Subsequent to my article on Africa and the ICC published on this blog, I was invited by H.E. Sidiki Kaba, Minister of Justice of Senegal and President of the Assembly of States parties to the International Criminal Court to resource a ministerial discussion on the challenges and opportunities of the International Criminal Court going forward. Present at this meeting was also the ICC Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda as well as other officials of the court.
In my presentation at a session chaired by H.E. Cheik Sako, Minister of Justice of Guinea, I proposed to African Ministers of Justice ideas that would re-establish trust between Africa and the ICC in order to work together to address impunity and ensure justice for victims. I argued that grievances of the African Union against the ICC’s “exclusive” targeting of Africa is understandable because crimes under ICC jurisdictions are also committed by none Africans, outside of Africa and the ICC does not seem to be in a hurry to investigate them. However, as long as African countries and the continent do not have a functioning mechanism to address international crimes, our continent and the ICC must find a way to work together, clear misunderstandings, communicate better and ensure justice and accountability for the victims who are mostly women and children.
The 29th ordinary Summit of the AU (July 2017) has just ended in Addis Ababa. The official decisions of the Summit are not expected to be publicly available before a couple of weeks but, based on meetings and discussions that I have had with several delegations around the Summit and after looking at some of the Summit documents, I would like to share the following unofficial note on the key outcomes of the Summit.
In the coming days I will share on this blog, some personal analysis on these outcomes.
Important decisions on youth; theme of the year.
President Paul Kagame of Rwanda elected to lead the African Union in 2018.
2018 budget of the AU adopted: $769, 381,894, slightly less than 2017 budget.
The theme of 2018 confirmed as “Winning the Fight Against Corruption: A Sustainable Path to Africa’s Transformation” and the dates and venues of both AU Summits in 2018 decided.
The Summit asked the Chairperson to mobilize international support for Africa’s efforts towards harnessing the demographic dividend by calling for a special session of the United Nations General Assembly and the creation of a global partnership on the demographic dividend.
2018-2027 period is declared “African Decade for Technical, Professional and Entrepreneurial Training and Youth Employment”.
The establishment of the African Youth Fund is endorsed. The Summit also authorized allocation to the African Youth Fund of an amount at least equal to 1% of the Programme Budget of the African Union Commission.
The AU Commission to review the implementation of the AUC/AfDB/ILO/ECA Joint Initiative on Youth Employment to be in line with the AU Roadmap on the Demographic Dividend and incorporate the new AfDB Strategy on Youth Employment in Africa.
3/Africa -EU Partnership becomes “African Union (AU) – European Union (EU) Partnership: Morocco entered strong reservation.
The Executive Council approved the theme of the 5th AU – EU Summit (29-30 Nov. 2017) namely: “Investment in Youth for Accelerated Inclusive growth and sustainable development”. The Executive Council also decided that the nomenclature for the partnership with the European Union to be now: “African Union (AU) – European Union (EU) Partnership” instead of “Africa – EU partnership”. The Kingdom of Morocco entered a strong reservation on nomenclature: African Union (AU) – European Union(EU) Partnership.
Senior Officials and a Ministerial meeting to be held before the Summit. The PRC in close collaboration with the Commission to prepare and negotiate with the European side the outcome documents of the Summit.
The PRC was asked to convene a retreat to jointly conclude the elaboration of a Draft Declaration and other documents for the 2017 AU-EU Summit in cooperation with the AU Commission and the Africa Group in Brussels and submit to an Extraordinary Session of Council in August/September 2017 to consider the same documents and adopt the African Common Position.
Finally, the Council denounced the unjust unilateral sanctions against States and citizens of AU Member States.
Somalia: The Assembly expressed concern at the resurgence of piracy activities of the coast of Somalia and called on the AU and international partners to coordinate their support through the implementation mechanism of the Security Pact, as agreed at the London Conference, held on 11 May 2017, with a view to optimize the impact of joint efforts aimed at, in particular, supporting the Somali National Security Forces. The Assembly welcomed the establishment of the AU-Somalia Joint Task Force that should be the best channel to harmonize support by partners.
South Sudan: The Assembly expressed deep concern over the continued deterioration of the situation in South Sudan and called upon, South Sudanese parties to demonstrate leadership and to rise up to their responsibility towards ending the long suffering of their own people. The Assembly also welcomed the launching of the National Dialogue initiative by President Salva Kiir and urged the South Sudanese stakeholders to ensure its inclusivity independence and impartiality. The Assembly endorsed the decisions of the 31 IGAD Extraordinary Summit held on 12 June 2017, in particular the urgent convening of the High-Level Revitalization Forum of the Peace Agreement. Concerned by the humanitarian situation in South Sudan and urged the international community to provide the necessary assistance to the needy people in South Sudan and the neighboring countries. In this regard, the Assembly called on the Transitional Government of National Unity, SPLM-IO and all armed groups to strictly observe international humanitarian law with regard to humanitarian agencies and workers, with a view to create or facilitate access and delivery of the humanitarian assistance to the population in need.
Morocco & Western Sahara: The Assembly reaffirmed its determination to find a durable solution to the conflict in Western Sahara, and called on the two Member States, the Kingdom of Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, to engage in direct and serious talks and extend the necessary cooperation to the AU policy organs, the Commission and the AU High Representative for Western Sahara. The Assembly also welcomed the commitment of the UN Secretary-General to re-launch the negotiating process, with a new dynamic and a new spirit leading to the resumption of negotiations, in good faith and without preconditions, between the two parties with the aim of reaching a durable solution, which shall provide for the self-determination referendum of the people of Western Sahara in line with the relevant UN resolutions and the AU/OAU decisions.
DRC: The Assembly appealed to all Congolese actors to work for the preservation of the still fragile gains in the path of peace and stability in the DRC, in particular the effective and consensual implementation of the 31 December 2016 Agreement, with a view to organizing elections, in December 2017. In this regard, the Assembly welcomed the initiatives so far taken by the Chairperson of the Commission, including the dispatching, from 29 to 30 May, in Kinshasa, of a mission led by Commissioner for Peace and Security and comprising the representatives of the United Nations, the ICGLR, SADC, guarantor institutions of the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Region, signed on 24 February 2013, in Addis Ababa. The also Assembly called for the urgent appointment of the Chairman and Members of the National Follow up Council of the Agreement (CNSA) in order to establish the calendar of elections.
CAR: The Assembly reaffirmed support to the African Initiative for Peace and Reconciliation in CAR and called on all Central African stakeholders, the UN and other partners to support this process. The Assembly welcomed the signing in Rome, on 19 June 2017, under the facilitation of the Sant’Egidio community, of an agreement between armed groups, including a country wide ceasefire. The Assembly URGES Member States and partners to pursue and increase their assistance to the CAR and to contribute to stabilization, post-conflict reconstruction and development efforts in the country.
Mali: The Assembly welcomed the timely initiative of the G5 Sahel, namely Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Chad, which led to the establishment of the G5 Sahel Joint Force. The Assembly further welcomed the adoption by the United Nations Security Council of resolution 2359 (2017) on the deployment of the G5 Joint Force expressed appreciation to the European Union (EU) for the financial support to the initiative of the G5 Sahel. The Assembly requested the Commission to organise as soon as possible, a meeting of the member countries of the Nouakchott Process to discuss their support for the G5 Sahel initiative, within the framework of the AU Strategy for the Sahel Region.
Member States to adhere to and promote the Africa Amnesty Month, September each year, and mobilize their citizens to actively participate in the efforts to silence the guns.
The Summit appealed to all AU Member States and RECs/RMs to redouble efforts in further strengthening their governance institutions, as part of the continental mobilization to ensure strong response to illicit weapons, their proliferation and use in the continent, as well as to illicit financial flows, production of dangerous drugs, as well as trade in illicit goods and illegal exploitation of natural resources.
The Summit encouraged AU Member States to speed up signing and ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty adopted the UN General Assembly on 2 April 2013, which has the potential to play an important role in silencing the guns in Africa.
The Summit requested the Commission, as also requested by the PSC in its Press Statement [PSC/PR/BR.(CDXXX)] of its 430th meeting held on 24 April 2014, to submit and present to the PSC, the outcomes of the continent-wide mapping exercise which was launched in early 2017, with a view to generating concrete data on patterns and trends in illegal weapons and ammunition inflows and cross-border flows, diversion and circulation, as well as gaps in control measures in Member States, in order to strengthen AU remedial efforts.
The Summit Acknowledged that as part of the efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and practices throughout the continent, political will and commitment is a fundamental necessity for success in silencing the guns. In this regard, the Assembly urged Member States, for those that have not yet done so, to submit their state reports on their implementation of the provisions of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG).
The Summit also requested the AU Commission to convene a meeting of experts of AU Member States to review the OAU/AU treaty making process and make recommendations that will be submitted for consideration by the relevant AU policy organs in the course of 2017.
Panel of the Wise: The Summit decided to strengthen the preventive role of the Panel of the Wise by urging it to accelerate the establishment of national peace infrastructures, including by harnessing the efforts of national mechanisms. The summit also decided on the operationalization of “Pan African Network of Women Mediators“, as a subsidiary body of the Panel of the Wise.
The Executive Council expressed concern over the dire humanitarian situation of migrants in Mediterranean Sea trying to cross over to Europe and, welcomed the New York Declaration adopted at 71st UNGA and the commitment towards the adoption of a global compacts on refugees and on the safe and orderly migration, by 2018 as well as the comprehensive refugee response framework (CRRF) for large scale movements of refugees including tackling protracted situations.
Recognizing that 2019 will mark the 50th Anniversary of the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Situations in Africa and the 10th anniversary of the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, the Executive Council called on the Union to declare 2019 as the Year of Refugees, Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons in Africa : “towards durable solutions to forced displacement in Africa” and develop an implementation road map.
In collaboration with the PRC Sub-Committee on Refugees, Returnees and IDPs and the Sub-Committee on the Special Emergency Fund to take all necessary measures to convene a Donors Pledging Conference, which should include the private sector.
6/ Full Integration of NEPAD into the African Union Commission: The NEPAD Heads of State and Government Orientation Committee (HSGOC) is dissolved. AUC in consultation with the NEPAD Planning and Coordination Agency (NPCA), to take all necessary measures for the full integration of the NEPAD into the Commission and to report to 30th Ordinary Session of the Assembly in January 2018.
Outgoing members of the Panel of the Wise shall become members of the Group of Friends of the Panel.
11/ January 2018 Summit and theme of the year: The 30th AU Summit will be held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, under the theme “Winning The Fight Against Corruption: A Sustainable Path to Africa’s Transformation” as follow: PRC: 22 – 23 January 2018; Executive Council: 25 – 26 January 2018; Assembly: 28 – 29 January 2018.
July 2018 Summit: The 31st AU Summit will be held in Mauritania as follow: PRC : 25 – 26 June 2018; Executive Council: 28 – 29 June 201; Assembly: 1 – 2 July 2018.
12/ Which President Leads on what ?
The Council also authorized the Commission to take necessary consultations with the Government of the Republic of Chad on the establishment of the Secretariat of the Trust Fund, bearing in mind that, the Decision of the African Extraordinary Chambers, the Senegalese Courts will have jurisdiction over all matters arising from the implementation of the African Extraordinary Chambers’ decision.
The Council invited Members States, partners and any other governmental or non-governmental organisation to provide a voluntary contribute to the Trust Fund and fully support the African Union Commission, to ensure the prompt and effective reparation of the victims as per the Decision of the African Extraordinary Appeal Chambers.
Do not hesitate to drop me an email on assogbavi@me.com should you have any questions or comments.
If you want to receive an alert whenever I post an article please follow the blog on the left side of this page.
The International Criminal Court or the African Union: Who can Ensure Justice for African Victims?
I spent several years of my professional career working on human rights and justice first as the Founder and Chairperson of Juris-Club, then as Commissioner at the National Commission of Human Rights following my election by the Parliament of Togo, then as Outreach Liaison for Africa at the Global Coalition for the International Criminal Court in New York among others … The conflict between the African Union and the ICC therefore interests me in several respects but especially as African and a human rights lawyer; therefore I would like to share here some personal reflections on the different episodes of the serial “ICC versus the African Union”.
The creation of the International Criminal Court is an important step in mankind’s efforts to make our world more just. The court was established by an international law treaty “The Rome Treaty” adopted in 1998 and entered into force in 2002. The ICC covers only the most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression, and this, only when States are unable or unwilling to judge these crimes themselves. The Court may be seized by a State Party, the Prosecutor and the United Nations Security Council. The Statute of the Court applies equally to all, without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under the ICC Statute (…): Article 27.
Africa is the geographical bloc the most represented in the ICC. 124 countries are currently Parties to the Statute of the International Criminal Court: Africa: 34, Asia and the Pacific: 19, Eastern Europe: 18, Latin America and the Caribbean: 28, Western Europe and others: 25. The judges of the Court are equally from all regions of the world. Out of the 18 judges of the court 4 are Africans: Kenya (vice-president), Nigeria, DRC, and Botswana. Moreover, the prosecutor of the Court is Gambian.
To date, the ICC has opened investigations in 9 countries, out of which 8 are in Africa: Uganda, DRC, Sudan, CAR, Kenya, Libya, Cote d’Ivoire and Mali. This clearly demonstrates that the ICC operates primarily in Africa and it is true that today Africa is not the only continent where crimes of the ICC jurisdiction are committed… But did you know how and why this concentration of the ICC on Africa happened?
First, it was Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni who the first referred the situation in the Northern Uganda to the ICC in January 2004 against his opponent Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army; a brutal armed group. Then it was the Government of DRC under President Joseph Kabila who referred the situation in the country to the ICC. This was followed by the Governments of Central Africa Republic (CAR) and Mali, who themselves referred the situation of their countries to the ICC. In 2003, before even formally ratifying the ICC treaty, the government of Laurent Gbagbo had officially recognized the jurisdiction of the Court over its country, Cote d’Ivoire.
It is therefore obvious from this observation that African leaders went to the ICC first (mostly against their opponents) and not the other way round … but why? …Why are they against the ICC today?
In 2004, President Museveni seized the ICC against his opponent Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army … But during the investigations there were indications that Uganda’s National Army may have also committed crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC, and therefore may be liable to be tried by the ICC with an eventual involvement of President Museveni himself…. ‘No way!!!’ said President Museveni … the ICC suddenly became his enemy….Frankly, once you call the ICC to investigate a situation in your country you can’t dictate them which crime to look at and which to close their eye on in the same situation…This is simply an instrumentalisation of the Court.
In 2003, even before formally ratifying the ICC treaty, Côte d’Ivoire government of Laurent Gbagbo had officially recognized the jurisdiction of the ICC … Laurent Gbabo was likely targeting his political enemies … but the power has changed camp so far… It was therefore President Allassane Ouatarra who delivered Gbagbo to the ICC on the basis of the same special recognition signed by Gbagbo himself.
Despite the above, this question is worth asking. I personally support on-going ICC investigations in Africa because innocent Africans have been massacred by Africans with the support and the blessing of other Africans regardless of whether they are Heads of State, Vice-President or otherwise. Their official functions do not confer on them the right to massacre citizens. Indeed, the status of the ICC does not recognize the official status of anybody … this is the innovative and progressive aspect of the court, in favour of the victims.
Why does the ICC delaying to take concrete actions in favour of Iraqi, Palestinian, Syrian, and Afghani … victims? (Even if some of those countries are currently under preliminary investigation)… The answers to this question are unfortunately not as “just” as one would like: Because these countries are not party to the ICC Statute, or because one or several powerful countries endowed with veto power in the UN Security Council would certainly oppose it for unfair reasons that we all know… In fact, only 2 of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council are parties to the ICC: France and the United Kingdom.
These questions and many others obviously weaken the credibility of the ICC but … who is responsible for it and who must correct it?
Is not the ICC a common heritage that should help us to create a more just world? All nations, including African nations and their stakeholders, must work together to improve the ICC. Abandoning it or leaving it should not be an option … and I am pleased that a number of African countries have entered reservations on the “mass withdrawal strategy” during the AU Summit discussions. I have just learned that Gambia, which had previously announced its withdrawal from the ICC, has changed its mind. The government has just informed the United Nations that Gambia remains a state party to the ICC Treaty. Good news !
A mass withdrawal of African countries from the ICC would be a shame, a terrible contempt for African victims and an encouragement for criminals and their supporters… I know it will not happen. In fact 17 AU member states rejected the strategy… This is a terrible failure for the minority that initiated it.
The slogan “African Solutions for African Problems” is beautiful but it will only convince me under two conditions: 1/the bill of the African solution must also be paid by Africa (I recall that Africa did not pay the bill of Hissen Habré trial) and 2/ universal human rights and justice standards must be applied because human rights and justice principles have no nationality or regional identity. They are simply and unequivocally universal.
Having said this, the body that ensures justice does not matter if justice is fair and equitable. But the reality is that the African Court of Human Rights today has only a “promise” of criminal jurisdiction. This means that the court has no jurisdiction over international crimes at this time and I do not see any political will from our countries to make it happen any time soon. Almost 20 years after the adoption of the Protocol that established the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (with no criminal jurisdiction) only 30 African States out of 54 ratified it. Moreover the amended protocol giving criminal jurisdiction to the Court has not been ratified by any African state, 2 years after its adoption in Malabo. The worst is that the Malabo Protocol ensured immunity for heads of state during their tenures. I consider this provision as an “authorization to kill” while on power and an “encouragement” to cling on power forever in order to be protected against prosecutions… The observation is clear: Withdrawing from the ICC before an African court is able to judge and punish serious and heinous crimes is simply guarantying impunity and abandoning the victims. This is against the spirit of the Constitutive Act of our African Union.
La Cour Pénale Internationale ou l’Union Africaine : Qui Peut Rendre Justice aux Victimes Africaines ?
J’ai passé plusieurs années de ma carrière professionnelle à travailler sur les droits de l’homme et la justice d’abord en tant que fondateur et président du Juris-Club, puis Membre de la Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme du Togo à la suite de mon élection par l’Assemblée Nationale du Togo et ensuite comme Officier de Liaison pour l’Afrique de la Coalition pour la Cour Pénale Internationale à New York entre autre…Le conflit entre l’Union Africaine et la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) m’interpelle donc à plusieurs égards mais surtout en tant qu’Africain épris de justice.
Je vous propose dans les lignes qui suivent des réflexions personnelles sur les différents épisodes du feuilleton « CPI contre Union Africaine ».
La création de la Cour Pénale Internationale est un pas important dans les efforts déployés par l’humanité pour rendre notre monde plus juste. La cour a été créée par un traité de droit international « Le Traité de Rome » adopté en 1998 et entré en vigueur en 2002. La CPI ne vise que les crimes les plus graves notamment le génocide, les crimes de guerres, les crimes contre l’humanité, et le crime d’agression et ce, seulement lorsque les Etats ne sont pas en mesure ou n’ont pas la volonté de juger ces crimes eux même. La Cour peut être saisie par un état partie, le procureur et le Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies. Le Statut de la Cour s’applique à tous de manière égale, sans aucune distinction fondée sur la qualité officielle. En particulier la qualité de chef d’État ou de gouvernement, de membre d’un gouvernement ou d’un parlement, de représentant élu ou d’agent d’un État, n’exonère en aucun cas de la responsabilité pénale au regard du Statut (…) : Article 27.
L’Afrique est le bloc géographique le plus représenté à la CPI. 124 pays sont présentement États Parties au Statut de la Cour pénale internationale : Afrique : 34, Asie et Pacifiques : 19, Europe Orientale : 18, Amérique Latine et Caraïbes : 28, Europe Occidentale et autres : 25. Les juges de la cour proviennent équitablement de toutes les régions du monde. Des 18 juges de la cour 4 sont Africains : Kenya (vice-présidente), Nigeria, RDC, Botswana. Par ailleurs, la procureure de la cour est Gambienne.
La CPI vise-t-elle particulièrement l’Afrique ou les Leaders Africains ?
A ce jour la CPI a ouvert des enquêtes dans 9 pays dont 8 en Afrique : Ouganda, RDC, Soudan, RCA, Kenya, Libye, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali. Ceci démontre clairement que la CPI opère essentiellement en Afrique et il est vrai qu’aujourd’hui l’Afrique n’est pas le seul continent ou les crimes relevant de la compétence de la CPI sont commis mais saviez- vous comment et pourquoi est-on arrivé à cette concentration des activités de la CPI en Afrique ?
D’abord c’est le Président Ougandais Yoweri Museveni qui a été le premier Chef d’Etat à saisir la CPI de la situation au Nord de l’Ouganda en Janvier 2004 contre son opposant Joseph Kony et l’Armée de Résistance du Seigneur, un groupe armé particulièrement violent et responsable d’atrocités. Ensuite c’est le gouvernement de la RDC sous le Président Joseph Kabila qui a saisi la CPI de la situation dans son pays. S’en sont suivi les gouvernements de la République Centrafricaine, et du Mali qui ont eux aussi saisi la cour. En 2003, avant même de ratifier formellement le traité de la CPI le gouvernement de Laurent Gbagbo avait officiellement reconnu la compétence de la CPI sur la Cote d’Ivoire.
En bref, les gouvernements de 4 des 8 pays africains sous enquête ont eux-mêmes saisi la CPI (Ouganda, RDC, RCA, Mali). La procureure de la cour a ouvert des enquêtes de sa propre initiative dans 2 pays avec la pleine coopération de leurs gouvernements (Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire) et le Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unis avait saisi la cour dans 2 autres cas (Soudan et Libye).
Il est donc évident eu égard à ce constat que ce sont les leaders Africains qui sont allés vers la CPI et non pas le contraire… mais pourquoi ? Et pourquoi sont – ils contre la Cour aujourd’hui ?
Les Leaders Africains avaient-ils compris la CPI autrement ?
En 2004, le Président Museveni avait saisi la CPI contre son opposant Joseph Kony et l’Armée de Résistance du Seigneur… Mais au cours des enquêtes il y eu des indices selon lesquelles l’Armée régulière de l’Ouganda (UPDF) aurait aussi commis des crimes relevant de la compétence de la Cour, et donc susceptible d’être jugés par la CPI avec une possibilité d’implication du Président Museveni lui-même…. Pas question !!! selon le president Museveni… la CPI devient du coup son ennemi juré ….Franchement, une fois que vous appelez la CPI pour enquêter sur une situation dans votre pays, vous ne pouvez pas lui dicter quels crimes regarder et sur quels crimes fermer les yeux dans la même situation … Ceci serait une instrumentation pure et simple de la Cour.
En 2003, si, avant même de ratifier formellement le traité de la CPI, le gouvernement de Laurent Gbagbo avait officiellement reconnu la compétence de la Cour sur la Cote d’Ivoir, Laurent Gbabo visait vraisemblablement ses ennemis politiques… mais le pouvoir avait changé de camp par la suite; c’était donc le Président Allassane Ouatarra qui livra Laurent Gbagbo à la CPI sur la base de la même reconnaissance spéciale signée par Mr. Gbagbo lui-même.
En 2004, Joseph Kabila s’est servi de la CPI pour se débarrasser de certains criminels de guerres présumés et gênants mais il s’était certainement aussi réjoui de voir son challenger politique Jean Pierre Bemba, emporté par la CPI dans une affaire liée à la RCA.
En 2004 le Gouvernement de Francois Bozize avait saisi la CPI contre des crimes de guerre et crimes contre l’humanité qui auraient été commis dans le contexte des violences en République Centrafricaine entre 2002 et 2003.
Il n’y a donc que le cas du Soudan et dans une certaine mesure, celui de la Libye qui ont échappé au contrôle du pays en question. La CPI vise-t-elle l’Afrique ou les leaders Africains ? Jugez-en vous-même !
Mais pourquoi la CPI ne s’occupe-t-elle pas des autres ?
Malgré ce qui précède, cette question vaut la peine d’être posée. Je soutiens personnellement toutes les enquêtes de la cour en Afrique car des innocents africains ont été effectivement massacrés par des africains sous des ordres et avec le soutien d’autres Africains peu importe si les présumés coupables sont Chefs d’Etat, Vice-Président ou autre. Leurs fonctions officielles ne leur confèrent pas le droit de tuer ou de faire massacrer les citoyens. D’ailleurs le statut de la CPI ne reconnait pas la qualité officielle de qui que ce soit… c’est cela même le coté innovateur de la CPI et ce, en faveur des victimes.
Pourquoi la CPI tarde à agir concrètement en faveur des victimes Irakiennes, Palestiniennes, Syriennes, Afghanes… ? (Même si certains de ces pays sont présentement sous enquête préliminaires)… les réponses ne sont malheureusement pas aussi « justes » qu’on le souhaiterait : Parce que ces pays ne sont pas parties au statut de la CPI, ou encore parce qu’un ou plusieurs pays puissants dotés du droit de veto au Conseil de Sécurité s’y opposeraient certainement pour des raisons injustes que nous connaissons tous… En effet seuls 2 des 5 membres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies sont parties à la CPI : la France et le Royaume Uni.
Beaucoup de Questions sans Réponses : Pourquoi la CPI ne s’attaque le plus souvent qu’aux vaincus et non pas aux vainqueurs qui seraient aussi coupables de crimes comme en côte d’Ivoire et peut être en RCA et en RDC ? Pourquoi c’est au Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies seulement qu’il est donné le droit de référer des cas à la Cour et même de différer des enquêtes de la Cour alors que ce Conseil est l’institution la plus injuste et la moins représentative de notre monde ? Pourquoi s’oppose-t-on à ce que l’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies exerce ce même pouvoir ?
Ces questions et bien d’autres affaiblissent évidement la crédibilité de la CPI mais… qui en est responsable et qui doit et la corriger ?
Un Retrait Collectif de la CPI par l’Afrique ?
Mais la CPI n’est-elle pas un patrimoine commun qui doit nous aider à créer un monde plus juste ? Toutes les nations y compris africaines et leurs composantes ne doivent-elles pas œuvrer ensemble pour l’améliorer ? L’abandonner ou la quitter ne doit pas être une option… et je me réjouis du fait que 16 pays Africains aient émis des réserves sur le texte lors des débats au cours du dernier Sommet.
Je viens même d’apprendre que la Gambie qui avait précédemment annoncé son retrait de la CPI a changé d’avis. Le gouvernement vient d’informer les Nations Unies que la Gambie reste bel et bien état partie au Statut de la CPI. Bonne nouvelle !
Un retrait en grand nombre des pays Africains de la CPI serait une honte, un mépris terrible pour les victimes Africaines et un encouragement pour les bourreaux et potentiel bourreaux… je sais que cela n’arrivera pas.
La Cour Africaine des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples : Une Solution Africaine ?
Le Slogan « Solutions Africaine aux Problèmes Africains » est bien beau mais il ne me convainc qu’a deux conditions : La facture de la solution africaine doit être aussi payée par l’Afrique (je rappelle que l’Afrique n’avait pas payé la facture du procès de Hissen Habré) et les normes universelles des droits de l’homme et de justice doivent être appliquées car les droits de l’homme et les principes de justice n’ont pas de nationalité ou d’identité régionale . Ils sont simplement universels.
Ceci étant dit, l’organe qui rend la justice importe peu si cette justice est juste et équitable mais la réalité est que la Cour Africaine des Droits de l’Homme n’a en ce jour qu’une « promesse » de compétence pénale. Ce qui veut dire qu’elle ne peut pas connaitre des crimes internationaux en ce moment et je ne vois aucune volonté politique de la part de nos états de le concrétiser bientôt. Presque 20 ans après l’adoption du Protocol de la Cour Africaine des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples (sans compétence pénale) seuls 30 Etats Africains sur 54 l’on ratifié. Par ailleurs le protocole amendé donnant compétence pénale à la Cour n’a été ratifié en ce jour par aucun état africain, 2 ans après son adoption à Malabo. Le constat est donc clair : Se retirer de la CPI avant qu’une cour Africaine soit capable de juger et punir les crimes graves c’est tout simplement garantir l’impunité et mépriser les victimes. Ce qui est encore navrant est que le Protocole de Malabo consacre l’immunité des chefs d’état dans l’exercice de leur fonction, même pour des crimes internationaux. Je considère cela non seulement comme « un permis de tuer » sans soucis d’être inquiété mais aussi une incitation pour les dictateurs de s’accrocher indéfiniment au pouvoir. Ceci est aussi contraire à l’Acte Constitutif de notre Union Africaine.
The 28th African Union (AU) summit held in Addis Ababa on 30-31st January was a historical one given the landmark decisions adopted, including the admission of Morocco into the Union and a deep reform of the continental body. The summit also renewed the leadership of the AUC and took steps towards financial independence of the Union. Albeit the lack of strong country/context related decisions on Peace and Security issues, the Assembly adopted the Master Plan towards Silencing the Guns by 2020. Finally, the summit adopted the so called ‘collective withdrawal strategy’, a misnomer of a document which provides member states with a roadmap for eventual individual withdrawal from the ICC in case AU’s claims and proposals regarding the court and some of its on-going operations are not taken in consideration.
Took note of the recommendations for the proposed reforms to further strengthen the African Union, in the following five areas: a) Focus on key priorities with continental scope; b) Realign African Union institutions in order to deliver against those priorities; c) Connect the African Union to its citizens; d) Manage the business of the African Union efficiently and effectively at both the political and operational levels; e) Finance the African Union sustainably and with the full ownership of the Member States.
President Paul Kagame shall report at each Ordinary Session of the Assembly on progress made with the implementation of this decision.
ii) There should be a clear division of labour and effective collaboration between the African Union, the Regional Economic Communities (RECs), the Regional Mechanisms (RMs), the Member States, and other continental institutions, in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
viii) The Permanent Representatives Committee’s (PRC) Rules of Procedures should be reviewed and be in line with the mandate provided for in the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The PRC should facilitate communication between the African Union and national capitals, and act as an advisory body to the Executive Council, and not as a supervisory body of the Commission.
v) Member States should engage their Parliaments and citizens, including civil society, on the African Union reform process.
viii) The current sanctions mechanism should be strengthened and enforced. This would include consideration of making participation in the African Union deliberations contingent on adherence to Summit decisions.
v) A fundamental review of the structure and staffing needs of the organisation, as well as conditions of service, should be undertaken to ensure alignment with agreed priority areas.
Adopted the ICC Withdrawal Strategy and called on member states to consider implementing its recommendations… But many countries entered reservations to the text.
Requested Morocco to deposit their instrument of accession to the Constitutive Act of the African Union.
Noted with deep concerns the continued impasse in the search for a solution to the conflict in and underlined the urgent need for renewed international efforts to facilitate an early resolution of the conflict. In this respect, the Assembly called again to the UN General Assembly to determine a date for the holding of the self-determination referendum for the people of Western Sahara and protect the integrity of the Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory from any act which may undermine it.
Urged the UN Security Council to fully assume its responsibilities in restoring the full functionality of United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), as it is indispensable for overseeing the ceasefire and organizing the self-determination referendum in Western Sahara, as well as in addressing the issues of the respect of human rights and the illegal exploration and exploitation of the Territory’s natural resources, particularly in line with the important judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued on 21 December 2016, on the arrangement between the EU and Morocco signed in 2012, on the mutual liberalization of the trade in agricultural and fishing products.
Emphasized the need for all AU Member States, in particular the PSC, to give more focus on conflict prevention, early warning and early response, in order to prevent, for future, occurrence of full blown conflicts in the continent.
Endorsed the African Union Master Roadmap of Practical Steps to Silence the Guns in Africa by year 2020, as a guideline for Africa’s efforts to this end.
iv) The current scale of contributions should be revised based on the principles of ability to pay, solidarity, and equitable burden-sharing, to avoid risk concentration.