EDITORIAL: ICC not only for presidents

Burundi, the largely isolated member of the East African Community and the African Union, has found an unlikely ally on the global arena: The Philippines. On March 17, the latter withdrew from the International Criminal Court, only the second country to do so after Burundi in 2017. And like Burundi, its exit had almost everything to do with the president.

Upon ascending to power in 2016 Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte made the elimination of narcotics on the Southeast Asian island his signature policy initiative. To that end, he has spared no efforts in his crackdown, which resulted in thousands of suspected drug dealers being killed. He defends it fiercely, especially from international critics like Western leaders and institutions, which he says do not care about Filipinos.

Burundi fell afoul with the ICC over the probe into killings in the aftermath of a failed coup, when President Pierre Nkurunziza defied the constitution to force his way into a third term in office. Other African countries — such as Zambia, South Africa, Kenya and The Gambia — expressed an interest in pulling out of the ICC, accusing it of bias against Africans. The South African and Gambian bids were scuttled by a change of national leadership.

Granted, The Hague-based ICC is not perfect but it remains the court of last resort for trying perpetrators of heinous offences like war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Established by the Rome Statute in 2002, its clientele has been from far and wide, though a majority were from Africa.

Having jailed Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic for life, it is, therefore, unfortunate that every time African presidents have issues with the court they rally their countries against it. Presidents come and go but what ICC stands for lives on, and a matter will remain in its jurisdiction even after a member quits.