ICC withdrawals and reforms To withdraw or not? This is probably the question facing many African countries at the moment following announcements by the likes of Burundi and South Africa that they are withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In fact, Namibia was one of the first countries that resolved to ditch the ICC after the ruling Swapo party recommended to Cabinet withdrawal from the Rome Statute, which established international The Hague-based court.
Although Namibia has announced its intentions more than a year ago, it remains to be seen when exactly this move will materialise.
Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah was quoted saying a couple of months ago that the country now has its own robust and functional governance institutions, that ICC activities were no longer a priority.
The presidency this week also didn''t say much regarding the statutory and technical requirements that should be met in case of a withdrawal from the ICC.
There is no doubt that the recent spate of withdrawals would lead to a mass exodus, especially in light of the fact the African Union has already expressed grave concerns about the ICC.
On the other hand, Burundi is also not willing to cooperate with the ICC.
The irony here is that the East African nation is the subject of a so-called preliminary investigation by the ICC for alleged post-election violence in 2015. Although frustrations by member countries, who accuse the ICC of being anti-African, might be justified, there are growing concerns as far accountability is concerned.
Those who do not support the anti-ICC narrative believe or fear that the atrocities at times committed by those tasked to lead their respective countries, would remain unchallenged and unpunished, if nations withdrew from the criminal court en masse. Who will stand up for African victims when leaders commit massive atrocities and human rights violations?
While African leaders must be reminded of their moral obligation to respect democratic institutions, perhaps it is high time that the ICC considers reforming itself into a credible body to restore its tainted image.
In fact, Namibia was one of the first countries that resolved to ditch the ICC after the ruling Swapo party recommended to Cabinet withdrawal from the Rome Statute, which established international The Hague-based court.
Although Namibia has announced its intentions more than a year ago, it remains to be seen when exactly this move will materialise.
Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah was quoted saying a couple of months ago that the country now has its own robust and functional governance institutions, that ICC activities were no longer a priority.
The presidency this week also didn''t say much regarding the statutory and technical requirements that should be met in case of a withdrawal from the ICC.
There is no doubt that the recent spate of withdrawals would lead to a mass exodus, especially in light of the fact the African Union has already expressed grave concerns about the ICC.
On the other hand, Burundi is also not willing to cooperate with the ICC.
The irony here is that the East African nation is the subject of a so-called preliminary investigation by the ICC for alleged post-election violence in 2015. Although frustrations by member countries, who accuse the ICC of being anti-African, might be justified, there are growing concerns as far accountability is concerned.
Those who do not support the anti-ICC narrative believe or fear that the atrocities at times committed by those tasked to lead their respective countries, would remain unchallenged and unpunished, if nations withdrew from the criminal court en masse. Who will stand up for African victims when leaders commit massive atrocities and human rights violations?
While African leaders must be reminded of their moral obligation to respect democratic institutions, perhaps it is high time that the ICC considers reforming itself into a credible body to restore its tainted image.