Bashir’s contempt of South African court sets bad precedence for African strongmen who ride on diplomatic immunity to escape with impunity

Bashir’s contempt of South African court sets bad precedence for African strongmen who ride on diplomatic immunity to escape with impunity

T

here are grave ramifications of arresting a sitting Head of State. One, the country that arrests the indicted Head of State is likely to be embroiled in a diplomatic spat. Sudan could not have taken kindly the actions of South Africa arresting their president yet the latter enjoys diplomatic immunity. But it is high time we rethink if the diplomatic immunity extends to protecting someone suspected of war crimes and genocide.

BY MUSYOKA NGUI

That Sudanese president Omar al Bashir chose to fly out of South Africa despite a Pretoria High Court issuing a warrant of arrest against him makes a mockery of justice system and is a gross violation of not only the South African constitution but also the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The way Bashir sneaked out of South Africa is likely to embolden other rulers in Africa who would rather support impunity which is the lifeline of their dictatorial streaks. Bashir comes off as a coward who is unable to face justice if indeed he believes he is innocent. After all doesn’t the law presume one innocent until proven guilty?

The Rome Statute needs to be amended to make it compulsory for ICC member states to effect the warrants of arrests should those indicted step on their soil. The fact that member states choose voluntarily to comply or not in itself undermines justice since they are not held accountable for the failure to apprehend a suspect yet they subscribe to the ideals of ICC.

Of course there are grave ramifications of arresting a sitting Head of State. One, the country that arrests the indicted Head of State is likely to be embroiled in a diplomatic spat. Sudan could not have taken kindly the actions of South Africa arresting their president yet the latter enjoys diplomatic immunity. But it is high time we rethink if the diplomatic immunity extends to protecting someone suspected of war crimes and genocide.

Toothless Dog

The ICC has been exposed as a toothless dog that only barks but doesn’t bite. The Rome Statute should be amended to widen the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thus the ICC will transcend geopolitical borders and will be more efficient in bringing the ICC suspects to book wherever they are regardless of their status is in the society.

The UN estimates that over 300,000 Sudanese were killed in Darfur while about 2.5 million were rendered Internally Displaced Persons in their own country. These people still cry for justice which hasn’t been forthcoming since 2003 when the Darfur conflict erupted.

ICC should also be seen to shake off the tag that it was created for Africa. This notion is gotten from the fact that since the creation of ICC in 2002 it has handled 22 cases all from Africa yet there have been conflicts elsewhere such as in the Arab World and no one has been brought to justice. Does the ICC overlook the alleged war crimes committed by USA and UK in Iraq but is obsessed with chasing African dictators? Why is it silent on Syria?

For ICC to work effectively, it must act independently and fairly. Any bias on its part will only serve to erode confidence and credibility it once enjoyed in the eyes of citizens who find themselves under iron fist rule and looked up to the ICC to save them from their dictatorial regimes. Once more, South Africa should’ve arrested Bashir and handed him over to the ICC even if it’d have resulted to economic sanctions by Sudan against South Africa. Justice has a cost too.