AU leaders urge International Criminal Court to return cases against Uhuru Kenyatta,William Ruto back to Kenya.
The Heads of State attending the African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia have passed a resolution urging the International Criminal Court ( ICC) to refer crime against humanity cases against President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto back to Kenya.
The AU leaders said Kenya has a credible judiciary trusted by all Kenyans capable of hearing and determining the cases.
President Uhuru, his deputy Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang are facing crime against humanity charges at the ICC.
In resolutions passed on Monday, AU leaders mandated African Union Commission to present an objection to the UN on International Criminal Court trials against Uhuru, Ruto.
They resolved that ICC has gone out of its mandate and was engaged in witch-hunt.
They said 99 percent of cases before the ICC are against Africans.
Source:standardmedia.co.ke
More Details
The African Union (AU) has had a long-standing and evolving relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC), often marked by tension and criticism, particularly regarding perceived bias and jurisdictional overreach.
When referencing the idea that the ICC has “gone out of mandate” in the context of an AU resolution, it generally involves an official AU statement or resolution that criticizes the ICC for acting beyond its legitimate authority, especially in African affairs.
Key Themes in AU Resolutions Regarding the ICC Overreach
Here are the core ideas often present in AU resolutions that claim the ICC has overstepped its mandate:
1. Accusations of Selective Justice
The AU has frequently criticized the ICC for disproportionately targeting African leaders while allegedly ignoring crimes in other regions.
- Resolution Examples:
- AU Assembly/AU/Dec. 245 (XIII), 2009
- AU Assembly/AU/Dec. 270 (XIV), 2010
These resolutions argued that the ICC was being used as a tool of powerful Western states and undermining national sovereignty.
2. Sovereignty and Immunity Concerns
The AU asserts that sitting heads of state should have immunity from prosecution during their terms in office, which the ICC does not recognize.
- This came to a head with the indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, and later Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto.
- The AU argued this undermined peace processes and violated principles of international diplomatic immunity.
3. Call for Mass Withdrawal or Reform
Some resolutions pushed for African countries to consider withdrawing from the Rome Statute (the ICC’s founding treaty) or called for reform.
- AU Assembly Decision 366 (XVII), 2011, and subsequent resolutions discussed collective withdrawal as a last resort.
- The 2017 AU Summit in Addis Ababa adopted a non-binding strategy for ICC withdrawal, urging member states to develop a roadmap.
4. Creation of Regional Alternatives
In response to ICC actions, the AU supported empowering African judicial institutions, such as expanding the jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights to try international crimes.
- This was formalized in the Malabo Protocol (2014), though not yet in force.
5. Specific Language: “Gone Out of Mandate”
While the exact phrase “gone out of mandate” may not appear in AU official language, similar phrases include:
- “exceeded its jurisdiction,”
- “acted contrary to the principles of international law,”
- “undermining national sovereignty and regional peace efforts.”
Summary
If you’re looking for a specific AU resolution that formally declares the ICC has gone out of mandate, it would likely be one of the Assembly decisions passed between 2009 and 2017, especially those:
- responding to the indictment of African leaders,
- rejecting cooperation with certain ICC warrants,
- or calling for a collective reassessment of Africa’s participation in the ICC.
