Conflict between ICC and

the African Union

 The relationship between the ICC and the African
Union was much better in the past, especially in
consideration that during 16th April 1999 the
Organization of African (OAU) passed a resolution
that urged all of its member states to ratify the
Roman Statute.
Five years later, the Assembly of the African
Union (AU) shared a similar sentiment by calling
its member states to universally ratify the Roman
Statute.
However, as of now there is an increasing hostility
between ICC and the AU, even to the extent of
three AU member states (South Africa, Burundi,
Gambia) already decided to leave the ICC.
Indictment of Sudan President Omar
Al Bashir
By 14th July 2008, Sudan President Al Bashir was served
upon an arrest warrant from the ICC for genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes against local
groups in the Darfur region.
The AU had reservations towards the ICC in handling
the Darfur situation, and thus the AU instead request for
the prosecution of Al Bashir be deferred for 12 months
in pursuant of Article 16 of the Rome Statute. The
request was ignored.
As a consequence, the AU was disappointed with the
outcome, and in pursuant of Article 98 from the Rome
Statute, it was decided by the AU that its own member
states would not co-operate with the arrest of Al Bashir.
 In successions, Al Bashir was not arrested during
his respective visits to Chad and Kenya, with both
states being member of the AU.
As of now, Al Bashir has not been successfully
arrested and surrendered to the ICC, and it is
clear that his case would continue to maintain a
wide rift between the ICC and AU.
 The Kenyan Case
The Kenyan case is related to post-election violence
occurred between December 2007 and February 2008,
following the presidential elections in Kenya. The conflict
erupted between two groups that supported different
political groups in Kenyan.
Kenyatta, the President of Kenya was order to stand trial by
the ICC for his involvement in the post-election violence.
In turn, fierce criticisms were evoked from the AU states, to
the extent that during the 12th session of the Assembly of
States Parties (ASP), the AU requested a special segment
with the title of Indictment of sitting Heads of State
and Government and its consequences on peace and
stability and reconciliation.
 In which, it was argued by the AU that prosecuting a sitting
head of state would interfere with his demanding duties,
especially prosecuting Kenyatta would prevent him from
attending a domestic security situation in Kenya.
In continuation, the AU also request for the Kenya case to
be defer in pursuant of Article 16, which was once again
refused.
As a result of the outcome, a few African states
threatened to withdraw from the ICC, including the state of
Kenya.
Regarding those actions, the tense and hostile relationship
between the AU and the ICC was again exemplified in the
Kenyan case.
 So far, three AU states have decided to leave the ICC: South
Africa, Burundi, and Gambia.
The withdrawal of South Africa was due to the conflict
between the Rome Statute and South Africas obligation
towards the AU in granting immunity to serving heads of
states.
Being the first nation to withdraw from the ICC, Burundi act
such as a response to ICC conducting a preliminary
investigation regarding politically motivated violence in
Burundi, in addition to considering the ICC having heavy bias
against African government.
Gambia followed suit of South Africa and Burundi, and stated
that the ICC is having a heavy bias, in which many western
countries have also committed heinous war crimes, but yet
not one single Western war criminal has been indicted.
Considering the tense and hostile relationship between ICC
and AU as of now, it will be getting harder for the ICC to
enforce its jurisdictions in the Africa continent.