A new wave of African withdrawals has swept through the International Criminal Court. Chad turned its back on the court after three junta-led states in the Sahel exited. But most African countries still trust The Hague.
The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 was seen as a breakthrough in the global fight against war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Yet criticism from parts of Africa is almost as old as the ICC itself: Time and again, the court has been accused of targeting Africa in a one-sided manner. Recently, this criticism has grown louder again — and culminated in a veritable wave of withdrawals.
At the end of July, Chad also announced its withdrawal from the court in The Hague: The government stated that the ICC’s effectiveness was “limited and unbalanced.”
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
In September 2025, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger initiated their withdrawal from the ICC, accusing it of being a neocolonialist tool of the West. The withdrawals officially take effect one year after they are announced.
At the same time, the ICC is at the center of a scandal: Its members have voted to remove Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan amid allegations of sexual misconduct. Khan has denied wrongdoing.
Justice: Withdrawal or accountability?
The wave of withdrawals from the ICC is cause for concern, says Attila Kisla, head of the International Justice Group at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre in Johannesburg. Especially since some of these countries cited an alleged bias against Africa among the reasons.
“It is important to remember, however, that many of the proceedings — particularly in the early stages — were based on voluntary referrals by African countries seeking the court’s assistance,” Kisla told DW.
In 1998, Senegal became the first country to sign the Rome Statute, the international treaty that established the ICC in 2002. Today, 125 countries are parties to the statute. Of these, 33 are African states, representing about 60% of the continent.
The ICC aims to prosecute the most serious crimes under international law and operates according to the so-called principle of complementarity: It can only take action when states are unwilling or unable to prosecute certain crimes themselves.
However, according to Kisla, the fact that there have been no significant proceedings against individuals from powerful states or Western countries has not helped the court’s image.
The US itself is not a member of the court but its citizens could be prosecuted if they are accused of crimes committed on the territory of member states.
Furthermore, one must not ignore the current global political climate: “These withdrawals are taking place at a time when the US has openly declared its intention to dissolve the ICC and is exerting unprecedented pressure on the court and its supporters,” said Kisla.
The ICC has also issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, even though neither Russia nor Israel is a state party.
In these politically charged times, the large number of African states that remain parties to the Rome Statute is of crucial importance: “Their continued membership reflects a conscious decision to defend international justice at a time when the ICC is under political attack,” said Kisla.
Conversely, however, according to Kisla, every decision to remain in the ICC also sends an important message: “Accountability for atrocities must not depend on politics or power,” he told DW. “It reflects a commitment to the rule of law and ensures that victims and survivors continue to have access to justice when domestic systems fail.”
War crimes victims lose protection
For the human rights organization Amnesty International (AI), the withdrawal of the four Sahel region states is a setback for the right to justice of the people in the affected countries.
“As victims of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, they are losing their last resort when they cannot find justice in their own countries,” said Alice Banens, a legal expert at AI’s regional office for West and Central Africa in Dakar.
She, too, describes these withdrawals as “attacks on the integrity of the international system and the International Criminal Court.” These fit into the broader context in which the ICC is facing attacks and sanctions from several states aimed at weakening the court’s ability to fulfill its mandate.
Amnesty has called on the states that have withdrawn so far — Burundi was the first African state to do so in 2016 — to voice any criticism within the system through discussions in the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute.
Former member states can also reverse their decision: For example, South Africa formally initiated its withdrawal from the ICC in 2016 but halted the process in March 2017. The occasion was the state visit of Sudan’s then President Omar al-Bashir, against whom the court had issued an arrest warrant for war crimes in Darfur. The South African government refused to arrest him.
More prosecutions outside Africa
According to Banens, there is still a widespread perception today that African issues dominate the ICC’s agenda. “That is simply not true,” she told DW. “While this was the case in the early years of the ICC’s work — when most, if not all, investigations concerned the situation in Africa.”
Today, however, more active investigations are taking place outside Africa than within the continent — for example, in Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, Venezuela, the Philippines, and Ukraine, according to Banens.
Some states considering withdrawal argue that the ICC interferes with domestic legal processes and national reconciliation, according to Christopher Isike, a professor of international relations at the University of Pretoria.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
“African countries, as well as major powers such as the US, Russia, and China — which are not members and do not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction—have also cited this as a reason for their criticism,” Isike told DW.
Nevertheless, according to Isike, the ICC provides an external mechanism for accountability when countries recognize that their domestic judicial systems lack the independence or the political will to prosecute political or military officials.
According to Isike, countries such as Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and even Mali have in the past themselves requested the ICC’s intervention because they lack the capacity to prosecute the perpetrators. This weakens the argument that any intervention by the court constitutes outside interference. “This perception of selective justice is the main reason for this way of thinking.”
There are also governments for which remaining a member of the ICC signals their commitment to human rights, democratic governance, and international law, according to Isike: “They believe that this gives them diplomatic credibility as a form of soft power,” he said.
For Isike, the debate over inequality in the justice system touches on something fundamental: the competition for the international order. African governments do not, in principle, reject international justice. “They want a system that is more universal and uniform and gives less cause for accusations of political selectivity.”
