Next week representatives of the 30 African countries which are parties to the Rome Statute, which set up the International Criminal Court (ICC), will meet in Addis Ababa.
African nations form the largest regional grouping of states which backed the establishment of the court – yet claims that it unfairly targets African leaders are currently reaching a fever pitch.
The unprecedented agitation is a result of the court's recent decision to issue a warrant for the arrest of President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Critics of the court and the statute complain that only African leaders are being singled out for investigation and prosecution. But the critics are ignoring the facts and doing a disservice to victims of heinous crimes.
Yes, the court's four investigations to date have been in Africa. In three of those cases, the government of the country where the crimes occurred asked the court to help it pursue justice. This is exactly what occurred in my own country, the Central African Republic (CAR), and in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In the case of Sudan, the Darfur situation was referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council.
Suggesting that an investigation by the International Criminal Court is anti-African misses a critical point: when the court investigates those allegedly responsible or serious crimes in Africa, it does so on behalf of African victims.
Moreover, the mandate of the court is to hold the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to account only when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Many horrible abuses have and continue to be committed on our continent. If African states built up their ability to carry out active and effective investigations and prosecutions of these crimes, fewer cases from Africa would reach the court.
In the Central African Republic, there was rampant violence against civilians during intensive fighting between government and rebel forces in 2002 and 2003. Homes and stores were looted and civilians were killed and raped. My government asked the court to become involved and the highest court in the country affirmed that the domestic justice system was unable to carry out the complicated process of prosecuting the crimes. The ICC's work in the CAR is especially important for victims of sexual violence – rape was much more widespread than killings and has been a focus of the ICC's investigation.
The ICC's mandate is far from perfect. Its reach is limited largely to crimes committed in countries that have ratified the court's treaty. A number of major powers, including the United States, Russia, and China, have not joined. This undercuts the court's ability to ensure that it can pursue justice wherever serious crimes occur. It is something that civil society and states need to work to change, but they can do that only by supporting the court, not attacking it.
The significance of ensuring justice for some victims should not be dismissed because it is not yet possible to achieve justice for all. For this reason, recent developments at the African Union (AU) are disturbing.
At its last summit meeting, the AU not only decided to seek a suspension of the case against Bashir, but it also decided to hold a meeting of African members of the ICC to exchange views "on the work of the ICC in relation to Africa, in particular in the light of the processes initiated against African personalities."
The purpose of the meeting would appear to be nothing other than to whip up greater hostility toward the court. That is just the opposite of what African leaders should be doing. African states played an influential role in the establishment of the court. They were some of the first states to ratify the treaty. Instead of trying to weaken the court, they should proudly support its mission, building its strength to a point at which nations refusing to subscribe to its jurisdiction will be under pressure to join.
Victims are looking to leaders – especially those from African states which are party to the ICC – to speak out strongly and forthrightly about the importance of the court as a means to end the all-too-widespread violence against African people. It is especially important for major players on the continent and African Security Council members who are parties to the ICC – including Burkina Faso, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda – to defend the court and the statute, particularly since it is right now the only definitive international check against unbridled abuses.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
African states which have signed up to the ICC consistently express support at the court's annual meetings. But they have remained far too quiet in the current public debate. They now need to stand up for justice more clearly and strongly. The meeting in Addis Ababa offers them the opportunity to do so. The people of Africa expect their leaders to be on their side, and on the side of justice.
Lucile Mazangue is a member of the Association of Female Lawyers of the Central African Republic.
