20091216
afrik.com

The indictment by the International Criminal Court of Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by government forces in Darfur has provoked a crisis in relations between the court and the African Union (AU). It has added further heat to an often angry debate about the court’s role in Africa. Simmering unhappiness with the ICC flared into a public break on 14 July, when the AU announced that it would not cooperate with the ICC warrant for Mr. Bashir’s arrest. The African leaders said they were unhappy with the “manner in which the prosecution against President Bashir has been conducted, the publicity-seeking approach of the ICC prosecutor” and the UN Security Council’s refusal of the AU request to defer the indictment while peace efforts continued.

The indictment is the latest evidence, critics argue, that the ICC, which to date has brought cases solely against Africans, is placing undue emphasis on the continent. Supporters of the ICC worry that such arguments diminish the seriousness of the charges and point out that some of the loudest critics are other African leaders who fear they might one day face similar charges.

The dispute is a far cry from the welcome the court received when it was established. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, head of the Africa justice programme of the non-governmental Open Society Institute, explains why many Africans initially embraced the court. “Most people in our continent are, like me, children of war, want and deprivation, caused mostly by bad government,” he noted in an article posted online by the African publisher Pambazuka. “This is why most of us supported the establishment of the ICC. We believed the court would help to end high-level impunity for mass atrocities.”