Advertisement

Gambia becomes third African country to pull out of the International Criminal Court

Gambian officials criticized the court as the “International Caucasian Court.”

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh. CREDIT: AP Photo/Sunday Alamba, File.
Gambian President Yahya Jammeh. CREDIT: AP Photo/Sunday Alamba, File.

Gambia is the third African country to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), following accusations that the tribunal focuses on persecuting and humiliating “people of colour, especially Africans.”

The move comes mere weeks after South Africa and Burundi made similar decisions to withdraw from the court, which has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who commit the world’s worst atrocities.

In an announcement made Tuesday evening, Gambian Information Minister Sheriff Bojang harshly criticized the ICC for failing to go after Westerners for war crimes, instead heavily focusing on Africans.

“This action is warranted by the fact that the ICC, despite being called the International Criminal Court, is in fact an International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of color, especially Africans,” Bojang said on state television. He cited the failure to indict former British Prime Minister Tony Blair over the legality of invading the Iraq War as a prime example of the “court’s Western bias,” Newsweek reported.

Advertisement

Relationships are souring 14 years after the formal ratification of the ICC, in which the tribunal has opened a disproportionate number of inquiries against African countries.

Here’s why Gambia’s withdrawal from the ICC is so important — and what it could mean for the future of international courts of law:

The history of the ICC

The ICC was meant to be a permanent tribunal to prosecute people who commit the world’s worst crimes. The court — created by a treaty and not by the United Nations — aims to be a “court of last resort” to try individuals who commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in countries that are unable or unwilling to try crimes themselves. The court is based in The Hague and was formally ratified by a treaty in 2002.

Yet nine of the ten ICC investigations have been based in the African countries of Kenya, Ivory Coast, Libya, Darfur, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Uganda, and Mali. The ICC has also opened preliminary investigations in Georgia and Afghanistan. But so far, the ICC has indicted 39 individuals — all Africans.

Advertisement

At least three of ICC’s current trials include Africans like former Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo and his alley Charles Ble Goude, former Congolese Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba, and Congolese warload Bosco Ntaganda. Suspects convicted of crimes against humanity are also African, the International Business Times reported.

The ICC has yet to prosecute any leaders from the West — and not all countries, including the United States, are members. The court failed to indict former British Prime Minister Tony Blair even after finding that his country had other options to take aside from joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. ICC prosecutors said that they would look for evidence of war crimes committed by British troops, but that Blair would not be prosecuted because the decision “falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction.”

“There are many Western countries, at least 30, that have committed heinous war crimes against independent sovereign states and their citizens since the creation of the ICC and not a single Western war criminal has been indicted,” a statement from the Gambian government read in part.

Gambian president Yahya Jammeh has also called on the court to investigate and prosecute the European Union for the thousands of African migrants and refugees who have died on their journey across the Mediterranean Sea. A government statement said that the ICC has yet to respond to his request.

The court mostly relies on governments and the U.N. Security Council to refer investigations. Half of the open ICC investigations were instigated by the African governments of Uganda, DRC, the CAR, and Mali, which referred cases to the ICC — diminishing some of the claims of bias in the court. And the workload for the ICC is also somewhat reduced because countries like Yugoslavia and Cambodia already have independent courts, the Washington Post pointed out last year.

The significance of Gambia’s departure from the ICC

There are 34 African countries that make up the regional bloc of the 124 countries within the ICC, or nearly one-third. Gambia’s withdrawal— especially as the third country to voice dissatisfaction over ICC’s disproportionate focus on African crimes — could help bring an exodus of other African countries after putting pressure on the court to “fight off allegations of pursuing a neo-colonial agenda in Africa,” Reuters reported.

Advertisement

South Africa, an arguably more influential country, drew the greatest concern last Friday when it announced its departure from the court. The decision came largely after Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was able to visit the country for an African Union summit despite having an ICC warrant over war crime allegations relating to the Darfur conflict.

“The Burundi decision was easy to dismiss as a government seeking to avoid direct scrutiny; South Africa’s is much more significant,” David L. Bosco, an associate professor of international studies at Indiana University who has written a book on the court, told the New York Times. “The African Union has been a forum for anti-I.C.C. sentiment, and countries like Kenya and Uganda may now seek to capitalize on the momentum.”

Burundi’s withdrawal follows the ICC’s preliminary investigation into human rights abuse allegations in the country where political upheaval between pro-government forces and opposition demonstrators triggered the deaths of at least 430 people last year and a tidal wave of refugees into neighboring countries.

Other African countries have already expressed concern over the ICC. Early last year, Kenya President Uhuru Kenyatta called the court a “far cry from the expectations and aspirations Africa harboured when it formed the decisive block that brought the court into being.” He added that while other countries had “strong reservations,” Kenya had joined the court because of a “desire for an international community in which all nations are on a level playing field of justice and accountability.” He added, “Unfortunately, every one of those reservations has been borne out in the Kenyan cases. Their assessment of the court was correct.”

Most recently, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni called the ICC “useless” while praising both South Africa and Burundi’s decisions to leave the court.

“It is a very good decision that South Africa has done that. In fact, it is (the ICC) that is very useless,” he told reporters during a visit in Zambia to celebrate the country’s National Day.

What happens next

Gambia can’t leave the ICC immediately. To permanently quit from the court, the Gambia has to send a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The withdrawal will then take effect in one year.