Experts fault AU resolution on ICC
By Songa wa Songa The Citizen Reporter
Posted Thursday, October 17 2013 at 00:00
IN SUMMARY
If elections on the continent are anything to go by, then most of those who endorsed the decision are de facto and not de jure Heads of State
Dar es Salaam. A resolution passed last weekend by African Union (AU) to shield sitting African leaders from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been greeted with strong criticism from lawyers and international relations experts.
After the resolution made in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa, the AU wrote to the United Nations Security Council, notifying it of their decision and asking the body to grant the same by directing the ICC to adjourn all cases against African leaders until they complete serving their term in office.
Speaking to The Citizen this week, the doyens observed that AUs argument that the ICC appears to be targeting African leaders does not hold water. The desperate attempt to save Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, his deputy William Ruto and Sudan president Omar Al-Bashir is more than just that, they said. The leaders are shaken by the Bashir-Kenyatta-Ruto precedent and have found it wise to protect themselves in advance, they argue.
The argument by AU that all cases be adjourned until the accused leaders complete their term amounts to justice delayed, which means justice denied, said Prof Chris Maina of the Faculty of Law at the University of Dar es Salaam.
Yet we have elected leaders in Africa who wish to serve for life, and some monarchs, he said.
He said the move has, consequently, put in question the integrity of African leaders whose countries willingly adopted the Rome statute but are now backing off in a style that will give room to a culture of impunity in the continent.
Another lawyer, Prof Abdallah Safari, criticised the notion that the Hague-based court was biased, asserting that the main reason African leaders had come to such a decision was fear since most, if not all of them had come to power and wish to maintain it through some degree of irregularity.
If elections on the continent are anything to go by, then most of those who endorsed the decision are de facto and not de jure Heads of State he said.
Agreed is Dr Kitojo Wetengere of the Mozambique-Tanzania Centre for Foreign Relations who saw the decision as something prompted by fear unleashed by a deep sense of guilt. The argument that African leaders are targeted and Western leaders are not is very weak; it is like justifying misdeeds because other suspects are free, he said.
Source: TheCitizen Newspaper.