Court invalidates South Africa’s withdrawal from ICC

Jacob Zuma
South Africa President, Jacob Zuma. AFP PHOTO / STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN

South Africa’s decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court, ICC, was unconstitutional, a court in the country’s administrative capital, Pretoria, ruled Wednesday.

South Africa announced in October that it was leaving the ICC on the grounds that its membership hampered its efforts to help resolve conflicts in Africa.

The main opposition Democratic Alliance took the government to court, arguing that Justice Minister Michael Masutha acted unlawfully by announcing the withdrawal without seeking parliamentary approval.

Judge Phineas Mojapelo said the power to conduct international treaties belonged to the executive, but that such agreements must go before parliament.

In 2016, Burundi, South Africa and The Gambia, expressed their intentions to withdraw from the court.

But on February14, The Gambia told the UN that it would remain in the ICC, reversing the previous administration’s plan to withdraw from the tribunal.

Subsequently, Namibia, Kenya and Uganda also began to contemplate withdrawing from ICC.

The court has repeatedly been criticised by African states as an inefficient, neo-colonial institution of the Western powers to try African countries.

This argument is supported by the fact that nine of 10 situations under investigation, with three others under preliminary investigations, involve African countries.

African state parties to the Rome Statute make up the biggest regional membership, comprising 34 of the 124 members.

From 2009, African countries have called for collective withdrawal from the ICC but some countries have pushed back.

Nigeria, Senegal, Cape Verde and some other countries resolved to remain with the ICC.



Now available on

  Premium Times Android mobile applicationPremium Times iOS mobile applicationPremium Times blackberry mobile applicationPremium Times windows mobile application

TEXT AD:"Warning to Men, These 3 Foods is Slowly Killing Your Erection". Click Here to Know Them

All rights reserved. This material and any other material on this platform may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, written or distributed in full or in part, without written permission from PREMIUM TIMES.

  • Sarah Ebun

    Do you need Bitcoin ? If Yes Call me on +2349028950795 or by whats app… Sell Bitcoin At The Rate Of ( 300/$ ) Per One ‘ We Also Sell Small Unit With Lower Price With. Instant Funding Transaction…. BTC available for sale @ affordable price of #300/$ with instant funding. We have over $8000 worth of Bitcoin for sale TESTED AND TRUSTED SELLER.

  • SHAMELESS Lawyers

    Below are the names of the 13 shameless crooked so called ‘Senior Lawyers’ who were hired by Imam OLODO to thwart the course of justice and prevent his forgery case from proceeding. Interestingly some of these Lawyers are the ones who pride themselves as “Civil Society & Human Rights activists”. These men and women share part of the blame for the economic catastrophe that Imam OLODO has brought upon Nigerians.

    1. Wole Olanipekun
    2. Lateef Fagbemi
    3. Akin Olujinmi
    4. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu
    5. Kola Awodein
    6. Taiwo Osipitan
    7. Charles Edosomwan
    8. Emeka Ngige
    9. Femi Atoyebi
    10. Femi Falana
    11. Funke Aboyade,
    12. H.O. Afolabi
    13. Muiz Banire.

    Some like the useless Falana fought on the side of the people in similar circumstances in the days of the military and even as a University student. But today he lives in Abuja where he defends the same thieves and ruthless leaders he once led protest marches against…all because of MONEY. Judgement day will be very interesting when it gets to the turn of Nigerians especially the Lawyers. If you told me in 1999 that Femi Falana would be defending Buhari for obvious fraud & perjury, I would not believe it.

    As it is today, the only set of people who have benefited from Buhari’s regime are the Islamist terrorists – i.e., Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen and the enforcers of death sentence arising from alleged blasphemy..

  • Daniel Okogie

    “The court has repeatedly been criticised by African states as an inefficient, neo-colonial institution of the Western powers to try African countries.” Personally this assertion is wrong,but if u put it this way” The court has repeatedly been criticised by African RULERS as an inefficient, neo-colonial institution of the Western powers to try African RULERS. Then it will be very correct. This south African court’s judgement means that there’s still some hope left in Africa.