Political bickering over the International Criminal Court: the case of Kenya

Abstract

The International Criminal Court’s indictment against Sudanese President Omar al Bashir in 2009 provoked massive criticism from the African Union. The indictment of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta swelled those voices to a choir, demanding suspension of his trial and immunity from the ICC for serving heads of state. The African Union’s criticism has two roots: Firstly, the wish for its efforts to establish peace and security in the continent to be taken seriously by the UN Security Council and the European Union. Secondly, the desire among the ruling political elites of many African states to dissuade the European Union and other Western states from focussing their political dialogues with African countries on human rights and rule of law, which the former increasingly regard as paternalistic. Although the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC, which met in The Hague from 20 to 28 November 2013, made concessions to Kenya by amending the rules of procedure, the underlying conflict between Africa and Europe over Article 27 of the Rome Statute and the African states’ wish to exempt serving heads of state from the jurisdiction of the ICC was not defused. The two sides should use the lead-up to the next EU-Africa summit in April 2014 to bring their perceptions of international criminal justice closer together again.