On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, the Avid Readers’ Forum hosted a significant webinar on the relationship between the International Criminal Court and Africa. The discussion was based on an article authored by Prof. Brandon Cannon, Dr. Maraga Bosire, and Mr. Dominic Pkalya, titled The International Criminal Court and Africa. The panel featured distinguished experts: Dr. Owiso Owiso, a renowned public intellectual and scholar in public international law, and Mr. Eugene Kanyugo, an advanced public international law LLM graduate from Leiden University. The session was moderated by Ruth Jebet, a finalist law student at Kabarak Law School.
The Discussion
Dr. Owiso Owiso opened the discussion by differentiating between opponents and critics of the International Criminal Court. He welcomed constructive criticism, emphasizing that it identifies areas for reform and ultimately strengthens the institution. He underscored the importance of understanding the historical context of the International Criminal Court and the role of African scholars in its establishment. He noted that African nations, such as Senegal, were among the first to advocate for a permanent international judicial body. He also dismissed the notion that by participating in the formation of the International Criminal Court and being state parties to the Rome Statute, African countries forfeit their right to critique it. On the contrary, he argued that state parties have a greater stake and responsibility to critique its structures than non-member states.
Dr. Owiso Owiso then examined the issue of international criminal accountability, questioning where ultimate responsibility lies. He asserted that the primary responsibility for international criminal justice rests with states. He cited Rwanda’s use of Gacaca Courts, Kenya’s Baby Pendo case and application of the similar mechanisms in Côte d’Ivoire and Ethiopia. He also referenced regional alternatives, citing Article 4(h) of the African Union Constitutive Act and the Malabo Protocol, which provide legal frameworks for regional justice mechanisms. While acknowledging the importance of discussions about the International Criminal Court, he concluded that it is not necessarily the most significant justice actor in Africa.
Mr. Eugene Kanyugo built on this discussion, emphasizing that states should take primary responsibility for international criminal accountability by strengthening their domestic and regional systems. He recognized the Malabo Protocol as one such avenue and proposed that Africa explore universal jurisdiction, which allows states to prosecute international crimes regardless of where they occur. He noted that Africa has been a strong supporter of the Rome Statute and has the highest number of signatories, largely due to its history of large-scale human rights violations. However, he acknowledged the challenges surrounding the International Criminal Court’s legitimacy in Africa, given that many of its cases have originated from the continent, leading to perceptions of bias and double standards.
Kanyugo refuted claims that the International Criminal Court is a Western-imposed institution, arguing that African nations actively participated in its formation. He asserted that criticisms based on this notion divert attention from achieving international criminal accountability, as they stem from historical grievances related to colonialism and neo-colonialism. Rather than relying solely on the International Criminal Court, he advocated for the development of alternative justice mechanisms within Africa, such as the hybrid tribunals in Sierra Leone and Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts, which have successfully contributed to international criminal justice without invoking the International Criminal Court.
A key issue identified during the discussion was the International Criminal Court’s enforcement challenges. Kanyugo pointed out that the institution relies on state cooperation to enforce arrest warrants and conduct investigations, which weakens its ability to function independently. He cited examples such as Uganda, where the International Criminal Court prosecuted members of the Lord’s Resistance Army but did not investigate the ruling M7 movement, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the court prosecuted Thomas Lubanga but left out former President Joseph Kabila.
Another challenge highlighted was the diplomatic manipulation of the International Criminal Court by permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Kanyugo noted that non-member states, such as the United States, have exerted considerable influence over the institution despite not being signatories to the Rome Statute. As a solution, he proposed that African states explore regional justice alternatives and expand the use of universal jurisdiction to reduce dependency on the International Criminal Court.
During the interactive session, audience members raised concerns about the International Criminal Court’s effectiveness in delivering justice, given that its interventions typically occur post-conflict or during transitional justice periods. The panelists responded that the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court is subjective and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
When asked how to empower the International Criminal Court, Dr. Owiso Owiso stressed the importance of state cooperation, as the institution relies on member states for enforcement. He emphasized that the International Criminal Court should be recognized as a court of last resort. Therefore, states must reinforce their own domestic mechanisms for handling international crimes, ensuring accountability within their jurisdictions. This aligns with the principle of complementarity, which prioritizes national jurisdictions in prosecuting crimes before invoking the International Criminal Court.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the panel underscored the significance of the International Criminal Court in the pursuit of international criminal accountability. While acknowledging concerns regarding its perceived bias against African nations, the speakers contended that these criticisms are not entirely justified. They emphasized that African states must take the lead in ensuring justice for international crimes by strengthening their domestic and regional legal frameworks. Ultimately, the discussion concluded with a call for Africans to have confidence in their ability to establish and sustain justice institutions within the continent.
Prepared by: [Joshua Kipyego Fwamba], Student, Kabarak Law School & Session Rapporteur
