ICC Prosecutions in Africa Underscore Need for Effective Regional Institutions

by Kamissa Camara on November 18, 2013

8725502333_be4bcd287e_c

In September 2013, the National Assembly of Kenya unexpectedly moved to withdraw the country from the International Criminal Court (ICC). At the time, both President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto were facing ICC charges for their involvement in the ethnic violence following Kenya’s 2007 disputed presidential elections, though only Deputy President Ruto’s trial had begun. When a terrorist group assaulted the Westgate Mall at the beginning of October, causing shock and havoc in Nairobi, the trials were put on hold so the two could remain in Nairobi.

The Court has previously been at the cynosure of criticism for its alleged racial bias, flawed investigation processes and prosecutorial strategies, as well as suffering from unacceptable delays. Full ICC investigations have only been conducted in eight countries—all in Africa. However, the decision to prosecute President Kenyatta marked only the second time a sitting president has been prosecuted by the tribunal, after Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in 2009, sparking a vigorous debate during a recent emergency summit of the African Union (AU) Assembly. African heads of state claimed the Court’s actions were motivated by racism and imperialism, while President Kenyatta, who was accused of using his family fortune to finance death squads, claimed the court “stopped being the home of justice the day it became the toy of declining imperial powers.” Several leaders at the AU summit questioned whether they should join Kenya in withdrawing from the Rome Statute, the treaty that gave birth to the ICC, but for the time being all members of the Court have decided to remain. Nonetheless, they did agree to appeal to the ICC to limit prosecutions to heads of state that have already left office.

Of the African Union’s fifty-four member countries, thirty-four are ICC members who notably played an active role at the negotiations to establish the court in the 1990’s. Many countries decided to ratify the Rome Statute when the strong winds of democracy first started to blow throughout sub-Saharan Africa, though some were more successful than others in dealing with the new challenges of democracy, including a radical change in standards for the defense of human rights. African countries’ ratification of the treaty sent a strong signal to the world that Africans had set the bar high and rejected impunity for their leaders. But ratification also implied that Africans would independently determine the price to be paid by leaders who committed human rights violations.

The increasing number of ICC investigations and indictments suggests that the Court’s power to dissuade leaders from committing crimes, though highly desirable, has not yet been proven. However, leaders often recur to violence specifically where state institutions have a limited ability to prevent and manage tensions on that scale. And since national courts in African countries have not yet reached standards that would allow them to investigate large-scale crimes against humanity, that mission would have to be assumed by regional bodies such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), or the African Union. But these institutions are already assuming critical roles in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid, and until homegrown institutions can develop the necessary capacity and expertise, the ICC for all its failings remains the best mechanism to hold individuals accountable for grave humanitarian violations.

In the meantime, as experience shows, a ruling by the Court is still capable of diffusing tensions that stem from conflicts of interest in national court systems. Following Laurent Gbagbo’s refusal to step down after losing the 2010 elections in Côte d’Ivoire to Alassane Ouattara, the ensuing conflict claimed thousands of lives. In a country strongly divided along ethnic and political lines, the issue of national reconciliation was one of the most daunting tasks facing the Ouattara government. Trying Gbagbo within Côte d’Ivoire would have considerably impeded reconciliation efforts and would have raised questions about judicial partisanship, so sending him to The Hague was thus a satisfactory decision.

The recent debate at the AU directly called into question the standards of leadership set by Africans themselves. Certainly, granting full immunity to sitting heads of state would prevent governments from ensuring accountability. Nevertheless, a balance has to be struck between holding leaders accountable for past offenses on one hand, and permitting stable governance on the other. In Kenya, while President Kenyatta has been accused of committing crimes against humanity as part of his accession to power, he continues to remain a democratically elected representative of the people. Hence he should be afforded a temporary immunity that would ensure the stability of the Kenyan government by allowing him to govern. Temporary immunity would not absolve him from having to prove his innocence or accounting for any wrongdoing at a later date. Furthermore, the provision could include a solid check and balance system administered by national and regional bodies that, in the most extreme cases, would rescind immunity and require the removal of sitting leaders from office.

Although Fatou Bensouda of the Gambia became Chief ICC prosecutor last year, many Africans remain unconvinced about the institution’s impartiality. Yet African democratic development has long been on a rocky path. The need for stronger state institutions and higher standards for African leaders should be increasingly accompanied by regional bodies to ensure long-term positive impacts and a necessary transfer of investigative skills from the International Court to national tribunals. In the meantime, with the first preliminary examinations for cases outside the continent currently underway, the ICC’s vocation as an international tribunal remains intact.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Comment

All comments are subject to moderation based on the Fletcher School comment policy and will be reviewed before appearing on the site.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

1 Kelvin November 20, 2013

In as much as our African or national Institutions have failed us to tackle such situations, the ICC itself is not a court for Justice but for witch hunting and a “toy of declining imperial powers.” as President Uhuru Kenyatta said. How do you proceed with a case in a law court when the whole process was flawed ? No one accepts impunity but the law should not also be selective. A court that uses outlawed MUNGIKI SECT members who accepted to have killed and raped women as Witnesses? are we for real that the ICC is a palace for Justice? How do you use someone who actually did the killings, and the rapes to testify against someone who never killed. Therefore the ICC has double standards because you have the killers but you are going for people you want or feel like prosecuting. Full ICC investigations were never conducted, they relied on a report by the WAKI commission which in itself was not independent at all. So Mr Moreno Ocampo, just made a mockery of the law and his successor Fatou Bensouda is just trying to be also relevant to the International Community. What can she say about impunity when in her own Country the Gambia, the laws are changed according to the whims and caprices of their president. She has served under such as-trued dictator and she served as Attorney general under this BIG DICTATOR who impunity is his sixth name. Bensouda is just a stooge and from the look of things like any other staff of the ICC are just serving their masters. Where was the ICC when Israel used White Phosphorus on Palestinians? Was in not a war crime? the invasion of Iraq? was it not withing it’s mandate to carry out investigations? but because they can’t bite the finger that feeds them they want to show their relevance by trying to push through an Agenda that failed when the Kenyan people proved to the world that they had faith in the President and Deputy President of Kenya when they unanimously voted them into power despite International interference and threats to the Kenyan electorate…. The wind of change will definitely blow soon as nothing will last for ever and the truth will definitely be out soon as we too as Africans have come to the reality of such untold lies…… ICC is a SHAM and just a court for WITCH HUNTING but this time it has backfired.

Reply

Previous post:

Next post: