It was bound to happen. The African Union (AU) has criticized the latest move by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to call for the arrest of Libyan President Muammar Gadaffi, his son and an aide. This has happened in the wake of the latest fighting that has been raging in Libya between forces loyal to Gadaffi on the one hand, and rebels and NATO forces, on the other hand. ICC chief prosecutor, Louis Moreno Ocampo went to court to ask for the issuance of arrest warrants against Gadaffi and company, whose actions are thought to have led to the loss of unwarranted human life in Libya from the beginning of the year up to now. For a time now, some members of the AU have been waging a campaign against the ICC, their argument being that the ICC’s actions are biased against African leaders in comparison to leaders from other parts of the world who they believe have committed more or less serious crimes as some of the African leaders who have been accused by the ICC. That may be the perception that comes out from the ICC’s actions. But I differ with the conclusion that many draw from that. We need to look at the bigger picture and consider many facts in order to arrive at a fair judgement of the ICC vis-à-vis its actions against African leaders perceived to have committed crimes against humanity. One of the most fundamental questions that the AU leadership needs to consider is whether the people who are being sinned against are Africans or not, and does it make a difference whether the leader being accused as having shed innocent blood or contributed to the misery of thousands is African or not?. Another question the AU needs to answer is whether the people being accused of having committed crimes against civilians are guilty or not. The ICC, like any other international court of justice operates from the premise that a person is innocent until proved guilty. And that is what the court would like to establish through arresting and prosecuting the likes of Gaddafi and others who have gone before him. The unequivocal answer to these questions is that these people who have been sinned against are Africans, and therefore the AU should speak for them, and it does not matter who commits crime against humanity, whether African or European or American. The ICC should be able to deal with them. But the sad things is that the AU seems to be speaking for a few minority leaders in Africa, forgetting that we have thousands of people who have died in some of the countries where the ICC has intervened, and thousands others who have been maimed, displaced and lost their property. Thousands of lives have been disrupted and millions of shillings lost in all these conflict situations. A good place is in Darfur in Sudan, where President Bashir has been accused and indicted by the ICC of having committed genocide and crimes against humanity. The AU has been protective of Bashir and has encouraged African countries not to cooperate with the ICC in as far as arresting Bashir is concerned. To begin with, the AU has a very poor record of dealing with difficult situations in Africa. The most recent incident that we can remember is the dispute that arose in the Ivory Coast after elections last year. The AU did not intervene as expected even when election observers said that Alassane Outtara had won against Laurent Gbagbo. It took force for Laurent to be pushed out of power and now he has to face the law. The AU should stand with the majority of Africans who suffer at the hands of despotic rulers who do not want to relinquish power when every indication is that the people are yearning for new leadership. In the case of Libya and Gaddafi, the AU should let the law take its cause by allowing the ICC to continue with the process. The ICC’s condemnation of the ICC will embolden dictators in Africa and only help to entrench impunity in the continent.
NB: An edited version of this article appeared in the letters to the editor page of the National Star newspaper of 4th July 2011.
Comments