The AU, ICC and Kenya
Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn has reportedly stated that the ICC is targeting the African race and that instead of addressing impunity universally, the court is in 'race hunting'. He further stated that 99 per cent of those indicted by the ICC are from Africa, which left the body in no doubt that the International court's prosecutors were intentionally targeting Africans. This has been the main allegation that has been raised concerning the trials at the I.C.C as the African Union seeks to have the cases tried locally.
Several political leaders of Africa earlier met in Addis Ababa to discuss whether African states should withdraw en masse from the International Criminal Court because of the indictment of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vice President William Ruto. This meeting was an extra-ordinary session of the African Union (AU) organized to deliberate on International Jurisdiction, Justice and the International Criminal Court (ICC). At issue is whether the ICC has discriminated against Africans and whether the case of the killings of over 1,100 persons in 2008 and the displacement of over half a million should be a matter of International criminal law.
While the African Union is not condemning the International Criminal Court, the key issue is the approach which the ICC is taking. The African Union wants the ICC to take a different approach even in their quest to ensure that the victims of the post election violence receive justice at the end of the day.
The resolution by the African Union has however not been supported by all particularly Amnesty International who take the approach that the victims are the most important and therefore their needs should come first. Needless to say a resolution that seeks to have senior government officials not tried before the International Criminal Court during their time in office will pave way for impunity and allow government officials to commit wrongs without having to be accountable.
Except for Botswana, all Presidents, Prime Ministers and representatives of government at the meeting appended their signature to the resolution that would be communicated to the United Nations Security Council and the ICC.
The resolution read: "No charges shall be commenced or continued before an International court or tribunal against a serving President or senior member of a government in power."
This, they said, was drawn from both local and International laws which give immunity to sitting Presidents and high- level government officials and provides that they can only be taken before a court of law once out of power. This stems from the International doctrine of personal immunity which is immunity granted to an individual from trial due to the nature of office that they hold. Commonly referred to as immunity rationae personae. It stems from Customary International Law
One however wonders where it all began. Who referred this case to the International Criminal Court in the first place? How did the said case end up in the International Criminal Court Premises? It is clear that Africans have played a huge role in maintaining and ensuring the continuity of the International Criminal Court. How then have Africans turned their back on something they maintained? Is this just another case of the dog chasing his own tail?
