Skip to footer

As Africa considers war crimes court, leaders want immunity

Only Botswana protested when African heads of state voted themselves free from prosecution for genocide and crimes against humanity in a proposed new 'Africa court.'

|
Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah/Reuters
Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir speaks during a joint news conference with Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (not seen) in Khartoum, Sudan, June 27, 2014.
  • By John Campbell Guest blogger

A version of this post appeared on Africa in Transition. The views expressed are the author's own. 

African elites generally do not like the International Criminal Court (ICC) that sits in the Hague. There is a widespread view that the ICC engages in selective prosecution and holds African leaders to a higher standard than others.

Africans ask why the ICC prosecutes Kenya’s president, Uhuru Kenyatta, but not former vice president Dick Cheney or former prime minister Tony Blair for Iraq-related issues, for example.

There have been calls for immunity for African heads of state that are wanted for international crimes: The ICC cases against President Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto have particularly focused the debate, and Kenya may withdraw from the Treaty of Rome, which established the ICC. 

For many Africans, the solution is a specifically African court that would, in effect, replace the ICC. The African Union is moving to establish an African Court of Justice and Human Rights, commonly called the African Court. But at an African heads of state summit in Equatorial Guinea on June 26 and 27, the decision was made to grant African heads of state and senior officials (not further defined) immunity from prosecution for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious crimes.

Under this provision, the African Court could not try Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, or Mr. Kenyatta or Mr. Ruto of Kenya. 

This step, obviously self-serving for sitting heads of state and their associates, would appear to eviscerate the African Court before it even starts to function. It certainly reduces the African Court‘s credibility as an alternative to the ICC.

As Amnesty International (among other civil society voices) said, the decision “is a backward step in the fight against impunity and a betrayal of victims of serious violations of human rights.”

The Institute for Security Studies notes the absence of protest from Africa’s “liberal voices,” especially South Africa; observing that “only little Botswana has raised objections.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to As Africa considers war crimes court, leaders want immunity
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2014/0716/As-Africa-considers-war-crimes-court-leaders-want-immunity
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe