Details of a secret deal in which leaders granted themselves

via Details of a secret deal in which African leaders granted themselves…….. | The Ngami Times July 11, 2014

Details of a secret deal in which African leaders granted themselves and their allies immunity from prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, have only now started coming out – long after the African Union summit of heads of state and government ended.

The vote took place last Friday in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, but news of the outcome of the summit appeared only this week.  Ironically, the 23rd Ordinary Session of the Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the AU was hosted by one of Africa’s long-serving, despotic and corrupt leaders, President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasago.

The highly secretive vote sought to amend the AU’s Court of Justice and Human Rights, which was created six years ago.

The amended document reads that “No charges shall be commenced or continued before the Court against any serving African Union Head of State or Government, or anybody acting or entitled to act in such capacity, or other senior state officials based on their functions, during their tenure of office.”

The amendment, however, vaguely identified “senior officials.”

The latest development is seen as a continuing snub of the Hague-based International Criminal Court  (ICC), which some of the African Union governments accuse of unfairly singling out African leaders. Currently two sitting African presidents – al Bashir, of Sudan, and Uhuru Kenyatta, of Kenya – and one ousted president are facing charges at the ICC.

Admittedly, some of the accusations could be true when viewed against, for instance, the genocidial activities of the George Bush-Tony Blair axis that culminated into the Iraq pogroms.  The ICC is yet to lay charges against the duo, but that is not reason enough for the AU’s African Court to be founded on similar flawed principles that exempt some previleged individuals from prosecution.

If anything, Africa, which unpropriotionately experiences more atrocities than any other continent, should have come up with a Court that will effectively address this impunity. The latest amendment, however, renders the African Court toothless.

The Court does not provide a viable alternative to the ICC.

We therefore concur with the contention that the amendment goes against the very essence of promoting human rights, peace and stability, and presents a major setback to advancing democracy and the rule of law. As Amnesty International noted, the decision “is a backward step in the fight against impunity and a betrayal of victims of serious violations of human rights.”

Conclusively then, the African Court is likely to go the shameless route that was followed by the regional court – Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal, which was torpedoed by the Zimbabwean life-president Robert Mugabe after it ruled against his chaotic and violent land reforms.

In the latest development, Botswana is the only country that objected to this dubious self-serving exercise and the country should be commended for this principled stand, particularly that the AU amendment comes against the backdrop of blood-curdling atrocities in African countries such as South Sudan and the Central African Republic.