ICC debate: Selective justice is not justice

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 14 July 2009

The debate in the July 2009 edition of New African magazine on the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly in relation to its perceived targeting of African leaders, raises emotions amongst those of us who feel – not without reason – that the ICC is one of the several tools that western leaders use to intimidate our leaders.

There are many reasons why we need a court modeled along the lines of the ICC to bring about justice to victims of callous regimes around the world. And this, I believe, is the reason why so many African countries supported the formation of the ICC.

We in Africa have had – and continue to experience – a fair share of the slaughtering of innocent civilians in several conflicts; and we have no reason to protect or be sympathetic to perpetrators of such heinous crimes when they are called to accounts for their criminal actions.

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that, “when the Court investigates those allegedly responsible for serious crimes in Africa, it does so on behalf of African victims”, as Lucile Mazangue puts it in “The case for the ICC” (NA, July 2009).

The problem is that the court our leaders thought would bring these perpetrators of violence – particularly violence against civilians – to book is already apparently negating one of the basic principles of justice, which is impartiality. Selective justice, as we’ve seen practiced by the ICC, is not justice at all.

A system of justice is supposed to protect the weak against the bullying of the powerful, but the ICC appears to be doing the exact opposite. It seems to be targeting the weak in apparent pursuance of the interests of powerful western states. And that is grossly unfair and unjust.

The mandate of the ICC, as Mazangue correctly puts it, “is to hold perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to account when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so.” And we’ve seen national courts in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas unwilling and unable to act against alleged criminals.

Investigators, prosecutors and judges who look the other way when leaders of powerful western countries break international law implicate their good names in the abortion of justice.

The generally accepted principle that lawyers must practice their trade without fear, favour or prejudice seems to be a foreign concept to the ICC as an institution. The ICC is visibly neither willing nor able to charge leaders of rich western states with crimes against humanity, despite overwhelming evidence to this effect.

Selective justice conceals (seemingly by design) monumental crimes of the type we’ve seen in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Democractic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, etc. When will victims of crime in these and many other countries see justice?

Does the ICC have both the will and the guts to catch big fish? I await a comprehensive answer from any of the officials or judges at the ICC itself.