Egypt’s Colonial-Era Nile Claims Cannot Override #Ethiopia’s Right to Equitable Water Use: Ministry Advisor

Addis Ababa, November 2, 2026 (FMC) — Egypt cannot use colonial-era agreements or claims of historical entitlement to deny Ethiopia and other upstream countries their right to equitable utilization of the Nile, Kebede Gerba, a consultant to Ethiopia’s Ministry of Water and Energy, has said, describing the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) as a decisive assertion of that right.

In an exclusive interview with Fana Media Corporation during the Third Ethiopian Water and Energy Week in Addis Ababa, Kebede said Egypt had for decades sought to preserve an unequal utilization of the Nile through political, economic, legal and, at times, military pressure, resisting the legitimate development aspirations of countries whose territories contribute to the river system.

He said the 1929 and 1959 colonial-era agreements underpinning the existing unequal arrangement failed to recognize the rights and interests of upstream riparian countries, including Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

Ethiopia, he stressed, had opposed the colonial treaty framework from the outset and consistently maintained that the Nile must be treated as a shared resource governed by equitable and reasonable utilization.

For Kebede, the GERD is a concrete demonstration that Ethiopia will not surrender its right to develop its water resources because of arrangements made without due consideration of upstream countries. Its realization, he said, sends a powerful signal across the Nile Basin that every riparian state has the right to use its equitable share of the shared resource.

He rejected Egypt’s characterization of the dam as a unilateral undertaking, arguing that the project was neither concealed from downstream countries nor illegitimate under international water law.

“The construction of the GERD was not a secret to the downstream nations, including Egypt,” he said, adding that Ethiopia had undertaken assessments of water resources in the Nile Basin since the 1950s.

According to him, Ethiopia’s utilization through the dam has not exceeded its equitable share and has not caused significant harm to downstream countries. He maintained that the project is consistent with the principles of equitable and reasonable utilization and the obligation to avoid significant harm.

Kebede argued that Egypt’s continued opposition reflects its determination to maintain an unequal share of the Nile rather than accept the principles that should govern a shared international watercourse.

Citing figures on the basin’s annual flow and Egypt’s utilization, he said the Nile carries approximately 84 billion cubic metres of water annually, while Egypt uses about 55.5 billion cubic metres or more. He questioned the basis for Egypt’s claim to such a substantial share while upstream countries continue to seek the right to develop water resources within their own territories.

He particularly challenged Cairo’s reliance on what it describes as historical or natural rights over the Nile, saying such claims are not the principles recognized by international water law as the basis for allocating the use of shared water resources.

Instead, he emphasized equitable and reasonable utilization and the obligation to avoid significant harm to other riparian countries as the principles that should guide development throughout the basin.

The consultant further accused Egypt of using political pressure, misinformation and military threats against upstream countries seeking to develop the Nile’s resources. He described these approaches as tactics intended to intimidate other riparian states and preserve an inequitable pattern of utilization.

Although such pressure may be used to discourage upstream development, he said, it does not establish a legitimate basis for denying countries their rights.

His assessment places Egypt’s objections to the GERD within a wider historical dispute over who has the right to use the Nile and on what terms. For Ethiopia, the central issue is not a claim to exclusive ownership of the river, but the right to develop water resources within its sovereign territory on an equitable basis, while respecting the interests of other riparian countries.

Kebede said the GERD’s significance therefore extends beyond Ethiopia’s development ambitions. By demonstrating the practical realization of equitable utilization, the project could encourage other upstream countries to strengthen their capacity to use their fair share of the basin’s resources.

He also pointed to the dam’s potential benefits for downstream countries, including electricity exports, more regulated river flows, reduced flood risks, mitigation of drought impacts and lower sedimentation. These benefits, he argued, further undermine the portrayal of the GERD as a project inherently detrimental to countries downstream.

The consultant maintained that Ethiopia’s position does not entail disregarding the interests of Egypt or other riparian states. Rather, upstream development must be pursued in a manner that avoids significant harm, with technical assessments and cooperation addressing potential impacts.

He said the Nile’s shared character means that no country can claim exclusive rights over its waters or prevent other riparian states from exercising their equitable entitlements.

Kebede also urged a fundamental change in how disputes over the river are handled, arguing that water development should not be politicized or treated as a military matter. Hydrologists, geologists, environmentalists and other specialists, he said, should assess the impacts of projects and identify technical measures to address them.

Differences among basin countries should be resolved peacefully through dialogue and expert engagement, rather than political intimidation or attempts to weaponize shared water resources.

The GERD, he concluded, signals that the future of the Nile Basin must be built on equitable utilization, respect for the rights of all riparian countries and cooperation based on shared benefits—not the perpetuation of colonial-era arrangements that denied upstream nations an equitable place in the development of their common resource.