via What next after ICC withdrawal? – DailyNews Live 13 OCTOBER 2013
African nations yesterday resolved that sitting heads of State should not be put on trial by the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, Netherlands, where Kenya’s leaders are standing trial for crimes against humanity.
The two-day summit for the African Union to review the continent’s relations with the ICC, rejected the “double standards” that the ICC is applying in dispensing international justice.
The 54-member AU, headquartered in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa, also called for deferring the cases of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy, William Ruto.
This is no doubt just another political step in responding to the continuation of the criminal procedure against the two heads of the Kenyan executive.
We appreciate that African leaders have decided to take the approach of African solutions for African problems.
Yes, there have been concerns that the ICC is targeting only Africans. This is why the AU yesterday made the decision that sitting heads of State should not be tried at the ICC.
However, there are some who see Africa’s withdrawal from the ICC Statute as sad for human rights in Africa.
There is a hidden and ongoing plan at the continental level by a coalition of African leaders panicking on the prosecution by the ICC.
But, their argument on political bias by the ICC is totally misleading and it is imperative that facts be laid bare to expose this deception. There is need to interrogate how all African cases came before the ICC.
Infact, the majority of the cases were referred by the African states themselves: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire and Mali.
There are only two African cases referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council where none of the three African states sitting objected.
UN Resolution 1593 on Sudan was okayed by Algeria, Benin and Tanzania while Resolution 1970 on the Libya intervention was okayed by fellow African states Gabon, Nigeria and South Africa.
Only the situation of Kenya is the result of a decision of the ICC prosecutor, but one needs to recall that the strong suggestion came from the Kenyan post election violence commission led by a Kenyan judge.
In fact, in most cases, it seems that African leaders are the only ones to be blamed for bringing the ICC into their domestic politics.
But the political campaign is so successful that many Africans are convinced that the ICC is against Africa.
So it is that the AU has come up with the concerted plan for withdrawal, boycott or alternative judicial mechanism.
COMMENTS
the west don’t give a monkeys if you want to keep Africa a jungle
There are countries who refused to leave the ICC hence the mild protest that sitting prersidents must not be prosecuted. There should be no blanket condemnation giving an impression that all African leaders are against the ICC. The international community must refuse to listen only to the voice of a few murderous ones. The progressive ones must be highlighted while those culprits falsely shading crocodile tears victims must be exposed and isolated.
Maybe the reason why African leaders are so much under the ICC spotlight is that they are so BLOODY corrupt. Let’s just say it! They are ALL f….ing corrupt! How come there are so many migrants trying to get into Europe, fleeing poverty, war, and famine. Because of their heartless, cruel, thieving corrupt leaders. Shame on you, you despots! You are a blight on the human race!
African leaders must respect the rights of their subjects and the ICC will have no effect at all. Why do thy rule on people skeletons?
The guilty are afraid. The vocal ones are those with skeletons in their closets. Whats the beef? If in the majority of cases Africans themselves refered the cases to the ICC, then how can that be viewed as bias? Could the relatively larger numbers of African cases be indicative of how undemocratically African rulers run the affairs of their countries? Although there still are some cases outside of Africa the deserve to be sent to the ICC, there are some that have been. Also, the ICC has no powers of arrest nor does it have a police force of its own. It relies on the cooperation of the states concerned – which explains why most cases have infact been brought to it by the African states themselves.
Myself i know one african despot who is advocating for a pullout.if he had much of a choice he would pullout of the UN.iyeye ndomuziva.
ICC has no power to arrest. Yes. It also has no police force of its own. Yes. It should however have powers to determine who should be its guests. When so many in the world point out that there are few individuals who have committed crimes against humanity and are instead having it nice, should we not see the Court exercising its legal muscles and bring them to account for their deeds?