John Campbell

Africa in Transition

Campbell tracks political and security developments across sub-Saharan Africa.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Immunity for African Leaders?

by John Campbell
July 9, 2014

Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir arrives for the extraordinary session of the African Union's Assembly of Heads of State and Government on the case of African Relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Ethiopia's capital Addis Ababa, October 12, 2013. (Tiksa Negeri/Courtesy Reuters)


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 al-Bashir, Kenyatta, or Ruto.

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.”

Post a Comment 1 Comment

  • Posted by Zareen Iqbal

    Thanks for highlighting this recent decision on the part of the AU. Not enough media coverage has been given to this disastrous decision. All this decision does is validate the ongoing need for the ICC. It demonstrates that Africans cannot rely on their leaders to act lawfully and justly and certainly cannot look to their leaders to ensure justice in times of atrocity.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required