Is the ICC Pursuing Anti-African Agenda?

For many of my generation in Africa, the real purpose and intent of the International Criminal Court (ICC) may forever elude them, and in a way that will distort the narrative in the pursuit of international justice. For over a decade, the court’s work has been overshadowed in Africa by allegations of selective victimisation of African leaders and individuals. Apart from Slobodan Milosevic, former president of both Serbia and Yugoslavia, all the leaders indicted by the court have been those from Africa. Omar Al Bashir, Uhuru Kenyatta, Lauren Gbagbo, Charles Taylor – all former or sitting presidents, have either been prosecuted or indicted by the ICC. Whilst this may merely be a coincidence of geography, many Africans hold strong views and perceptions that the ICC is intent on prosecuting only African leaders.



This perception has further been enhanced by some African leaders who have embarked on a campaign of vilifying the court over allegations of seeming selective victimisation. At an African Union (AU) summit in Addis Ababa in October 2013, African leaders in unison berated the court and unanimously asked accused Uhuru Kenyatta, sitting president of Kenya, not to attend the court’s trials.



Such spats and previous ones by local politicians have today succeeded partly in setting up the African society - both intellectuals and non-intellectuals, against the ICC. In recent times several young people in self style anti-imperialist rhetoric have been advocating for the withdrawal of their countries from the ICC via multi-media platforms. Already Gambia, Zimbabwe and Kenya have demonstrated their desire and readiness to leave the court, a decision if successful would result in damaging consequences. First, withdrawing from the court would mean a continuous perpetuation of crimes by some leaders without any credible authority to hold them truly accountable. It would only offer some leaders the license to continue to detain, kill, take advantage of and oppress their own people with little or no consequences.



Undoubtedly it is not difficult to understand why the AU would issue such recommendations or accusations at the court. One, it is because there isn’t any known public information or indications yet to suggest the court isn’t targeting African leaders. Even when the case of Milosevic was finally reconsidered by the ICC in 2007 the ICC absolved him and Serbia of any genocidal crimes for lack of evidence. Secondly, it appears unclear to many what indictable crimes are, so people will continue to interpret allegations in terms that favour themselves. And to a large extent many who are sympathetic to Africa are willing to believe that African leaders certainly are not the only ones who may have supported or committed indictable crimes, whatever they might be. And that the present indictment by the court is primarily a strategy solely aimed at African leaders.

Listening to Courtenay Griffiths, the lead counsel for former Liberian President Charles Taylor, last month in Coventry I feel a sense of grimness clouding Africa’s capacity to deliver to their people the full entitlements of their citizenship. Griffiths almost succeeded in getting all of us, his audience, to at least believe that the court has strayed from its just path, if it has one. He also seemed to suggest that the African Union has betrayed one of its own. But the question that must be asked is, why did it have to come to this? Why does it have to be Charles Taylor or Laurent Gbagbo or Bashar Al Bashir? Why does the AU not have a court of justice of its own in spite of the abundance of justice and human rights challenges on the continent?



If you consider that the individuals indicted so far have been involved in actions that have led to the reckless maiming and loss of lives in places such as Liberia and Ivory Coast, the lost of innocent thousands of lives in Kenya solely for political gain, the unwarranted refugee, starvation and humanitarian emergency crisis in Sudan, it is unquestionable that indictment of such leaders can only be most apt and timely. One, to stop the perpetuation of such crimes in order to save lives, and secondly, to send a message that such atrocities cannot and should not be tolerated either now or in the future. For instance if the ICC or any similar court in Africa had existed in the 1970s to try individuals such as Iddi Amin of Uganda, Laurent Desire Kabila and Laurent Nkunda, both of the Democratic of Congo, leaders such as Omar Al Bashir of Sudan, Charles Tailor of Liberia, Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast and the many others probably would have taken cue, and not repeat the ills of their predecessors.



The danger the African population faces is that, there is a huge economic cost to the actions of these leaders. The continent stand the chance of continuously wallowing in economic deprivation in the name of anti-imperialist rhetoric designed by the few privileged elite to rob the people of their genuine entitlements of citizenship. The absence of reliable justice mechanisms drives away both local and foreign investment impacting heavily on economic output.



Take the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) for instance; its mineral wealth includes diamonds, gold, coltan, uranium and tin, and almost every single mineral resource estimated at about $24 trillion, equivalent to the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Europe and the United States. One would imagine that this should make the Congolese people the richest in the world. But no; DR Congo is one of the poorest countries in the world. With a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Per Capita of $400 the DR Congo ranks poorly in the UN’s World Development Report. The story is not very different about Uganda whose economy still bleeds from the wounds of dictatorships, Sudan, Ivory Coast and Liberia with their struggling democracies a result of decades of dictatorial regimes, genocidal wars and unaccountable leadership. For these, the accusations against the ICC may be groundless and misleading, rather it is intent on ensuring the continuation of tyranny.



But it does not absolve the ICC of the fact that it is responsible for the seeming mischaracterization in Africa. There’s very little known amongst young and ordinary people about the work of the ICC, and the only known facts about the ICC are what people get from the local political and media space, which typically propagates anti-ICC rhetoric. There is therefore the need to expand the parameters of the ICCs audience to include the younger populations of the world and Africa in particular. This will enable people of Africa to understand and appreciate the importance of ICC’s work and its relevance in Africa’s justice pursuit. This is the most relevant way of maintaining the standing relevance of the ICC in the eyes of the African community in the restoration of international justice.

By Mutaru Mumuni Muqthar

[email protected]