The African Union (AU) is facing heavy criticism from international human rights groups, dignitaries and even some African governments, after the body last week resolved to ignore the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the arrest warrant of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
At a summit in Libya on Friday, the pan-African body adopted a motion effectively ruling out the arrest of al-Bashir on the territory of any of its members and urged the United Nations to intervene to delay the case. The decision followed the surprise draft resolution brought forward by the summit host, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on Thursday, to boycott the ICC over the indictment of African personalities. The draft text was on Friday changed to single out al-Bashir's indictment, but the final decision itself has set a worrying precedent for justice in Africa.
"What we see here is a very heavy-handed attempt by Libya to force states who are members of ICC to abandon their legal obligation and to give a free pass to Omar al-Bashir to traipse around the continent without worry," said Reed Brody, a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch. The organisation has taken an active role in urging that the indictment of al-Bashir is upheld, and has reacted with shock and anger to the AU resolution.
At the same time, Amnesty International said on Saturday that the move showed 'disdain' for the victims of violence in Sudan's western Darfur region, where al-Bashir is accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"This decision by the African Union member states shows a disdain for those in Darfur who suffered gross human rights violation and makes a mockery of the AU as an international body," said Erwin van der Borght, Amnesty's Africa director.
"By supporting a wanted person accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, it undermines the credibility of states who are party to the Rome Statute and the AU as a whole."
The summit decision effectively allows al-Bashir to travel across Africa without fear of arrest, despite 54 African nations being party to the Rome Statute that formed the ICC. Those countries are supposed to arrest al-Bashir or any other ICC indicted personality if they travel there, in order to face prosecution in The Hague.
Meanwhile Botswana on Sunday distanced itself from the AU decision, saying it has "treaty obligations to fully cooperate with the ICC in the arrest and transfer of the president of Sudan to the ICC." Foreign Minister Phandu Skelemani said in a statement that the ICC was established specifically to help end impunity by, for instance, prosecuting those suspected of committing genocide, crime against humanity and war crimes.
"The people of Africa and Sudan in particular have been victims of these crimes. Botswana strongly holds the view that the people of Africa, including the people of Sudan, deserve to be protected from the perpetrators of such crimes," he said.
At the same time, in an opinion piece in the New York Times this weekend, former U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan wrote that the decision "demeans the yearning for human dignity that resides in every African heart." He also wrote that the decision "represents a step backward in the battle against impunity".
"The ICC represents hope for victims of atrocities and sends a message that no one is above the law. That hope and message will be undermined if the African Union condemns the court because it has charged an African head of state," he asserted.
Comments 1 to 5 of 16 Post a comment
This so called Human rights group make a of noise about african leaders, which is fair and fine, but are so quiet about Bush and Blair who also butchered a lot of innocent people in IRAQ and now Obama and Brown are killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we want to hear them demand that Bush and Blair who are no longer sitting presidents be arrested immediately.
you're dreaming if you think they will ever charge Obama, Blair or Brown, or even Obama. Fact facts!
These criminals(ICC;IMPERIALIST COURT OF CONFUSION) are at it again,they only become functional when it concerns Africa,we reject their glaring hypocricy and racism.I thought they said what,s good for the goose is good for the gander? Omar Bashir can go rot in hell, he,s one of the same people whose ancestors invaded Africa and still hold,s Africans to ransom, but that,s not to push aside the fact that this ICC is an illegal court and was created by the imperialists to continually disturb Africa and if not why have they(icc) not yet commenced the procecution and trial of Bush,Blair;Howard and other criminals that,ve equally butchered tens of thousnds of innocent people? Bottom line is, if this fake, corrupt and illegal court is deemed good enough for Africa it also should be good enough for EUROPE and USA.Wake up people, the imperialist hypocrites are at it again.
Rafil - Why do you raise the charge of racism when there are many more white people from the former Yugoslavia being prosecuted in the Hague than black people from Africa? Surely you would be aware of that?
Katz, ICC does not have credibility in Africa any more. ICC position was worsened when they ignored AU about the Bashir case. Also NGOs warned ICC to postphone it's decision about Bashir. Yet it choice to go ahead. That clicked to most Africans as trying to control the judicial principals of individual countries.
There are actually a number of fault lines between ICC "procedures" and African belief of consensus. I would like to see ICC membership be based on each African parliament decision.
The failure to indicate Bush/Cheneny participation in Killing 1 million Iraqs has far worsened the credibility of ICC. Many people in Africa view Bush/Cheney role in Iraq as similar to Nazi Hitlers role in barbaric murder of Jewish people. At least Nazis are being hurted down. The moment Bush admitted mistakes, the whole World wanted war crimes against them. And where was the ICC!! Nowhere to be seen.
See All Comments