South Africa submits bill to leave ICC
November 3, 2016, 3:17 pm

The ICC bitterly criticised the South African government for not arresting Sudanese President Bashir during the 25th African Union Summit in Johannesburg in June 2015 [Xinhua]

“At the end of this proceedings we will be tabling the notice of withdrawal that South Africa lodged with the secretary general of the United Nations,”    Masutha told Parliament during a debate on the ICC on Thursday.

Expected withdrawal is scheduled to happen a year from now in October 2017 although the Parliament has not yet voted on the bill.

South Africa has since it’s hosting of the African Union Summit last year complained that the ICC is unfair in the way it treats African governments and is incompatible with Pretoria’s peace initiatives on the continent.

This comes particularly following the visit of Sudanese president Omar Bashir to Johannesburg in June 2015 to attend the 25th AU Summit despite an international warrant for his arrest issued by the ICC on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the Darfur conflict in 2009.

At the time the ICC strongly criticised the government of President Jacob Zuma for not arresting Bashir.

In hosting the Summit and inviting heads of state to attend, South Africa argues that such high-profile entities cannot be arrested. However, South Africa in 2000 ratified the treaty that established the ICC; and in 2002, the treaty was entered into force there.

Since 2009, a number of African states withdrew from the treaty in protest of the ICC arrest warrant brought against al-Bashir.

To date, there are more than 40 United Nations members which have not adopted or ratified the ICC treaty.

South African geopolitical analyst Bongani Mbindwane says had al-Bashir been arrested in Johannesburg, the damage to world order would have been immense.

“South Africa could be accused in the continent of having known and staged an entrapment. The immunity granted by South African Foreign Minister Nkoana-Mashabane is a valid defense,” he writes.

“South Africa has the right to refuse the visit by a head of state sought for international crimes but cannot entrap or accept the head of state and then arrest him whilst on diplomatic duty,” he added.

The BRICS Post with inputs from Agencies