South Africa is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, according to a document seen by Reuters on Thursday, a move that would take effect one year after notice is formally received by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

A UN spokesman declined to confirm receipt of the document, which is signed by South Africa's Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and dated October 19.

"The Republic of South Africa has found that its obligations with respect to the peaceful resolution of conflicts at times are incompatible with the interpretation given by the International Criminal Court," according to the document.

South Africa's foreign affairs department spokesman Clayson Monyela declined to comment, saying the justice minister would hold a news conference on the issue at 0800 GMT.

The International Criminal Court, which opened in July 2002 and has 124 member states, is the first legal body with permanent international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Burundi appeared set to become the first state to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty establishing the global court, after its parliament voted last week to leave. President Pierre Nkurunziza signed a decree on Tuesday, but the United Nations has not yet been officially notified.

South Africa said a year ago that it planned to leave the ICC after its government was criticised for ignoring a court order to arrest Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide and war crimes, when he visited last year.

Several African countries have expressed concern that the focus of the Hague-based court has been on Africa rather than elsewhere in the world.

"The Republic of South Africa is committed to fight impunity and to bring those who commit atrocities and international crimes to justice and as a founding member of the African Union promotes international human rights and the peaceful resolution of conflicts on the African continent," the document said.

"In complex and multi-faceted peace negotiations and sensitive post-conflict situations, peace and justice must be viewed as complementary and not mutually exclusive," the South African document said.</s>PRETORIA (Reuters) - South Africa said on Friday it was quitting the International Criminal Court (ICC) because membership conflicted with diplomatic immunity laws, dealing a new blow to the struggling court and angering the political opposition.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir addresses a news conference in Cape Town South Africa, November 7, 2007. Picture taken November 7, 2007. REUTERS/Mike Hutchings/File Photo

Pretoria last year announced its intention to leave after the ICC criticized it for disregarding an ICC order to arrest Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide and war crimes, when he visited South Africa. Bashir has denied the accusations.

The United Nations on Friday confirmed receipt of South Africa’s withdrawal from the ICC, which will take effect one year from Oct. 19, spokesman Stephane Dujarric said, making it the first country to quit the Rome Statute.

The instrument of withdrawal document, seen by Reuters on Thursday, has been assessed by the United Nations as bona fide and is being processed, Dujarric said.

The announcement puts new pressure on the world’s first permanent war crimes court, which has had to fight off allegations of pursuing a neo-colonial agenda in Africa, where all but one of its 10 investigations have been based.

Burundi’s leader this week signed a decree to leave the ICC, and Kenya’s parliament is considering following suit.

U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the United States was “concerned” about the South African decision, but he declined to speculate what Kenya and Burundi would do and said it was too early to speak of a “trend” toward African withdrawal from the court.

Kirby said the United States, while not a member of the court, believed the ICC had made “valuable contributions in the service of accountability ...and we hope that other countries would share that assessment.”

Justice Minister Michael Masutha told reporters in Pretoria that the government would draft a bill to repeal its adoption of the ICC’s Rome Statute to preserve its ability to conduct active diplomatic relations, and had given formal notice.

He said the statute conflicted with South Africa’s Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, which was cited in the decision to ignore the court order to detain Bashir, but that the government remained committed to the fight against impunity.

The ICC said it had not formally been notified of South Africa’s intention to leave the Rome Statute.

A document seen by Reuters at the United Nations on Thursday showed the move would take effect one year after notice was formally received by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Related Coverage U.N. confirms South Africa withdrawal from war crimes court

The document was signed by South African International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and dated Oct. 19.

“UNCONSTITUTIONAL” WITHDRAWAL

James Selfe, a senior executive at the main opposition Democratic Alliance, said it would file a court application on Friday to set aside the plans “on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, irrational and procedurally flawed”.

Former South African judge Richard Goldstone, a respected figure in international justice and former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, said quitting the ICC was “demeaning” to the country.

“From a moral standpoint, it detracts from the inspiring legacy of the administration of President Nelson Mandela that so strongly supported the ICC,” said Goldstone, chairman of the advisory board of the coalition for the ICC, which provides strategic guidance on key issues.

Masutha, the justice minister, said Pretoria would drop its appeal to the Constitutional Court against a ruling that the state had made an error in letting Bashir leave the country.

In June 2015 Bashir was in Johannesburg for an African Union summit. He was allowed to leave even though the ICC had ordered that he be kept in South Africa until the end of a hearing on whether he should be detained under a global arrest warrant.

The High Court ruled Bashir should have been arrested to face genocide charges at the ICC since, as a signatory of the Rome Statute, Pretoria was obliged to implement arrest warrants.

The government lost an appeal at the Supreme Court in March and the appeal to the Constitutional Court was its last chance of overturning the ruling.

The ICC, which sits in The Hague and has 124 member states, is the first legal body with permanent international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

But it has secured only five substantive verdicts in its 14-year history, all of them on African suspects, and several African countries have expressed concern that the continent is being picked on.

In January, the African Union backed a proposal by Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta for officials of various member states to “develop a road map” on possible withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The decision was not legally binding as the final decision to leave the ICC would be taken by individual nations.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir attends during signing of agreements ceremony with Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (unseen) at the El-Thadiya presidential palace in Cairo, Egypt October 5, 2016. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

A high-profile ICC attempt to try Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto over post-election violence failed amid diplomatic lobbying and allegations of witness intimidation.

Adan Duale, leader of the majority in the Kenyan parliament, said impetus was building there to pass a bill on quitting the ICC that has been slowly making its way through the assembly.</s>President Uhuru Kenyatta with South African counterpart Jacob Zuma during a past visit to Pretoria, South Africa. South Africa said a year ago that it planned to leave the ICC after it was criticised for ignoring a court order to arrest Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. PHOTO | FILE

South Africa is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, according to a document seen by Reuters on Thursday, a move that would take effect one year after notice is formally received by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

A UN spokesman declined to confirm receipt of the document, which is signed by South Africa's Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and dated Oct. 19.

"The Republic of South Africa has found that its obligations with respect to the peaceful resolution of conflicts at times are incompatible with the interpretation given by the International Criminal Court," according to the document.

South Africa's foreign affairs department spokesman Clayson Monyela declined to comment, saying the justice minister would hold a news conference on the issue at 0800 GMT.

The International Criminal Court, which opened in July 2002 and has 124 member states, is the first legal body with permanent international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Burundi appeared set to become the first state to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty establishing the global court, after its parliament voted last week to leave. President Pierre Nkurunziza signed a decree on Tuesday, but the United Nations has not yet been officially notified.

South Africa said a year ago that it planned to leave the ICC after its government was criticised for ignoring a court order to arrest Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide and war crimes, when he visited last year.

Several African countries have expressed concern that the focus of the Hague-based court has been on Africa rather than elsewhere in the world.

"The Republic of South Africa is committed to fight impunity and to bring those who commit atrocities and international crimes to justice and as a founding member of the African Union promotes international human rights and the peaceful resolution of conflicts on the African continent," the document said.

"In complex and multi-faceted peace negotiations and sensitive post-conflict situations, peace and justice must be viewed as complementary and not mutually exclusive," the South African document said.</s>South Africa has withdrawn from the International Criminal Court (ICC), in the most damaging blow to the 14-year-old institution since the collapse of the war crimes case against Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, which energised the court’s opponents two years ago.

Announcing the decision, South Africa’s justice minister, Michael Masutha, maintained that the country’s obligations under the Rome Statute which set up the ICC, to arrest anyone wanted by the court, were fatally at odds with domestic laws giving sitting leaders diplomatic immunity.

South Africa did not wish to execute arrest warrants which could lead to “regime change”, Mr Masutha declared.

An “instrument of withdrawal” signed by international relations minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, and dated October 19th, has been sent to the United Nations in New York – and takes effect one year after receipt by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.

The abandonment of the Kenyatta case for lack of evidence in 2014, before it even got under way, fuelled accusations among African countries that the ICC has been pursuing a pro-western “neo-colonial agenda” – focusing disproportionately on “hunting” black African leaders.

That blow to the credibility of the court was followed in 2015 by South Africa’s embarrassing refusal to arrest Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president wanted by the ICC for genocide in Darfur, when he arrived for an African Union (AU) conference chaired by Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe.

The refusal was described as “a betrayal of Nelson Mandela’s legacy” – a view reinforced when the supreme court of appeal upheld a high court ruling that Al-Bashir should indeed have been arrested, describing the ANC government’s conduct as “disgraceful”.

The ICC subsequently criticised South Africa for its failure to comply and since then the row has been simmering, with this historic withdrawal – soon to be followed by that of Burundi, whose parliament voted last week to leave – well signalled by Pretoria and simply a matter of time.

The South African decision has caused fury among the country’s opposition and international human rights groups, many of whom maintain withdrawal is not possible without parliamentary approval.

James Selfe of the main opposition Democratic Alliance, said his party would file a court application to set aside the withdrawal “on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, irrational and procedurally flawed”.

Human Rights Watch said the move showed “startling disregard for justice from a country long seen as a global leader in accountability for victims of the gravest crimes”, while Richard Goldstone of the Coalition for the ICC described it as “demeaning” for the parliament and people of South Africa.

Whatever happens inside South Africa, the decision to withdraw will give new impetus to calls within the AU for a mass withdrawal from the ICC – possibly replacing it with the African Court for Human and People’s Rights, which allows sitting heads of state immunity from prosecution.

Even if that does not happen immediately, one has to wonder how long it will be before the withdrawals of South Africa and Burundi are following by that of Kenya, America’s closest ally in the region – and the drip, drip of the ICC’s receding influence in Africa.</s>"There is a view in Africa that the ICC in choosing who to prosecute has seemingly preferred to target leaders in Africa," Masutha added to AFP.

The ICC, set up in 2002, is often accused of bias against Africa and has also struggled with a lack of cooperation, including from the United States which has signed the court's treaty but never ratified it.

"We do think that the ICC has made valuable contributions in the service of accountability in a number of situations and we hope that other governments would share that," State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters.

As an ICC signatory, South Africa's failure to arrest Bashir last year led to a wave of condemnation and an early threat from the government to withdraw from The Hague-based court.

Bashir has evaded arrest since his ICC indictment in 2009 for alleged war crimes in Sudan's Darfur conflict in which 300,000 people were killed and two million forced to flee their homes.

"The presidency of the republic... calls on African leaders and the people of Africa who are still members of the ICC to take a collective step in withdrawing from the ICC," a presidency statement said.

Burundi's foreign minister Alain-Ayme Nyamitwe, meanwhile, said the country expected others to follow, adding that it was important to note that "the ICC is not popular in Africa".

South Africa, which delivered a letter to the United Nations on Wednesday to activate its official withdrawal, is likely to complete the process in one year.

"South Africa played an important role in developing the ICC and now to see it playing such a destructive role is saddening," he said.

The ICC said Friday it had not received any confirmation of the South African position, adding that it relied on "the international community in Africa and outside Africa... to fulfil its mandate."

The government was facing a possible defeat in the Constitutional Court next month over the issue, but said that Friday's decision meant its legal battle would be dropped.

During the summit, an emergency court order was obtained for Bashir's arrest, though government lawyers admitted he had quickly flown out of the country just before the order was issued.

"We were called as a country to arrest and prosecute a sitting head of state and the natural consequence would have been forced regime change in that country by South Africa," Minister Masutha told AFP.

Of the ten ICC probes since 2002, nine have been into African countries and one into Georgia, though most ICC cases have been referred to the court by African governments themselves.</s>In a major blow to the International Criminal Court, the South African government has given formal notice of its intention to withdraw from the beleaguered court.

South Africa was one of the strongest early supporters of the international court in 2002, but it has now become the second African country to announce that it is quitting the court’s founding treaty, a move that could encourage other nations to follow in a domino effect.

Burundi was the first to announce its plan to withdraw, in a presidential decree earlier this week. Others, including Kenya, could adopt the same tactic.

The withdrawals will trigger a crisis in credibility for the court. Many African countries have accused it of unfairly targeting Africans, noting that only Africans have been convicted in the trials in The Hague so far. But until this week, none of the unhappy African governments have formally decided to abandon the court.

Supporters of the court have denied that it is biased. They have noted that most of the African prosecutions were referred to the international court by African governments themselves.

The African backlash against the court became more furious when several African political leaders – including those of Sudan and Kenya – were indicted by the court. Several African countries – including South Africa – have refused to arrest Sudan president Omar al-Bashir when he travelled to their countries, despite his ICC arrest warrant for war crimes and despite the legal obligation of court members to arrest him.

In its formal notice of withdrawal, leaked to local media on Thursday night, South Africa’s foreign minister informed the United Nations Secretary-General that her country would withdraw from the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, on the earliest possible date, which is a year after the UN receives the notice.

In its one-page notice of withdrawal, South Africa claims that the international court is pitting justice against peace, and it argues that the court’s interpretation of its legal duties is sometimes “incompatible” with the “peaceful resolution of conflicts.”

But analysts note that South Africa is facing a potential court defeat of its own. Civil society groups have already hauled the government to court for its failure to arrest Mr. al-Bashir when he visited South Africa last year. The courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal, have ruled that the government acted unlawfully by failing to arrest the Sudanese president, since the ICC’s founding treaty has been adopted into South Africa’s own domestic laws. The government’s appeal to the highest court, the Constitutional Court, is due to be heard next month.

As an early supporter of the international court, and as a country that once held the moral high ground on justice issues because of its anti-apartheid struggle, South Africa’s withdrawal could be the biggest setback for the court so far. The court is already under criticism for obtaining only four convictions in its history, after spending more than $1.4-billion (U.S.) since its creation in 2002.

The South African announcement sparked immediate criticism on Thursday night. “This is a sad day for all who believe in the global struggle for justice,” said Simon Adams, executive director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, a group that strives to prevent mass atrocities.

He called it a “terrible decision” and a “slap in the face to African victims” in Darfur, Burundi and other violence-torn countries. “This is a victory for impunity and injustice,” he said.

There are also legal questions about whether South Africa can withdraw from the court without allowing a full vote on the issue in its parliament. Without this parliamentary approval, its notice to withdraw could be challenged in the courts.</s>South Africa is pulling out of the international criminal court (ICC) because its obligations are inconsistent with domestic laws giving sitting leaders diplomatic immunity, the country’s justice minister, Michael Masutha, has said.

Pretoria said last year it planned to leave the ICC after receiving criticism for ignoring a court order to arrest the visiting Sudanese president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide and war crimes. Bashir has denied the accusations.

On Friday at a press conference in the capital, Masutha said: “The implementation of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court Act 2002 is in conflict and inconsistent with the provisions of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act 2001.”

Any move to leave would take effect one year after notice is formally received by the United Nations secretary general, currently Ban Ki-moon.

Earlier on Friday the public broadcaster SABC published a document outlining the withdrawal plan.

The document was signed by South Africa’s minister of international relations and cooperation, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, and dated 19 October.

“The Republic of South Africa has found that its obligations with respect to the peaceful resolution of conflicts at times are incompatible with the interpretation given by the international criminal court,” the document states.

The international criminal court opened in July 2002 and has 124 member states. It was the first legal body with permanent international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Burundi appeared set to become first state to withdraw from the Rome statute, the 1998 treaty establishing the global court, after its parliament voted last week to leave. The president, Pierre Nkurunziza, signed a decree on Tuesday, but the UN has not yet been officially notified.

Several African countries have expressed concern that the focus of the Hague-based court has been on Africa rather than elsewhere in the world. – online reports</s>South Africa is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, according to a document seen by Reuters on Thursday, a move which would take effect one year after it is formally received by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

A U.N. spokesman declined to confirm receipt of the document, which is signed by South Africa's Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and dated Oct. 19.</s>Speaking about the place of opposition in a hostile environment at a global summit on democracy in London, Mr Odinga however, noted that there was increased resilience by opposition in the continent, which he said was good news.

Mr Odinga used Kenya as an example to explain democratic gains, saying the current progressive constitution was achieved through hard work by the opposition and civil society.

Mr Odinga said Kenyan opposition had been able to successfully challenge government decisions in court, noting that this was a sign of democratic growth.

He decried the current extensions of tenure by African leaders as undemocratic citing the recent example of Burundi, Rwanda and DR Congo.

The former PM observed that a Burundi constitutional court had ruled to give the incumbent President Nkurunziza a third term in office. In Rwanda, the top court also cleared the way for Kagame’s third term.

Mr Odinga, however, noted that democracy was a process and “not an instant coffee which you brew and drink almost at the same.”

Raila told the forum covering opposition politics, activism, challenges and expectations globally, that ethnicity is a challenge to democracy in Africa, but mostly “an elites’ disease".

He said elites mostly eat the mythical national cake alone, but the moment they are caught stealing, they start lying that their tribesmen are being targeted.

Reacting to news that South Africa was planning to leave the International Criminal Court because of a perceived bias against Africa, Mr Odinga said many of the leaders were referred to the court by their own governments. He said despite the move, Africa still needs the court.</s>Bujumbura. President Pierre Nkurunziza on Tuesday signed legislation enabling Burundi to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

A copy of the law seen by AFP and dated October 18 allows “the Republic of Burundi’s withdrawal from the Rome statute”, the ICC’s founding treaty.

The next step will be for the country to officially notify the United Nations, launching a year-long departure process that will make the country the first ever to quit the tribunal.

Burundi’s lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favour of the move on October 12, its latest snub of the international community after the release of a damning UN report in September detailing atrocities and warning of “genocide”. (AFP)
South Africa will notify the United Nations that the country is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This separation would take effect one year from when notice is formally received by the U.N. Secretary-General. Last week, Burundi's parliament voted to leave the ICC, but the required paperwork has not yet reached the U.N.