By Mosisa Aga

Part VI: The Girma Xuruna Controversy: Leader of Qeerroo or Double Agent?

The controversy surrounding Girma Xuruna is not new. Allegations that he was secretly working with the security apparatus of the former Ethiopian government emerged nearly a decade ago and were repeatedly promoted through OMN and Jawar Mohammed’s social media platforms. Over the years, these allegations have taken on the appearance of established fact in some circles, even though the evidence behind them has remained a matter of dispute. The controversy continues to this day, and recent public testimonies have raised new questions about the reliability of some of the claims made against Girma.

Several individuals with direct knowledge of the events have recently challenged the allegations. Dechasa Wirtu, Aman File, lawyer Wondimu Ibsa, and Diribsa Damte have publicly discussed Girma and the events surrounding his alleged involvement in the arrest of members of the Qeerroo movement. Particularly significant are the testimonies of the two individuals who were allegedly arrested because of information provided by Girma, artist Girma Xuruna and Habtamu Milkeessaa. Both have strongly denied that Girma caused their arrests and have explained that Girma joined the group that was arrested at the time. OLF leader Daud Ibsa has also stated publicly that, apart from allegations circulated through social media, no one has presented evidence demonstrating wrongdoing by Girma. These testimonies do not, by themselves, settle the controversy. They do, however, make it important to revisit both the evidence surrounding the allegations and the contemporaneous record of Girma’s role in the Qeerroo movement.

Before examining the controversy, itself, it is important to understand why Girma’s role in Qeerroo matters. Among his contributions to the movement, two stand out in particular: his establishment and leadership of Hawwisoo Qeerroo Bilisummaa, the Qeerroo artists’ group, and his establishment and leadership of Sagalee Qeerroo Bilisummaa, the Qeerroo radio program. These were not merely cultural or media initiatives. They became important means through which the Qeerroo movement expressed its political ideas, communicated with Oromo youth, and helped mobilize support for the broader struggle. I will discuss these contributions first, beginning with Hawwisoo Qeerroo Bilisummaa, before turning to Sagalee Qeerroo Bilisummaa. The evidence surrounding Girma’s role in these initiatives provides important context for understanding both his place in the Qeerroo movement and the controversy that later developed around him.

Hawwisoo Qeerroo: Girma Xuruna and the Voice of Qeerroo

One of the most significant developments of the Qeerroo movement was the emergence of Hawwisoo Qeerroo Bilisummaa, the Qeerroo Bilisummaa Artists’ Group. The group produced revolutionary songs that inspired and mobilized Oromo youth during a period of growing resistance to political repression. In my December 4, 2014 article, I documented songs produced and released on YouTube under the group’s name, providing contemporaneous evidence of its existence and activities.

This record is particularly relevant to the present discussion because members of Hawwisoo who worked closely with Girma Xuruna have publicly identified him as a key organizer and leader of the group. Several have gone further, crediting Girma as the architect behind the songs produced during this period. Their testimony therefore places Girma at the center of one of the most visible cultural expressions of the Qeerroo movement, not merely as a participant but as an organizer who helped shape its artistic and political message.

The songs released under the name Hawwisoo Qeerroo Bilisummaa provide a contemporaneous record of its political and cultural activities during this period. Their repeated references to Qeerroo, together with the testimonies of people who worked directly with the group, provide important evidence of Hawwisoo’s activities and of Girma Xuruna’s role in organizing and leading it.

Partial List of Songs Released by Hawwisoo Qeerroo in 2014

To further document the group’s activities, my December 4, 2014 article included a partial list of revolutionary songs produced and released on YouTube by Hawwisoo Qeerroo Bilisummaa between January 1 and November 30, 2014. I included only songs identified on YouTube as “Wallee Hawwisoo Qeerroo Bilisummaa,” meaning songs from the Qeerroo Bilisummaa Artists’ Group.

The list was not intended to include every revolutionary Oromo song released during that period. Numerous songs by individual artists, some of whom may have been associated with the group and others whose affiliation was unclear, were excluded because they were not identified on YouTube under the group’s name. These included songs by well-known Oromo artists such as Elemo Ali, Angatu Balcha, Hirpha Ganfure, Addisu Karayyu, Shukri Jamal, Jafar Yusuf, Jirenya Shiferaw, Dadhi Galan, Kekiya Badhadha, Chala Bultume, Getachew Niguse, Ararsa Gabbisa, Sena Solomon, Galana Garomsa, Kadir Martu, Ebrahim Adam, Asha Birre, Amin Hussein, Tolawak Elias, and many others.

The following is the list I documented in 2014. The English translations of the song titles are my own.

1. Qeerroo Bilisummaa Falmaa Itti Fufna, meaning “Qeerroo Bilisummaa Will Continue the Struggle.” Released January 7, 2014.
2. Kunoo Akkas Yaa Lammii Koo Garaan Na Ciise Reefuu, meaning approximately “Yes, My Fellow Oromos, I Am Now Reassured [That You Continue the Struggle].” Released January 12, 2014.
3. Guyyaa Seenaan Yaadatamuu Qabu, meaning “A Day That Must Be Remembered in History.” Released April 15, 2014, in remembrance of Oromo heroes and heroines who lost their lives in the struggle. April 15 is commemorated as Guyyaa Gootota Oromoo, or Oromo Heroes and Heroines Day.
4. Oromiyaa Keessaan Qeerroon Sitti Marse, meaning “You [the Enemy] Are Surrounded by Qeerroo in Oromia.” Released May 14, 2014.
5. Labsii, Labsii, meaning “Declaration, Declaration.” Released June 19, 2014.
6. Ohh Lolaa Qeerroo Korri Yoomii, meaning approximately “Oh Qeerroo, When Shall We Gather [to Struggle]?” Released July 8, 2014.
7. Nuti Qeerroon Leenca Goota, meaning “We Qeerroo Are Brave Lions.” Released August 6, 2014.
8. Cidha Bara Dhufuu, Cidha Bilisummaa, meaning “The Coming Year’s Wedding, the Wedding of Freedom.” Released August 17, 2014.
9. Qeerroon Diina Mancaase, meaning “Qeerroo Is About to Defeat the Enemy.” Released August 31, 2014.
10. Gootni Baroode, meaning “The Hero Roared [Like a Lion].” Released September 4, 2014.
11. Jabaadhu WBO, Abdii Saba Kiyyaa, meaning “Be Strong, WBO, Hope of My People.” Released September 16, 2014. WBO is the acronym for Waraana Bilisummaa Oromoo, or Oromo Liberation Army.
12. Ka’i Qeerroo, meaning “Stand Up, Qeerroo.” Released September 24, 2014.
13. Kaasi Gowwaa Rafu, meaning “Wake Up, You Fool Who Is Sleeping.” Released November 2, 2014.
14. Oromo Falmadhu, meaning “Oromo, Struggle for Your Rights.” Released November 7, 2014.
15. Baranoo Goonni Si Waama, meaning “This Year the Hero Is Calling You.” Released May 3, 2014.
16. Sadaasni 9 Guyyaa Gootowwanii, meaning “November 9, a Day of Heroes.” Released November 9, 2014, in remembrance of the Oromo student martyrs killed on November 9, 2005.
17. Na Dhiisi Jennaan Na Didde, meaning “I Told You [My Enemy] to Leave Me Alone, but You Refused.” Released November 18, 2014.
18. Ka’i, Ka’i, meaning “Stand Up, Stand Up.” Released November 25, 2014.
19. Tedy Afro, Maal Baacca, meaning “Is Teddy Afro Kidding?” Released January 4, 2014. The song references popular Ethiopian singer Teddy Afro and his celebration of Emperor Menelik II, whom many Oromo view as a symbol of conquest and historical oppression.

Taken together, these songs provide a contemporaneous record of the political and cultural expression associated with Qeerroo Bilisummaa in 2014. Their repeated references to Qeerroo, consistent themes, and regular release under the name Hawwisoo Qeerroo Bilisummaa document the movement’s presence and activities during a critical period of the Oromo struggle. More importantly for the question examined here, these records provide a contemporary point of reference for understanding Girma Xuruna’s role in the movement. They do not, by themselves, establish every aspect of Qeerroo’s organization or leadership, but they provide valuable evidence that can be considered alongside the testimony of those who worked directly with Girma and Hawwisoo Qeerroo Bilisummaa.

Sagalee Qeerroo: Girma Xuruna and the Voice of Qeerroo

Another important initiative associated with the Qeerroo movement was Sagalee Qeerroo Bilisummaa Oromoo, or Qeerroo’s Voice. Launched in January 2014 as a shortwave radio program, it was designed to reach Oromo audiences inside Oromia who had limited or no access to the internet. Broadcasting three days a week, the program reported on the activities and developments of Qeerroo on the ground and provided a means of connecting the movement with a much broader audience. The programs were also made available through YouTube and Facebook, allowing Oromo audiences outside the country to follow the movement.

The establishment and operation of Sagalee Qeerroo, alongside Hawwisoo Qeerroo, is important in assessing Girma Xuruna’s role in the movement. Together, these initiatives provided Qeerroo with two powerful means of communication, one through music and cultural expression and the other through radio and political information. The role attributed to Girma in organizing and leading these initiatives is therefore relevant to understanding his place within Qeerroo before turning to the much more serious allegations later made against him.

Girma Xuruna: Double Agent or Unproven Accusation?

                                   Picture from Social Media

The allegations against Girma Xuruna raise a more fundamental question: what evidence has actually been presented to substantiate them? This question is especially important because Jawar Mohammed has recently stated that his investigation led him to conclude that Girma was a “double agent” and that this conclusion influenced his decision to move away from the name Qeerroo and emphasize “Oromo Protest.” Such a serious allegation cannot be established by repetition, social media influence, or the number of people who have come to believe it. It requires evidence that can be independently examined and verified.

The principle is straightforward. If someone is accused of secretly collaborating with a government or acting as an agent of an opposing political force, the burden of proof rests with the person making the accusation. The accused should not be required to prove his innocence simply because an influential individual or thousands of social media users have accused him. Repetition does not transform an allegation into evidence. This distinction is particularly important in the age of social media, where repeated accusations can acquire the appearance of historical fact even when the underlying evidence remains inaccessible or nonexistent.

Jawar’s own account describes an investigation that he says involved people within the Qeerroo structure, OLF officials, and sources inside government security institutions. He says that government forces appeared to possess unusually detailed information about Qeerroo activities, that people working within Girma’s network approached him with complaints and evidence, and that sources within the federal police and national intelligence confirmed that Girma had provided information that resulted in arrests. If these claims are supported by reliable evidence, they would deserve serious consideration. The problem is that the evidence itself has not been publicly presented.

Evidence that government security forces had infiltrated Qeerroo, for example, does not establish that Girma was the person who provided the information. A separate evidentiary link is necessary. Likewise, Jawar refers to people who allegedly worked under Girma and approached him with evidence against him, but he does not identify them, explain what they personally witnessed, or present the evidence they supposedly supplied. Were they eyewitnesses? What exactly did they observe? Did their accounts independently corroborate one another? Were their claims supported by documents, communications, or other verifiable records? Without answers to these questions, Jawar’s account tells us only that he says unnamed individuals made accusations against Girma. It does not establish who they were, whether they had firsthand knowledge, or whether their accusations were true.

The same problem applies to Jawar’s references to sources within government security institutions. He says these sources confirmed that Girma had provided information that led to arrests. Such testimony could be highly significant if independently evaluated. Yet the sources are not identified, the alleged arrests are not specified, and no documents, communications, or other records are presented. An assertion attributed to an unnamed security source remains an assertion unless the underlying evidence can be examined.

Jawar later adds that while imprisoned at Qaliti, he spoke with former security, police, and military officials who had served under the previous government. According to his account, these conversations provided additional information about Girma and about relationships between some OLF officials and the security apparatus. Again, this could potentially be important evidence. But the public account does not identify the individuals, explain precisely what they personally knew about Girma, or provide records that would allow their claims to be independently assessed. Speaking with former security officials may provide information worth investigating, but it does not by itself establish the truth of what they allegedly reported.

There is also an important complication in Jawar’s account concerning OLF leadership. He says that he presented allegations against Girma to OLF leader Daud Ibsa. According to Jawar, Daud acknowledged that some of the actions in question had occurred but gave them a different interpretation. He reportedly argued that Girma had undertaken those actions for the benefit of the struggle and that some were carried out with the knowledge and authorization of the organization’s leadership. Whether Daud’s interpretation was correct is a separate matter. What is significant is that Jawar interpreted Girma’s actions as evidence of betrayal, while a senior OLF leader apparently viewed those same actions as serving the organization’s interests.

Even more importantly, Jawar says that members of the OLF’s Gumii Sabaa had concluded that Girma was an enemy agent, but that a letter from the OLF chairman rejected that conclusion because there was insufficient evidence. This does not prove that Girma was innocent. It does, however, demonstrate that the allegation was not an established fact even among people who were in a position to examine it at the time. Jawar’s own account therefore reveals disagreement among people close to the organization over how Girma’s actions should be understood.

Jawar also refers to information from an unnamed OPDO official concerning organizational assets allegedly controlled by Girma. Even if the underlying account were accurate, control of organizational resources would establish that Girma occupied an important position within the organization. It would not, by itself, establish that he was a government agent. The critical question would still be whether there is evidence connecting him to government intelligence and demonstrating that he acted on its behalf.

Taken together, Jawar’s account shows that allegations were made against Girma and that Jawar says he investigated them. It also describes claims that some individuals within the Oromo political movement accused Girma of wrongdoing and that government officials kept him in detention. But none of these claims, as presented in Jawar’s account, establishes the central allegation that Girma secretly worked as a government agent. The fact that someone was accused, investigated, or detained does not by itself establish that the accusation was true.

This distinction is fundamental. Evidence that an organization was infiltrated does not establish that a particular individual was the infiltrator. Evidence that someone had contact with security officials does not necessarily establish that he worked for them. Evidence that someone controlled organizational resources does not establish espionage. Similarly, evidence that someone took controversial or even harmful actions does not, without additional evidence, establish his intention, affiliation, or motive.

There is also a significant change in how Jawar characterizes Girma. In his earlier account, Jawar describes Girma as a “double agent,” implying that he secretly worked for the government while operating within the Oromo movement. In his later account, however, Jawar uses the terms “liaison agent” or “intelligence intermediary.” He claims that Girma worked with both the OLF and the security apparatus and that OLF leadership knew about this arrangement. According to this later account, Girma allegedly organized and trained young people, facilitated the movement of people and resources, and then provided information about some of them to the government. Jawar further claims that senior OLF leaders and government officials knew about these activities and tolerated them because they considered his usefulness greater than the harm he caused.

If this later account could be established with credible evidence, it would raise serious questions about Girma’s activities and about the decisions of those who allegedly knew about them. But it would also fundamentally change the nature of the original allegation. Someone who secretly infiltrated an organization while deceiving its leadership is very different from someone whose activities were known to and tolerated by both sides. The latter is much closer to the “liaison agent” or “intelligence intermediary” that Jawar himself now describes.

This creates an important evidentiary question. If OLF leadership knowingly authorized or tolerated Girma’s alleged cooperation with the security apparatus, then the allegation is no longer simply that Girma secretly betrayed the organization. It becomes a broader claim involving the knowledge, judgment, and decisions of those who allegedly permitted him to operate in this way. Yet Jawar has not publicly presented documents, contemporaneous records, communications, or identifiable firsthand testimony establishing who knew what, when they knew it, and what they authorized.

The passage of time does not remove the need for evidence. If credible evidence exists showing that Girma secretly provided information to government security, that evidence should be presented and examined. What specific information did he allegedly provide? Which arrests resulted from it? Who can independently verify the connection? Who recruited or directed him? What documents or communications demonstrate the alleged relationship? These are basic questions that should accompany an allegation as serious as this one.

None of this requires declaring Girma innocent of every allegation ever made against him. Nor does it require accepting every claim made by those who defend him. The issue is narrower and more fundamental: Has sufficient credible evidence been presented to establish that Girma Xuruna was a government “double agent”?

Based on the material presented so far, the answer appears to be no. What Jawar’s account presents are allegations, claims attributed to unnamed sources, an investigation he says he conducted, conflicting interpretations of Girma’s actions, and a later characterization of Girma as an alleged “liaison agent” or “intelligence intermediary.” What has not been publicly demonstrated is the evidentiary link necessary to establish that Girma secretly worked for the government. Until such evidence is presented and independently evaluated, the claim that Girma Xuruna was a “double agent” should remain an allegation, not a settled historical fact.

The burden of proof belongs to the accuser, not the accused. An influential social media platform can amplify an accusation, but it cannot provide the evidence needed to prove it.