My Take: Africa & the ICC

The African Union had a special session this weekend to discuss Africa’s stance on the ICC, with a possible withdrawal on the table. Although the withdrawal wasn’t agreed upon by all parties, the resolution that emerged stated that 1) Uhuru should not honor his appointment at the ICC and that 2) Sitting heads of state and those in acting capacities should be immune from any indictment amongst other points. Although this resolution is not legally binding, it does have political implications.

The argument for the second point is that Europe has provisions for immunity of its sitting heads of state – so why not the same in Africa? When are we going to stop comparing ourselves to others? If others have backward policies, must we adopt the same? Why do we continue to set the bar low for ourselves? Do we not, as Africans deserve better? Do we not deserve the highest standards possible? Do African citizens not deserve not just rulers but leaders who not only preach but practice integrity? Leaders who truly lead and are transparent and accountable to their people? Not simply because it is a donor requirement, or isn’t but just because that’s the least we deserve?

I hear the complaints that most of the cases being investigated by the ICC are from Africa. Yes, I understand that the US and others should also be held accountable for their crimes and pressured to sign on to the treaty. However, I am very disappointed with the African Union. First of all, why waste money convening a special session to discuss this? Second, while the African Union protects and pushes for the interests of the heads of state – who may or may not deserve to occupy their seats, who stands for the interests of the African citizenry??

We must also remember that at least 20 African signed on to the Rome Statute which brought the ICC into existence. Additionally, we have Africans at the highest level of judges and the Chief Prosecutor is an African woman.

If Uhuru and co are innocent, then why are they worried? Why not prove their innocence in court? Second, the argument that is being shared by the Uhuru government, that there is no other country who’s sitting president is being tried is nonsense. The ICC indictment happened before Uhuru was elected to presidency. As a leader of integrity, he should’ve sat this election out (whether or not he was innocent), cleared his name (if he is) and then come back to run at the next opportunity. Kenyans should not have voted in someone who is wanted on the international scale. Although he claimed ‘it was a personal challenge’ it is no longer personal when public funds are used to fund trips for him and his entourage to the Hague.

Plus, I don’t know if anyone can explain to me why we excuse our sitting presidents? Why is that if a ‘leader’ has abused his or her power that we don’t have the power to hold them accountable – while they’re in power and not wait until they no longer sit on their thrones?! Why do we want immunity for individuals who commit grave and war crimes?? Why would we still want those kind of individuals ‘leading’ our people? I ask again –  do we not deserve better?

If we are to move forward, we must think paradigm shift. We must think revolutionary. We must think transformative. Isn’t that what Pan-Africanism and the African Renaissance and Agenda 2063 are meant to be about? Are all of these delusions? Can the next generation not expect anything different? Will we continue on the trajectory that we have been on for the past 50 years?

I feel this is a ploy by our ‘leaders’ to once again not be held accountable for their actions. Yes, I do agree – ICC should be a last resort. That doesn’t excuse us from pulling out. We must strengthen our indigenous, internal, national, sub-regional and regional courts – such as the African Court – which has only been ratified by less than 10 of our nations, limiting its effectiveness. So the message that we’re getting is that our heads of state don’t want to be held accountable – at any level – either at the international, the regional or national levels.

Well, true leadership is about scrutinizing yourself – making sure that you adhere to and listen to the calls of your people, you don’t flaunt your power and you don’t break your commitments, that you respect and uphold the rights of others. If this is not the case, then you shouldn’t be leading.

Gado’s cartoons on the ICC say much more than I can. In any case,  either step up or step down.


3 Comments (+add yours?)

    Oct 12, 2013 @ 22:53:20

    Reblogged this on FEMNET.


  2. Trackback: Misleading Africa | This World…
  3. Omar A Yosuf
    Oct 27, 2013 @ 19:13:14

    I do agree and suport your argument, however it is the ICC that who provided the ammunition to African leaders through its double standard by demanding leaders of developing nations alone should be liable to proscution by the very law tha is set by top dogs. ICC ( the law )should be equally applicable to all, and not just the weak and powerless. In most caes ICC is applied for political reasons. e.g indictment of Sudan`s president when countries like Isreal are allowed to get away with atrocities unimaginable, why should the US be immune to proscution despite its despicable crime the world over.Are the lives of Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis and Yemenis any less than the lives of Americans. Up until this very day the US is killing countless people by manned drones.

    I`m in no way implying African leaders do not deserve to be indicted for their crimes perpetrated against their own, but to reflect on blatant double standard of the west in general.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: