and painting teachers. I’m also deeply indebted for the life time friendships we have although sometimes I take it for granted.




Sebhat, Nesibu. ፍጹም ነው እምነቴ. September 2007 E.C




The writer LJDemissie can be reached at






  1. No wonder there are NO comments.

    Those who work day and night and uphold their principle are very few in numbers. These genuine Ethiopians need to be supported. Nesibu Sibhat is one gallant freedom fighter who always stand up for principle.

    On the other hand there are those useless souls who contribute nothing to society but waste their life on vilifying and smearing good people’s name. The rubbish article that I see under LJDemissie is one such example. I ask Ato Nesibu Sibhat not to honor this trash with response.

  2. As a victim of torture myself living with the physical and emotional trauma to this day, I am very offended (if not traumatized again and again) by criticisms of such a well researched book about the red terror victims at keftegna 15 and an author who carries a scar from heel to knee. Anyone who stood and fought under the banner of the EPRP has a right to title his book as he did and telling stories about its gallant fighters after so much research into documents and interview of many survivors cannot be labelled as a perpetrator of what the critique wrongly calls “plagiarism”. Once the notorious killer kefelegn Alemu is brought into this picture, I gave-up reading Demmisse’s critique of the author as simply rubbish and beyond one’s skin of tolerance. To those who have and are still documenting the history of the red terror, I say keep-up and never be discouraged.

  3. Freedom fighters have principles stronger than: Steel, Titanium, Tungsten and Inconel.
    Freedom fighters don’t lie.

    Freedom fighters don’t steal. Freedom fighters don’t like lairs and thieves. Freedom fighters have a mind that they use to create what they want to create.

    There are people who lie, for example Sebhat. People who lie aren’t freedom fighters. There are people who plagiarize, for example Sebhat. People who plagiarize aren’t freedom fighters. And there are people who don’t care about the truth such as you. That is life, but at the end of the day the truth wins…. The truth matters…The truth have a way of surfacing no matter how long it takes.

    Sebhat doesn’t have anything to respond for the article. If has a gut, he needs to come out clean by apologizing to his readers.

    The writer of article said plagiarizing is stealing. Those who steal are called …. Lying is a sin. Those who lie are called… Those who collaborate with a plagiarizer or a liar are called collaborator.

    One should use his/her mind to create; one shouldn’t use his/her mind to steal from others. God said don’t steal; but Sebhat plagiarized!! God said don’t kill; but Kefelegn Alemu Worku.killed.

  4. Tsehay Demeke,

    You didn’t see. There are 88 comments:28 FaceBook share; 24 Facebook Like; 3 tweets, and 33 Share

  5. Sinksar,

    Although blindly, you have a right to support the book’s author who lies right and left. And that is what you did; you blindly defended him which doesn’t add value to the discussion.

    If you seriously think the book is well researched, you don’t understand what a research means. It is depressing to read your defense of plagiarism because it showcased your lack of understanding of it.

    As far as I am concerned, I forgiven Worku and forward. As a matter of fact I forgive all the Red Terror participants long ago.

    I think LJD did an outstanding job. So I like to extend my congratulations to LJD!!!

  6. Tazabe:
    I appreciate your comments regarding my defence of Nesibu and critique of his critique LJD.
    I don’t think you’ve grasped my intent and, hence, jumped into labelling me as blind supporter and as being ignorant of what research means. You’re wrong on both counts! I am defending our common history as narrated by Nesibu and many others before him or after him. Nesibu used both documentary as well as QRM (qualitative research method) to collect his stories in the book. The former is manifested in some documents procured from Ethiopia and the latter in the many interviews and/or narratives of Higher 15 survivors whose own words are included in the second half of his book. See Yatewlid website for other documentary evidence. His own memory is also another source.

    As to my original criticism of LJD, I admit I jumped the gun before reading the whole story or the gist of his criticisms. I read it one more time and am still not convinced to buy into his allegation of ‘Plagiarism’.

    If I were LJD and still not convinced Nesibu’s book as having historical values and much truth than fiction, if at all, I would only criticize him for exaggerating his role and/or for not including others’ voices in his book, which LJD claims to have happened pertaining to Kefelegn Alemu’s case.
    I read his book with tears on my eyes as I was already aware of some of the stories. My interest was more on those stories than on the style of writinwg or ownership of who should say what when all were on the frontline being heroic martyrs for a cause much bigger than all of us. I still say EPRP’s Creative Work, as LJD rightly put it, is more highlighted and presented for recollection into our fading collective memories than appropriated as one’s own (the area of IPR and call for plagiarism) by the use of revolutionary slogans like ‘Fitsum NewEmnete’ .

    Thank you for the opportunity!

  7. Sinkar,

    What makes you assume other voices like LJD should be included in Nesibu’s book.

    Thanks for reading my comment. Also thanks for responding for it. You sound like a person who likes to hold a good conversation and who cares about history, which I think are great qualities. So, keep it up! With the foraging in mind, I would try to re-explain my point. Primarily, I don’t know Nesibu or LJD.

    First, you think plagiarism is Ok. To be more specific, you appear that you think some plagiarism is ok and some plagiarism isn’t ok. Regarding the subject in hand, you think the plagiarism Nesibu committed is Ok.

    I will not try to change your mind about the plagiarism Sebhat committed because you don’t have an open mind about it. And/or you don’t understand what plagiarism means. So, if you agree with me, let us agree to disagree about plagiarism and move on.

    Before we move on, my understanding of plagiarism is the same as LJD’s that plagiarism is “unforgivable crime in any form of writing.” Your understanding is plagiarism is a forgivable crime depending on the situation. Please correct me if I mistakenly articulated your point of view about plagiarism.

    Second, LJD accused Nesibu for lying. The ounce is on you to disprove LJD’s proves that Nesibu lied not about only Kefelegn Alemu Worku but also about other things LJD articulated in his write up. He proved that Nesibu fabricated stories. You need to disprove LJD that Nesibu didn’t fabricate story. You need to prove that Nesibu wrote about everything he saw. You need to tell LJD that Nesibu didn’t lie; Nesibu wrote about what he witnessed.

    Third, you said that Nesibu exaggerated his role about Kefelegn Alemu Worku. Well, LJD proved that Nesibu lied about his role about Kefelegn Alemu Worku. How do you reconcile your claim and LJD’s prove. You cannot reconcile them unless you disprove LJD’s prove. Please note that assertion or claims are not proves.

    You said you are defending “our common history as narrated by Nesibu”. I cannot change your mind about Nesibu’s book because your mind is blocked. I cannot unlock it for you, but I wish you try to unlock it yourself so that you would defend our common history by facts instead of by emotion.

    To say it differently, you aren’t willing to accept new information and to reevaluate your stand. Your thoughts are set in stone; they are no longer changeable. I feel sorry for you.

    You said you cried when you read Nesibu’s book This tells me that you have a kind heart, but it doesn’t tell me that you have a reasonable or a critical mind. I would take it one step further and argue that you were ready to cry before you read the book because you knew about the inhuman atrocities committed during the read terror.

    I don’t think LJD wants to be included in Sebhat’s book for the obvious reason that LJD proved that Sebhat isn’t a good writer. Sebhat is a lair. In my view, the two people have nothing in common.

    To me LJD appeared capable to write about whatever he wants to write.

  8. Dear Tazabe:

    Thank you again for your response and some kind words which means a lot. My mind is always open in search of the truth. Truth is relative to time, place and one’s view of the world. It is that view I subscribe to and it is in that world view I read Sibhat’s book. Had Sibhat’s been able to reference his book and provide bibliography, most of LJD’s accusations of ‘plagiarism’ (a very serious accusation, I might add) , would never have surfaced.

    Sibhat’s has already told us in his book the highest level of organizational leadership he had worked at was as secretary of the Youth League’s Sub-region. He talked about the party’s differeunt levels of organizational structures and other issues someone at his level could not have known. While he did that in the interest of history, I agree that he has not told us how he procured these information by way of adequate referencing.

    We know that Sibhat’s and Yatewlid Organization have procured extensive information on red terror after the fall of the Dergue and that must have helped him extensively to lay the ground for his book. It appears he had also interviewed many survivors of Higher 15 and this is variously reflected in his book.

    Given Sibhat’s nearly disabled situation while in prison due to torture, LJD assumes the only thing Sibhat could have known is about himself and not about others who perished around him (near and far). Hence, the storyline he created, assumes LJD, is therefore untrue and/or sensationalized just to sale his book and make profits.

    If I were LJD and I don’t harbour any other personal issues against Sibhat, I would either write a book to correct history or line by line criticize the assumed fallacies as he saw it. From my read of his write-up, I have not sensed that. He just accuses Sibhat of plagiarism, dishonesty and lies (or using these terms interchangeably as if they mean the same).

    One can be a liar and/or dishonest without plagiarizing someone else’s intellectual property. Hence, mixing these concepts without being sure of what to say is problematic, to begin with. I hope you see what I am seeing while I respect your position as it stands.

    In your first response to my posting, I know you said you have long forgiven the perpetrators of the red terror and I must tell you I largely agree in the interest of moving forward but we must also agree that victims families have a final say.

    Thank you for the engagement and I will give you the last word. Take-care.

  9. Sinksar,

    I must let you know that your remarks are thoughtful. And thank you for offering me to have the last word in our discussion; it is very nice of you. I appreciated it. But I think you should have the last word, which would conclude our discussion. At the beginning of our discussion, I alleged that you already took the author’s side and you want to defend him by all means although you were provided evidence, facts by the critic. I respect your position, and I don’t want to try to change your mind because it is a futile effort.

    However, as a friend, I want to point out a flaw in your last defense. To dismiss the evidence (the facts) the critic provided to her/his reader, your last defense arsenal became “truth is relative to time, place” which is a good argument, and it helped you to sound smarter. But your last arsenal of defense reflects only one famous philosophical school of thought’s view about truth.

    I studied that school of thought extensively in private; I enjoyed learning it very much. That school of thought argues that truth is relative which means if something is true to you (Sinksar) it is true to (Tazabe). Period. That is it without getting into details. To use your thought in our discussion, you literally told me that, the things Sebhat wrote about are true for Sebhat therefore they are true for Sinksar, Tazabe and everyone. Write hear we can finish our discussion because we aren’t getting anywhere. But let me continue one more time. Other philosophical schools of thought have different perspective about truth. Since our discussion isn’t about truth or lie, I have change subject.

    The book’s author Sebhat provided his assertions as his fact that he saw in his own eyes, he witnessed the incidents he wrote about, he experienced every terrible situation … The critic analyzed some of the Sebhat’s claims and provided evidence which proved the author didn’t see, experience,… his claims. Mind you, I stated that the critic proved with facts the authors assertions are lies. I am not taking about relative truth or relative lies that you are talking about.

    Let me quote you about the next issue I want us to discuss with you. Sinksar said “Sibhat’s has already told us in his book the highest level of organizational leadership he had worked at was as secretary of the Youth League’s Sub-region. He talked about the party’s different levels of organizational structures and other issues someone at his level could not have known. While he did that in the interest of history, I agree that he has not told us how he procured this information by way of adequate referencing.”

    Regarding the above, I want to let you know that you made a great observation. However in your statement below your blurred your clear thought above to create confusion. You didn’t puzzle me, but you confused yourself. You did this because you wanted to defend Sibhat by all means, which isn’t helping our discussion at all.” That is unfortunate. Let us move on, you continued.

    In your statements above you assumed although the critic told you that Sebhat didn’t interview all the people he quoted; Sebhat invented quotes for them and attributed to them. Dear brother, what would you feel if I go around town and tell people things you didn’t say? What would you feel if I go around town and tell people Sinksar said “this and that”? For example, if I tell people Sinksar said he fall in love with Judy although he married to Dinkenish and they have six children between them. Would you get upset at me? Would you call me a fraud? Please be honest for yourself and answer the question whether you would be upset at me and you call me a fraud. If you use your argument that truth is relative, you would not be upset at me at all and you would not ever call me a liar. You would say since Tazabe said Sinksar has a fraudulent love affair, it is true.

    Just one more time, please take a look at the author’s claims and the critic’s facts with an open mind just for the sake of it. I promise you that you would acquire facts in turn knowledge about people such as Sebhat. Why Sebhat lied? Why Sebhat misinformed people? Why Sebhat manipulated facts?

    Just be honest for yourself; just look at the fact provided.

  10. Dear Tazabe:
    It was my intent to end this conversation with respect for each other when I gave you the last word. I can tell you that I very much enjoyed the back and forth for it is becoming enlightening day after day. Much respect my friend!

    You raised some issues nobody (including you &I) can really answer with absolute certainty – the telling of lies, unless both of us trust one over the other and take that fact for granted. I gave my opinion based on my read of the material which provided me with the reinforcement of what I knew in real life – the killings at Higher 15 and most of the names and images of the martyrs. That is absolute truth!
    The relative truth I was talking about, which you obviously have a great grasp of, does not necessarily fall in the trap of what in the Western philosophical thought of the Enlightenment is considered ‘universal & absolute’ . Critique and Interpretations of others’ works , I am afraid, could fall in the trap of such a political thinking which appears to be, but necessarily, the case in the critique’s read of the book.

    You have raised a number of important issues as well as hypotheticals surrounding truth/untruth and the spread of lies and how one/I should react to such lies if someone I know (like yourself whom I have known during the brief exchange) has done it. My reaction would be firm and the unwavering, if that was the case.

    The central issue we’ve been discussing here has not been lies and deceptions and/or dishonesty – human behaviour and traits which could surface in one form or another. I am not saying should they happen, they should be forgiven. I would still be worried if I find any of them to be true.

    Plagiarism was the operational term LJD used in his critique of Sebhat’s work and that is where my major concern was and remains. If LJD was really serious about the integrity of our (I am sure he was part of that history) he would instead talk about mostly false and made-up stories as reflected in Mohamed Yimam’s ‘Were Negari’ and one other book from Australia.

    Dear Tazabe:
    I have been fortunate to have a chance to converse with you and exchange some critical thoughts that are a lesson to me. I don’t have anything to add and I must say goodbye thanking you of course for the civilized discussion. Regards


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here