Why Africa needs SA to remain in ICC
GLOBAL Spotlight
IF SOUTH Africa goes ahead and withdraws from the International Criminal Court (ICC), we will be isolated on the continent and our human rights foreign policy will ring hollow.
Thirty-four countries in Africa ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC and most of those who had threatened to pull out have reneged and intend to remain.
What we need to do is to improve the ICC from within and help to set the agenda. The reality is that the
ICC is the only game in town and unfortunately the AU does not yet have the capacity to efficiently and expeditiously try crimes against humanity and gross abuses of human rights. If the African caucus within the ICC were to push a reform agenda, it would have a powerful voice.
Despite the western powers’ political manipulation of the ICC’S agenda, it still never seemed right that South Africa was siding with notorious human rights abusers like the governments of Burundi and Sudan in a withdrawal.
It’s ironic that former president Jacob Zuma, who tried so hard to bring peace to Burundi, ended up giving political cover to Burundi’s president, who will go down in history as having presided over crimes against humanity.
The reasons Justice Minister Michael Masutha gave the UN for why South Africa had decided to withdraw from the ICC were nonsensical. He tried to suggest South Africa had to withdraw to better pursue its role as a peace-maker on the continent.
South Africa is flexing its muscle right now as a peace-maker on the continent and will continue to do so from Madagascar to South Sudan, but our ICC membership does not preclude us from brokering peace.
Our decision to withdraw from the ICC was so shallow that the decision was successfully challenged, with a full bench of three judges in the Pretoria High Court. The judges ruled emphatically in February last year that the Zuma administration as opposed to those in other countries, constitute no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
If we look at what has transpired over the past two years in Burundi, for example, we desperately need the ICC to try crimes against humanity.
The ICC had announced a preliminary examination of the situation in Burundi. There was also a call for other countries to consider investigating and prosecuting through their national courts, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, Burundians found on their territory who were believed to have been responsible for torture and serious rights violations.
To date, no African country has heeded that call; nor are they likely to do so. The African Court of Human and People’s Rights does not have the capacity and mandate to try such cases. So the perpetrators continue their reign of terror with impunity.
Burundi had a referendum last week on whether a new constitution should be adopted to enable President Pierre Nkurunziza to remain in power until 2034. It was announced this week he had won the referendum and could now hold power for two consecutive seven-year presidential terms.
To ensure the referendum was in his favour, the security forces intensified their reign of terror.
Human Rights Watch documented the human rights abuses carried out recently by the security forces, ruling party members and Imbonerakure or the party’s youth wing. It found the security forces had beaten detainees with hammers and steel construction bars, driven sharpened steel rods into their legs, dripped melting plastic on them, tied cords around men’s genitals, and used electric shocks.
The victims were denied medical attention and many were held in stinking, windowless cells.
The question we need to ask is: Would Madiba have wanted us to turn a blind eye or would he have expected South Africa, in the context of the ICC, to ensure the perpetrators were brought to justice?