Privatization of public enterprise is the common trend in transition economies. The success of privatization programs, however, depends on the legal, policy and institutional frameworks in place. Ethiopia, after two decades of communism, has introduced privatization program since 1991 with mixed outcomes. This study tried to examine the legal, policy and institutional frameworks of privatization of public enterprise in Ethiopia. Qualitative research strategy was implemented, and interview and review of document were used as data collection tools. The study tries to point out the legal, institutional and practical problems of privatization. From vantage point of legal frameworks there are some legal provisions that restrict the success of privatization. This includes the continued state ownership of land, denial of private sectors and foreign investors from some economic sectors, and the continued establishment of Public Enterprise through Proclamation No 25/1992 and enforcement government institution and absence of privatization law for enterprise that are not accountable to privatization agency. The recognition and protection of private property right under constitution and the guarantee and incentives under investment law have significant contribution for implementation of privatization. The roles of privatization institutions with frequently changed structures (agency, enterprise, authority or ministry) have faced the challenges of lack of sufficient power to pass basic decision, lack of skilled man power and resource. Coming to the policy environment, investment, industrial and trade policies are pro-privatization even if there is no a distinct privatization policy that specify how to select public enterprise to be privatized, to choice method and identify buyers. This resulted non-transparency and unpredictable of privatization process. There was weak participation of domestic and foreign investors and concentration of ownership. Finally, this study recommends policy, legal and institutional measures so as to rectify the existing substantive and procedural gaps in privatization.