Court Blocks South Africa's Withdrawal From International Criminal Court

Enlarge this image toggle caption Mike Corder/AP Mike Corder/AP

A South African court has ruled that the country's bid to withdraw from the International Criminal Court is "unconstitutional and invalid," in a stark rebuke to the government of President Jacob Zuma.

"South Africa's justice minister shocked the country last October when he announced it would pull out of the International Criminal Court," Peter Granitz reports for NPR from Pretoria. He notes that it was especially surprising because South Africa was a founding member of the court, which prosecutes war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Wednesday's court order from the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria focused on how South Africa initiated its withdrawal from the ICC's treaty, the Rome Statute. The court said the executive did not have the power to do so without prior parliamentary approval.

"What is so pressing for the national executive about the withdrawal from the Rome Statute which cannot wait for our legislative processes (and possibly judicial pronouncements) to take their course?" the ruling read. "This unexplained haste, in our view, itself constitutes procedural irrationality."

The court did not rule on whether South Africa should withdraw from the treaty, stating that the decision is "policy-laden, and one residing in the heartland of the national executive in the exercise of foreign policy, international relations and treaty-making."

The Democratic Alliance, the opposition party which filed the case, called the outcome a "victory for the rule of law." It stated that "South Africa does not want to be lumped together with pariah states who have no respect for human rights and who do not subscribe to accountability for those guilty of the most heinous human rights violations."

South Africa announced its intention to leave the court after the government "refused to detain indicted war criminal Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir at an African Union summit in 2015, despite an ICC warrant for his arrest," NPR's Ofeibea Quist-Arcton explained. It takes one year for a withdrawal to take effect after initial notification, according to the terms of the Rome Statute.

South Africa made its announcement last year amid accusations that the court is biased against Africans, as The Two-Way has reported:

"Every person tried by the ICC since the treaty creating it was adopted in 1998 has been African. "Other war crimes trials have been carried out by ad hoc tribunals created after a specific conflict, such as those created for Yugoslavia and Cambodia, or for the Nuremberg trials conducted after World War II."

Gambia and Burundi also announced last year that they were withdrawing from the court, but Gambia's new leader reversed that decision earlier this month.

In South Africa, the current government has vowed to continue its efforts to pull out of the ICC. "The intention to withdraw still stands, as this is a policy decision of the executive," Justice Minister Michael Masutha told Reuters.

As the BBC reports, "the government may choose to appeal the judgment, or it may simply do as the judges ordered and take the proposal to parliament where the governing African National Congress (ANC) continues to enjoy a comfortable majority."</s>JOHANNESBURG—A South African court ruled Wednesday that the government’s decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court without parliament’s approval was unconstitutional. Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo in the North Gauteng High Court instructed the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the human rights tribunal based in The Hague, Netherlands. South Africa is set to become the first country to leave the tribunal that prosecutes the world’s worst atrocities. South Africa’s main opposition party had gone to court, saying the government’s notice was illegal because parliament was not consulted. “South Africa does not want to be lumped together with pariah states who have no respect for human rights,” the Democratic Alliance said in a statement Wednesday. South Africa’s withdrawal announcement last year followed a 2015 dispute over a visit by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. Al-Bashir was allowed to leave South Africa even though a local court ordered authorities to arrest him.

Under the Rome Statute that created the ICC, signatory countries have a legal obligation to arrest anyone sought by the tribunal. South Africa said the treaty contradicts its diplomatic immunity law and prevents the country from acting as a regional peacemaker, a role that could require it to host adversaries on its own soil. The government said after its notice of withdrawal that a withdrawal bill would go to parliament, where the ruling African National Congress party has a majority. South Africa notified the United Nations secretary-general that it would withdraw from the treaty that created the ICC, alarming international human rights groups and raising fears of an African exodus from the court, which has more than 120 member states.

Some African countries have argued that the court has unfairly targeted their continent and have instead advocated strengthening their own institutions to deal with threats to human rights. All but one of the court’s full-scale investigations are in Africa, though the majority were referred to the court by the African countries themselves and two by the U.N. Security Council. Former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had said he regretted South Africa’s decision to withdraw from the ICC and expressed hope that the government would reconsider it. A country’s withdrawal becomes effective a year after formally notifying the U.N. chief. In South Africa’s case, that is expected in October. Backers of the court were dismayed by South Africa’s move to withdraw, especially after former president Nelson Mandela had been a strong advocate for the court’s creation. The Democratic Alliance statement echoed concerns that the country under current President Jacob Zuma had drifted far from its ideals. “This is a victory for the rule of law and indeed for our country’s human rights-based foreign policy which Zuma and his cronies have tried so hard to depart from,” it said of the court’s ruling.</s>A South African court ruled Wednesday that the government's decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court without parliament's approval was unconstitutional. A high court judge instructed the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the human rights tribunal based in The Hague, Netherlands.

Start the conversation, or Read more at The Chronicle-Journal.</s>A South African court has ruled that the government's decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court was unconstitutional.

A judge in the North Gauteng High Court on Wednesday instructed the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the human rights tribunal based in The Hague, Netherlands.

South Africa's main opposition party had gone to court, saying the government's notice was illegal because the South African parliament was not consulted.

South Africa's withdrawal announcement followed a 2015 dispute over a visit by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. Al-Bashir was allowed to leave South Africa even though a local court ordered authorities to stop him.</s>A South African court ruled Wednesday that the government's decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court without parliament's approval was unconstitutional. The country had been set to become the first to leave the tribunal that prosecutes the world's worst atrocities.

A high court judge instructed the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the court based in The Hague, Netherlands.

South Africa's main opposition party had gone to court, saying the government's notice was illegal because parliament was not consulted. "South Africa does not want to be lumped together with pariah states who have no respect for human rights," the Democratic Alliance said in a statement Wednesday.

"What is so pressing for the national executive about the withdrawal ... which cannot wait for our legislative processes to take their course?" the court's ruling said. "Government respondents have not provided any explanation for this seemingly urgent need to withdraw from the Rome Statute" that created the tribunal.

A government statement said it would "reflect on the judgment" before deciding whether to appeal.

South Africa's withdrawal announcement last year followed a 2015 dispute over a visit by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. Al-Bashir was allowed to leave South Africa even though a local court ordered authorities to arrest him.

Under the Rome Statute, signatory countries have a legal obligation to arrest anyone sought by the ICC. South Africa said the treaty contradicts its diplomatic immunity law and prevents the country from acting as a regional peacemaker, a role that could require it to host adversaries on its own soil.

The government previously said a withdrawal bill would go to parliament, where the ruling African National Congress party has a majority and likely would approve it. However, the court's ruling could mean a significant delay in the process, and some legal experts speculate that the government might consider dropping its withdrawal plan ahead of the next presidential elections in 2019.

South Africa notified the United Nations secretary-general that it would withdraw from the treaty that created the ICC, alarming international human rights groups and raising fears of an African exodus from the court, which has more than 120 member states.

Some African countries have argued that the court has unfairly targeted their continent and have instead advocated strengthening their own institutions to deal with threats to human rights. All but one of the court's full-scale investigations are in Africa, though the majority were referred to the court by the African countries themselves and two by the U.N. Security Council.

Former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had said he regretted South Africa's decision to withdraw from the ICC and expressed hope that the government would reconsider it. A country's withdrawal becomes effective a year after formally notifying the U.N. chief. In South Africa's case, that is expected in October. It was not immediately clear whether the court ruling has stopped the clock on that process.

Backers of the court were dismayed by South Africa's move to withdraw, especially after former President Nelson Mandela had been a strong advocate for the court's creation.

The Democratic Alliance statement echoed concerns that the country under current President Jacob Zuma had drifted far from its ideals. "This is a victory for the rule of law and indeed for our country's human rights-based foreign policy which Zuma and his cronies have tried so hard to depart from," it said of the court's ruling.</s>South Africa's High Court has ruled the country's decision to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC) is unconstitutional. Last October, South Africa notified the United Nations its decision to leave the court claiming its membership conflicted with diplomatic immunity laws.

It is not clear whether the government would appeal the court's ruling. The process of withdrawal lasts one year and, in the case of South Africa, would take place this October.

The decision to leave the court, accused of bias by some African countries, was opposed by the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA).

Following the ruling on 22 October, the party said on its Twitter page: "We have won in our application to have SA's withdrawal from the #ICC set aside."

South Africa had longed warned it would leave the ICC following widespread criticism for its refusal to arrest Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, wanted by the ICC for alleged crimes including genocide committed during the Darfur conflict, which began in 2003.

Under the Rome Statute, South Africa as an ICC member has an obligation to arrest anyone sought by the tribunal.

Bashir has always rejected the charges and refuses to stand trial as his country does not recognise the ICC's jurisdiction, which the head of state slammed as "a tool to terrorise countries that the West thinks are disobedient."

Earlier this year, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) upheld a High Court ruling that the government should have arrested Bashir while he was in the country in June 2015. Earlier in October, Burundi became the first nation to announce its intention to leave the ICC.

Is the ICC biased towards Africa?

Some African leaders and analysts have claimed the ICC seems prone to prosecute African figures, while it ignores perpetrators of the same crimes in other parts of the world.

South Africa and Burundi announced their withdrawal in 2016, claiming, among other things, that the ICC was biased towards African nations.

Gambia, under the leadership of former leader Yahya Jammeh, also announced it would pull out from the organisation, arguing the court "ignores war crimes" committed by Western countries. But new leader Adama Barrow said he will revert the decision.

Kenya, which the ICC is currently investigating, said it was watching the withdrawals "with very keen interest."

Earlier this year, the African Union (AU) approved a strategy for a mass withdrawal from the ICC, signalling Africa's increasing frustration towards the perceived biased attitude of the court.

However, in an exclusive interview with IBTimes UK, the court rejected allegations of bias against African countries and denied its investigations focus exclusively on Africa. A spokesperson for the court said the prosecutor's office is conducting preliminary examinations on other continents, including Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Palestine and Ukraine.</s>South African government wanted to leave the ICC as a result of the court's alleged bias against African nations.

A South African court has ruled the government's plan to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) was "unconstitutional and invalid", providing a boost to the embattled Hague-based institution.

The court has recently been fighting off allegations of pursuing a neo-colonial agenda in Africa, where most of its investigations have been based.

Three African states - South Africa, The Gambia and Burundi - last year signalled their intention to quit the ICC. The Gambia's President Adama Barrow, elected in December, said earlier this month it will remain in the ICC.

READ MORE: Africa's human rights court and the limits of justice

South Africa announced in October that it had lodged its decision to pull out with the United Nations, after a dispute over Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visiting the country in 2015.

South African authorities refused to arrest Bashir despite him facing an ICC arrest warrant over alleged war crimes, saying he had immunity as a head of state.

"The cabinet decision to deliver the notice of withdrawal... without prior parliamentary approval is unconstitutional and invalid," said judge Phineas Mojapelo in the North Gauteng High Court.

 

The president and ministers "are ordered forthwith to revoke the notice of withdrawal," he added.

The court ruling was a setback for President Jacob Zuma's government, but Justice Minister Michael Masutha said the government still plans to withdraw from the court.

Masutha described the government's notification to the UN of its intent to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty establishing the Hague-based court, as a policy decision.

He said the government would decide how to proceed, including a possible appeal, after reading the full judgment.

The opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) party, which was one of the groups that brought the court case, on the other hand, welcomed the judgement.

 

"The withdrawal by the South African government from the ICC was irrational and unconstitutional," DA MP James Selfie told AFP news agency.

 

"We would like South Africa to stay in the ICC because we believe that it is consistent with our constitution and with the legacy of Nelson Mandela.

 

"The government should go back to the drawing board and reconsider the thing afresh in light of this judgement."

The ICC, which launched 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.</s>South Africa’s decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been ruled “unconstitutional and invalid” by the High Court.

South Africa notified the UN of its intention to leave last October, saying the ICC pursued “regime change”.

The court ruled in favour of the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA), which argued that the government had to first seek parliamentary approval.

 The court ordered the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal.

In his response, Justice Minister Michael Masutha said the government still intended to quit the ICC, Reuters news agency reports.

The government would consider its options, including a possible appeal, after studying the full judgement, he is quoted as saying.</s>South Africa’s High Court blocked the government’s attempt to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Wednesday, the latest blow to President Jacob Zuma.

A high court judge instructed the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the court based in The Hague, Netherlands.

South Africa’s main opposition party had gone to court, saying the government's notice was illegal because parliament was not consulted. “South Africa does not want to be lumped together with pariah states who have no respect for human rights,” the Democratic Alliance said.

“This is a victory for the rule of law and indeed for our country's human rights-based foreign policy which Zuma and his cronies have tried so hard to depart from,” DA spokesman James Selfe said. “Clearly Zuma and his ANC have absolutely no respect for the constitution.”

“What is so pressing for the national executive about the withdrawal ... which cannot wait for our legislative processes to take their course?” the court's ruling said. “Government respondents have not provided any explanation for this seemingly urgent need to withdraw from the Rome Statute” that created the tribunal.

Justice Minister Michael Masutha said the government would press ahead with withdrawing from the Hague-based tribunal, noting that the ruling was based largely on procedure – that the decision to pull out did not pass first through parliament.

Mr Masutha said the ruling amounted to a delay that would not stop the government's bid to leave an institution that some African governments feel unfairly targets Africans and which Pretoria said was at odds with its diplomatic immunity laws.

The ICC, which was launched 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.

Pretoria notified the United Nations of its intent to withdraw in October, starting a year-long divorce period that would have made South Africa the first country to quit the court in October this year.

South Africa's withdrawal announcement followed a 2015 dispute over a visit by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. Al-Bashir was allowed to leave South Africa even though a local court ordered authorities to arrest him.

Under the Rome Statute, signatory countries have a legal obligation to arrest anyone sought by the ICC. South Africa said the treaty contradicts its diplomatic immunity law and prevents the country from acting as a regional peacemaker, a role that could require it to host adversaries on its own soil.

The government previously said a withdrawal bill would go to parliament, where the ruling African National Congress party has a majority and likely would approve it. However, the court's ruling could mean a significant delay in the process, and some legal experts speculate that the government might consider dropping its withdrawal plan ahead of the next presidential elections in 2019.

South Africa withdrawal notification alarmed international human rights groups and has raised fears of an African exodus from the court, which has more than 120 member states.

Some African countries have argued that the court has unfairly targeted their continent and have instead advocated strengthening their own institutions to deal with threats to human rights. All but one of the court's full-scale investigations are in Africa, though the majority were referred to the court by the African countries themselves and two by the UN Security Council.

Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had said he regretted South Africa's decision to withdraw from the ICC and expressed hope that the government would reconsider it. A country's withdrawal becomes effective a year after formally notifying the U.N. chief. In South Africa's case, that is expected in October. It was not immediately clear whether the court ruling has stopped the clock on that process.

Backers of the court were dismayed by South Africa's move to withdraw, especially after former President Nelson Mandela had been a strong advocate for the court's creation.

Three African states - South Africa, Gambia and Burundi – last year signalled their intention to quit the ICC. Gambia’s President Adama Barrow, elected in December, said earlier this month that the tiny West African nation would remain in the ICC.</s>South Africa's decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been ruled unconstitutional by the country's High Court, the opposition party which brought the challenge to the government's move said on Wednesday.

South Africa has officially notified the United Nations of its intent to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty establishing The Hague-based court.

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.
South Africa's North Gauteng High Court rules the government's decision last October to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was unconstitutional, and instructs the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal.