African Union dismisses criticisms on ICC resolution

July 19, 2009 (WASHINGTON) — The African Union (AU) issued a statement last week in response to growing criticism over the procedure that led to the adoption of a resolution halting cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in apprehending Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir.

The decision at the summit held in Libya earlier this month was reportedly taken by consensus but officials from Botswana and Chad accused the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi forced AU countries to accept the draft text without debate.

Both countries said they will not adhere to the AU decision and that they will arrest Bashir if he arrives at their shores.

The AU rejected the claims saying that the decision was taken by consensus.

“The decision by the Assembly on the Meeting of African States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was arrived at by Consensus after due consideration by the Executive Council at which a number of amendments were made to the draft decision” the AU said.

“At the level of the Assembly, the decision was adopted by consensus with only one opinion to the contrary, which was duly recorded as a reservation”.

The Chairperson of the Commission of the AU Jean Ping had told reporters at the beginning of the summit that the countries are unlikely to taken any stance against the ICC despite widespread criticism towards the court.

However, it was later reported that Libya abruptly circulated a draft text calling all African ICC signatories not to execute any arrest warrant for African indicted personalities.

The text, which was hotly debated, was changed from refusing to arrest any African individual to specifying that it was only Bashir who would be afforded immunity.

Darfur rebels and human right groups accused Gaddafi of “bullying” his peers into adopting the resolution which runs contrary to their obligations under the ICC Statute.

They also said that the AU resolution amounts to condoning impunity and human right violations against African civilians.

But the Pan-African body said that the decision “was taken in conformity with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly and the Executive Council and was not and could not have been dictated by any one Member State against all the others as implied in some press statements”.

The AU further said that the resolution “reflects the consistent position of the AU of unflinching commitment of AU member states to combating impunity and promoting democracy, the rule of law and good governance on the continent as enunciated in the constitutive Act of the Union”.

“It also underlines the need to empower the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights to deal with serious crimes of international concern in a manner complementary to national jurisdiction”.

The Rome Statute, which is the founding text of the ICC, prevents the prosecutor from initiating investigation into cases being looked into by the national judiciary.

In 2004, the UNSC formed a UN commission of inquiry to look into Darfur abuses headed by former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Italian Antonio Cassese.

The commission concluded that the government did not pursue a policy of genocide in the Darfur region but that Khartoum and government-sponsored Arab militias known as the Janjaweed engaged in “widespread and systematic” abuse that may constitute crimes against humanity.

They further said that Sudanese judiciary is “is unable or unwilling” to prosecute those crimes and thus recommended referring the situation to the ICC.

The ICC prosecutor in his reports said that the Sudanese government has not taken serious steps to prosecute those suspected of being behind the war crimes in Sudan’s Western region of Darfur.

The AU statement asserts that the decision Sudan “is a logical consequence of the stated position of the AU on the manner in which the prosecution against President Bashir has been conducted”.

“The publicity-seeking approach of the ICC Prosecutor, the refusal by the UN Security Council to address the request made by the African Union and other important International groupings for deferment of the indictment against President Bashir of The Sudan, under Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the ICC”.

The AU has failed to convince the UNSC to defer the indictment of Bashir which angered some African officials.

The AU commissioner Ping, who is one of the fiercest critics of the ICC said that the regional body is “showing to the world community that if you don’t want to listen to the continent, if you don’t want to take into account our proposals… if you don’t want to listen to the continent, as usual, we also are going to act unilaterally,”.

The statement reiterated calls on the UNSC to halt the ICC proceedings against the Sudanese head of state.

“The AU decision should be received as a very significant pronouncement by the supreme AU decision-making body and a balanced expression of willingness to promote both peace and justice in Darfur and in The Sudan as a whole”

“It is now incumbent upon the United Nations Security Council to seriously consider the request by the AU for the deferral of the process initiated by the ICC, in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute”.

Last week more than a dozen South African NGO’s called on their government to distance themselves from the AU decision.

The NGO’s were also joined by several prominent South African figures including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Richard Goldstone, former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

“As a State Party to the Rome Statute, South Africa is obliged to cooperate fully with the ICC in the arrest and transfer of President al-Bashir to the ICC, whether or not it agrees with the indictment” the statement read.

“Should the South African government persist with its support for the decision it will do so in open defiance of its own Constitution and law”.

Also this week the Ugandan government, a signatory to the ICC, agreed with Sudan that Bashir would not attend a summit he was invited to in Kampala to avoid a “diplomatic incident”.

Khartoum responded angrily saying that Uganda is reneging on its obligation under the AU decision.

(ST)