The International Criminal Court (ICC) is supposedly a judicial institution of high standards.
It is a given that any institution that serves judicial purposes must not only be legitimate but must also conform to internationally recognised rules and standards.
The many difficulties being faced by the ICC today have less to do with its approval and acceptance in the international community but have more to do with coming up with strategies to build its respectability in the eyes of the global village.
This institution must, as of yesterday, ensure that they are not subject to political control from any of its members or non-members as this would strain its lofty position and damage its reputation as a purveyor of even-handed justice.
Anger was stirred at the recent African Union (AU) summit owing to a warrant of arrest issued by the ICC on Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for crimes against humanity. The ICC wants al-Bashir to face the law because he played a role in the killing of civilians in his country.
But in what could be seen as a collective statement or gesture in objection to the ICC, the AU, along with President Zuma, facilitated the escape of al-Bashir from South African law enforcement authorities.
While South Africa should have, out of duty and obligation, ensured that Bashir did not leave South Africa, they also stated that the ICC is a tool of Western imperialism. The anger by the African head of states is not really surprising.
They have always been disgruntled with the conduct of the ICC, even in regards to Uhuru Kenyatta‘s trial which was mainly funded by the British and ended up being dropped due to lack of credible witnesses.
African leaders maintain that the way the ICC oversees prosecution cases, especially among African leaders, is biased.
Indeed, most of the ICC cases have been from the African continent, which is the likely reason why the judicial institution has lost respectability, especially among Africans.
While the noble global mandate of the ICC is to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, it is the immunity being enjoyed by some western leaders that has become a major cause of concern.
Africa has a reprehensible oppression record because of its continual flouting of its own laws, with most atrocities being from the continent in countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Uganda and the Central African Republic.
The way the ICC handles prosecutions came under the spotlight when they put Uhuru Kenyatta on trial.
The fact that so much noise was made before the trial only to see the ICC drop the case dented the ICC’s credibility.
It is, therefore, safe to say that the need to serve justice globally is not the real objective and reason for the existence of the ICC.
The result is that this judicial institution is viewed as an arm of western governments under the direction of the United Kingdom.
The United States, although not an ICC member, maintains a close relationship with the court and gives it extensive support.
Although the US is a signatory to the Treaty of Rome that gave birth to the ICC, it has never been ratified by the Senate.
US policy is, however, very supportive of the ICC creating a hypocritical situation and double standard on its part.
U.S crimes in Afghanistan have gone unaccounted for, yet they are quick to police the world.
Through its non-ratification and veto power, along with Russia and China, they have insulated themselves from potential ICC indictments.
Ultimately Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is effectively protected from ICC prosecution through Russia’s protection.
Atrocities that have been committed by countries that are not members of the ICC, such as the USA, have considerably muddied the waters for the ICC because there appears to be choices of which nations to prosecute and which ones not to, thereby denting its promise to uphold unbiased justice for the world’s worst crimes.
International politics is undermining the ICC.
Despite its purported bias, it is wrong to think that dragging some western leaders before the ICC would make the institution more democratic. If all the countries which are part of the ICC are deeply concerned about justice, then it is imperative that they end the hypocrisy of putting people on trial based on other nations against African nations.
While leaders of repressive governments, such Sudan’s al-Bashir, cynically denounce political bias of the ICC, what they really fear is the growing reach of the rule of law. It is unbelievably na├»ve of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, the current Chair of the AU which is critical of ICC, to say that Africa needs its own ICC when we see that no African leader has ever accused another African leader of anything.
The reason membership of the court is exclusively voluntary is because the court is the product of a treaty. This is the reason some countries in Africa and even the USA choose not to be members of the court. But this is where the problem begins because it means that leaders such as George W. Bush will not be held legally responsible for having approved torture at prison sites.
It is one thing for the ICC to be a credible judicial institution to certain governments, but another for it to move beyond being an exploited pawn for influential powers. The ICC has to strike a balance and serve justice to the victims and affected communities. While the ICC has committed its share of missteps, it is still a relevant institution whose global mandate has reduced impunity enjoyed by some corrupt and ruthless leaders ÔÇô and Africa has an abundance of wrongdoers.
