Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (centre) attended the 2015 African Union Summit in South Africa, despite facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. By Gianluigi Guercia (AFP/File)

Pretoria (AFP) - South Africa announced Friday that it would withdraw from the International Criminal Court, dealing a major blow to a troubled institution set up to try the world's worst crimes.

The decision followed a dispute last year when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visited the country for an African Union summit despite facing an ICC arrest warrant over alleged war crimes.

South Africa refused to arrest him, saying he had immunity as a head of state.

Justice Minister Michael Masutha told reporters in Pretoria that the ICC was "inhibiting South Africa's ability to honour its obligations relating to the granting of diplomatic immunity".

"There is a view in Africa that the ICC in choosing who to prosecute has seemingly preferred to target leaders in Africa," Masutha added to AFP.

The ICC, set up in 2002, is often accused of bias against Africa and has also struggled with a lack of cooperation, including from the United States which has signed the court's treaty but never ratified it.

The withdrawal "shows startling disregard for justice from a country long seen as a global leader," Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

Amnesty International said South Africa was "betraying millions of victims of the gravest human rights violations and undermining the international justice system".

The US said it was "concerned" by Pretoria's decision.

"We do think that the ICC has made valuable contributions in the service of accountability in a number of situations and we hope that other governments would share that," State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters.

As an ICC signatory, South Africa's failure to arrest Bashir last year led to a wave of condemnation and an early threat from the government to withdraw from The Hague-based court.

Bashir has evaded arrest since his ICC indictment in 2009 for alleged war crimes in Sudan's Darfur conflict in which 300,000 people were killed and two million forced to flee their homes.

Earlier this month Burundi said it would leave the court, and Namibia and Kenya have also raised the possibility.

Welcoming South Africa's decision to withdraw from the ICC, Sudan urged other African member nations to follow suit.

"The presidency of the republic... calls on African leaders and the people of Africa who are still members of the ICC to take a collective step in withdrawing from the ICC," a presidency statement said.

Burundi's foreign minister Alain-Ayme Nyamitwe, meanwhile, said the country expected others to follow, adding that it was important to note that "the ICC is not popular in Africa".

South Africa, which delivered a letter to the United Nations on Wednesday to activate its official withdrawal, is likely to complete the process in one year.

"It could spark a domino effect on other African states," Anton du Plessis, of the Institute for Security Studies think-tank in Pretoria, told AFP.

"South Africa played an important role in developing the ICC and now to see it playing such a destructive role is saddening," he said.

The ICC said Friday it had not received any confirmation of the South African position, adding that it relied on "the international community in Africa and outside Africa... to fulfil its mandate."

In March, South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal accused President Jacob Zuma's government of "disgraceful conduct" over Bashir's visit and ruled that the failure to arrest Bashir was unlawful.

The government was facing a possible defeat in the Constitutional Court next month over the issue, but said that Friday's decision meant its legal battle would be dropped.

During the summit, an emergency court order was obtained for Bashir's arrest, though government lawyers admitted he had quickly flown out of the country just before the order was issued.

"We were called as a country to arrest and prosecute a sitting head of state and the natural consequence would have been forced regime change in that country by South Africa," Minister Masutha told AFP.

Of the ten ICC probes since 2002, nine have been into African countries and one into Georgia, though most ICC cases have been referred to the court by African governments themselves.

In a major setback, its highest profile case -- over Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta's involvement in election violence -- collapsed two years ago. </s> Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (centre) attended the 2015 African Union Summit in South Africa, despite facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. By Gianluigi Guercia (AFP/File)

Pretoria (AFP) - South Africa announced Friday that it would withdraw from the International Criminal Court, dealing a major blow to a troubled institution set up to try the world's worst crimes.

The decision followed a dispute last year when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visited the country for an African Union summit despite facing an ICC arrest warrant over alleged war crimes.

South Africa refused to arrest him, saying he had immunity as a head of state.

Justice Minister Michael Masutha told reporters in Pretoria that the ICC was "inhibiting South Africa's ability to honour its obligations relating to the granting of diplomatic immunity".

"There is a view in Africa that the ICC in choosing who to prosecute has seemingly preferred to target leaders in Africa," Masutha added to AFP.

The ICC, set up in 2002, is often accused of bias against Africa and has also struggled with a lack of cooperation, including from the United States which has signed the court's treaty but never ratified it.

The withdrawal "shows startling disregard for justice from a country long seen as a global leader," Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

Amnesty International said South Africa was "betraying millions of victims of the gravest human rights violations and undermining the international justice system".

As an ICC signatory, South Africa's failure to arrest Bashir last year led to a wave of condemnation and an early threat from the government to withdraw from The Hague-based court.

Bashir has evaded arrest since his ICC indictment in 2009 for alleged war crimes in Sudan's Darfur conflict in which 300,000 people were killed and two million forced to flee their homes.

Earlier this month Burundi said it would leave the court, and Namibia and Kenya have also raised the possibility.

Welcoming South Africa's decision to withdraw from the ICC, Sudan urged other African member nations to follow suit.

"The presidency of the republic... calls on African leaders and the people of Africa who are still members of the ICC to take a collective step in withdrawing from the ICC," a presidency statement said.

Burundi's foreign minister Alain-Ayme Nyamitwe, meanwhile, said the country expected others to follow, adding that it was important to note that "the ICC is not popular in Africa".

South Africa, which delivered a letter to the United Nations on Wednesday to activate its official withdrawal, is likely to complete the process in one year.

"It could spark a domino effect on other African states," Anton du Plessis, of the Institute for Security Studies think-tank in Pretoria, told AFP.

"South Africa played an important role in developing the ICC and now to see it playing such a destructive role is saddening," he said.

The ICC said Friday it had not received any confirmation of the South African position, adding that it relied on "the international community in Africa and outside Africa... to fulfil its mandate."

In March, South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal accused President Jacob Zuma's government of "disgraceful conduct" over Bashir's visit and ruled that the failure to arrest Bashir was unlawful.

The government was facing a possible defeat in the Constitutional Court next month over the issue, but said that Friday's decision meant its legal battle would be dropped.

During the summit, an emergency court order was obtained for Bashir's arrest, though government lawyers admitted he had quickly flown out of the country just before the order was issued.

"We were called as a country to arrest and prosecute a sitting head of state and the natural consequence would have been forced regime change in that country by South Africa," Minister Masutha told AFP.

Of the ten ICC probes since 2002, nine have been into African countries and one into Georgia, though most ICC cases have been referred to the court by African governments themselves.

In a major setback, its highest profile case -- over Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta's involvement in election violence -- collapsed two years ago. </s> In a major blow to the International Criminal Court, the South African government has given formal notice of its intention to withdraw from the beleaguered court.

South Africa was one of the strongest early supporters of the international court in 2002, but it has now become the second African country to announce that it is quitting the court’s founding treaty, a move that could encourage other nations to follow in a domino effect.

Burundi was the first to announce its plan to withdraw, in a presidential decree earlier this week. Others, including Kenya, could adopt the same tactic.

The withdrawals will trigger a crisis in credibility for the court. Many African countries have accused it of unfairly targeting Africans, noting that only Africans have been convicted in the trials in The Hague so far. But until this week, none of the unhappy African governments have formally decided to abandon the court.

Supporters of the court have denied that it is biased. They have noted that most of the African prosecutions were referred to the international court by African governments themselves.

The African backlash against the court became more furious when several African political leaders – including those of Sudan and Kenya – were indicted by the court. Several African countries – including South Africa – have refused to arrest Sudan president Omar al-Bashir when he travelled to their countries, despite his ICC arrest warrant for war crimes and despite the legal obligation of court members to arrest him.

In its formal notice of withdrawal, leaked to local media on Thursday night, South Africa’s foreign minister informed the United Nations Secretary-General that her country would withdraw from the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, on the earliest possible date, which is a year after the UN receives the notice.

In its one-page notice of withdrawal, South Africa claims that the international court is pitting justice against peace, and it argues that the court’s interpretation of its legal duties is sometimes “incompatible” with the “peaceful resolution of conflicts.”

But analysts note that South Africa is facing a potential court defeat of its own. Civil society groups have already hauled the government to court for its failure to arrest Mr. al-Bashir when he visited South Africa last year. The courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal, have ruled that the government acted unlawfully by failing to arrest the Sudanese president, since the ICC’s founding treaty has been adopted into South Africa’s own domestic laws. The government’s appeal to the highest court, the Constitutional Court, is due to be heard next month.

As an early supporter of the international court, and as a country that once held the moral high ground on justice issues because of its anti-apartheid struggle, South Africa’s withdrawal could be the biggest setback for the court so far. The court is already under criticism for obtaining only four convictions in its history, after spending more than $1.4-billion (U.S.) since its creation in 2002.

The South African announcement sparked immediate criticism on Thursday night. “This is a sad day for all who believe in the global struggle for justice,” said Simon Adams, executive director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, a group that strives to prevent mass atrocities.

He called it a “terrible decision” and a “slap in the face to African victims” in Darfur, Burundi and other violence-torn countries. “This is a victory for impunity and injustice,” he said.

There are also legal questions about whether South Africa can withdraw from the court without allowing a full vote on the issue in its parliament. Without this parliamentary approval, its notice to withdraw could be challenged in the courts. </s> Johannesburg (AFP) - South Africa will withdraw from the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC), media reports in Johannesburg said on Friday, sparking rapid criticism from rights bodies.

A document confirming the withdrawal plan, signed by International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, was published by public broadcaster SABC's United Nations correspondent.

The "Instrument of Withdrawal" letter said South Africa "found that its obligations with respect to the peaceful resolution of conflicts at times are incompatible with the interpretation given by the International Criminal Court".

The decision follows a dispute last year when South Africa allowed Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to visit the country for an African Union summit, despite him facing an arrest warrant from the ICC.

South Africa said he had immunity as the head of a member state.

South Africa is a signatory of the ICC, which wants Bashir arrested for alleged war crimes related to the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan.

"South Africa's proposed withdrawal from the International Criminal Court shows startling disregard for justice from a country long seen as a global leader on accountability for victims of the gravest crimes," Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

"It's important both for South Africa and the region that this runaway train be slowed down and South Africa's hard-won legacy of standing with victims of mass atrocities be restored."

Earlier this month Burundi said it would withdraw from the court, and Namibia and Kenya have also raised the possibility.

Some African governments say the ICC, which was established in 2002, has shown a post-colonial bias against the continent's leaders. </s> Court Blocks South Africa's Withdrawal From International Criminal Court

Enlarge this image toggle caption Mike Corder/AP Mike Corder/AP

A South African court has ruled that the country's bid to withdraw from the International Criminal Court is "unconstitutional and invalid," in a stark rebuke to the government of President Jacob Zuma.

"South Africa's justice minister shocked the country last October when he announced it would pull out of the International Criminal Court," Peter Granitz reports for NPR from Pretoria. He notes that it was especially surprising because South Africa was a founding member of the court, which prosecutes war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Wednesday's court order from the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria focused on how South Africa initiated its withdrawal from the ICC's treaty, the Rome Statute. The court said the executive did not have the power to do so without prior parliamentary approval.

"What is so pressing for the national executive about the withdrawal from the Rome Statute which cannot wait for our legislative processes (and possibly judicial pronouncements) to take their course?" the ruling read. "This unexplained haste, in our view, itself constitutes procedural irrationality."

The court did not rule on whether South Africa should withdraw from the treaty, stating that the decision is "policy-laden, and one residing in the heartland of the national executive in the exercise of foreign policy, international relations and treaty-making."

The Democratic Alliance, the opposition party which filed the case, called the outcome a "victory for the rule of law." It stated that "South Africa does not want to be lumped together with pariah states who have no respect for human rights and who do not subscribe to accountability for those guilty of the most heinous human rights violations."

South Africa announced its intention to leave the court after the government "refused to detain indicted war criminal Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir at an African Union summit in 2015, despite an ICC warrant for his arrest," NPR's Ofeibea Quist-Arcton explained. It takes one year for a withdrawal to take effect after initial notification, according to the terms of the Rome Statute.

South Africa made its announcement last year amid accusations that the court is biased against Africans, as The Two-Way has reported:

"Every person tried by the ICC since the treaty creating it was adopted in 1998 has been African. "Other war crimes trials have been carried out by ad hoc tribunals created after a specific conflict, such as those created for Yugoslavia and Cambodia, or for the Nuremberg trials conducted after World War II."

Gambia and Burundi also announced last year that they were withdrawing from the court, but Gambia's new leader reversed that decision earlier this month.

In South Africa, the current government has vowed to continue its efforts to pull out of the ICC. "The intention to withdraw still stands, as this is a policy decision of the executive," Justice Minister Michael Masutha told Reuters.

As the BBC reports, "the government may choose to appeal the judgment, or it may simply do as the judges ordered and take the proposal to parliament where the governing African National Congress (ANC) continues to enjoy a comfortable majority." </s> South Africa announced Friday that it would withdraw from the International Criminal Court, dealing a major blow to a troubled institution set up to try the world’s worst crimes.

The decision followed a dispute last year when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visited the country for an African Union summit despite facing an ICC arrest warrant over alleged war crimes. South Africa refused to arrest him, saying he had immunity as a head of state.

Justice Minister Michael Masutha told reporters in Pretoria that the court was “inhibiting South Africa’s ability to honor its obligations relating to the granting of diplomatic immunity.”

“There is a view in Africa that the ICC in choosing who to prosecute has seemingly preferred to target leaders in Africa,” Masutha added to AFP.

The ICC, set up in 2002, is often accused of bias against Africa and has also struggled with a lack of cooperation, including from the United States which has signed the court’s treaty but never ratified it.

South Africa would be the first country to leave the court, though others could soon follow.

The withdrawal “shows startling disregard for justice from a country long seen as a global leader,” Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

Amnesty International said the country was “betraying millions of victims of the gravest human rights violations and undermining the international justice system.”

South Africa’s failure as an ICC signatory to arrest Bashir led to a wave of condemnation, which was met with an early threat from the government to withdraw from The Hague-based court.

Bashir has evaded arrest since his ICC indictment in 2009 for alleged war crimes in Sudan’s Darfur conflict in which 300,000 people were killed and 2 million forced to flee their homes.

Earlier this month Burundi said it would withdraw, and Namibia and Kenya have also raised the possibility.

“It could spark a domino effect on other African states who may also want to pull out,” Anton du Plessis, of the Institute for Security Studies, told AFP.

“South Africa played an important role in developing the ICC and now to see it playing such a destructive role is saddening.”

South Africa, which delivered a letter to the United Nations on Wednesday to activate its formal withdrawal, is likely to complete the process in one year.

The Democratic Alliance, the country’s main opposition party, immediately launched a legal appeal, describing the withdrawal as “irrational and procedurally flawed.”

“The decision . . . shows the depth of impunity and disregard for the rule of law within the ANC (ruling party),” it said.

In March, South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal accused President Jacob Zuma’s government of “disgraceful conduct” over Bashir’s visit and ruled that the failure to arrest Bashir was unlawful.

The government was facing a possible defeat in the Constitutional Court next month over the issue, but said that Friday’s decision meant its legal battle would be dropped.

During the summit, an emergency court order was obtained for Bashir’s arrest, but government lawyers admitted he had quickly flown out of the country just before the order was issued.

“We were called as country to arrest and prosecute a sitting head of state and the natural consequence would have been forced regime change in that country by South Africa,” Justice Minister Masutha told AFP.

Of the ten ICC probes since 2002, nine have been into African countries and one into Georgia.

In a major setback, its highest profile case — over Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s involvement in election violence — collapsed two years ago.

This month, it found former Congolese Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba and four aides guilty of bribing witnesses.

Its chief prosecutor also recently sent a team to the Democratic Republic of Congo to urge restraint after weeks of deadly unrest. </s> South Africa is pulling out of the international criminal court (ICC) because its obligations are inconsistent with domestic laws giving sitting leaders diplomatic immunity, the country’s justice minister, Michael Masutha, has said.

Pretoria said last year it planned to leave the ICC after receiving criticism for ignoring a court order to arrest the visiting Sudanese president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide and war crimes. Bashir has denied the accusations.

On Friday at a press conference in the capital, Masutha said: “The implementation of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court Act 2002 is in conflict and inconsistent with the provisions of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act 2001.”

Any move to leave would take effect one year after notice is formally received by the United Nations secretary general, currently Ban Ki-moon.

Earlier on Friday the public broadcaster SABC published a document outlining the withdrawal plan.

The document was signed by South Africa’s minister of international relations and cooperation, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, and dated 19 October.

“The Republic of South Africa has found that its obligations with respect to the peaceful resolution of conflicts at times are incompatible with the interpretation given by the international criminal court,” the document states.

The international criminal court opened in July 2002 and has 124 member states. It was the first legal body with permanent international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Burundi appeared set to become first state to withdraw from the Rome statute, the 1998 treaty establishing the global court, after its parliament voted last week to leave. The president, Pierre Nkurunziza, signed a decree on Tuesday, but the UN has not yet been officially notified.

Several African countries have expressed concern that the focus of the Hague-based court has been on Africa rather than elsewhere in the world. – online reports </s> South Africa has withdrawn from the International Criminal Court (ICC), in the most damaging blow to the 14-year-old institution since the collapse of the war crimes case against Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, which energised the court’s opponents two years ago.

Announcing the decision, South Africa’s justice minister, Michael Masutha, maintained that the country’s obligations under the Rome Statute which set up the ICC, to arrest anyone wanted by the court, were fatally at odds with domestic laws giving sitting leaders diplomatic immunity.

South Africa did not wish to execute arrest warrants which could lead to “regime change”, Mr Masutha declared.

An “instrument of withdrawal” signed by international relations minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, and dated October 19th, has been sent to the United Nations in New York – and takes effect one year after receipt by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.

The abandonment of the Kenyatta case for lack of evidence in 2014, before it even got under way, fuelled accusations among African countries that the ICC has been pursuing a pro-western “neo-colonial agenda” – focusing disproportionately on “hunting” black African leaders.

That blow to the credibility of the court was followed in 2015 by South Africa’s embarrassing refusal to arrest Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president wanted by the ICC for genocide in Darfur, when he arrived for an African Union (AU) conference chaired by Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe.

The refusal was described as “a betrayal of Nelson Mandela’s legacy” – a view reinforced when the supreme court of appeal upheld a high court ruling that Al-Bashir should indeed have been arrested, describing the ANC government’s conduct as “disgraceful”.

The ICC subsequently criticised South Africa for its failure to comply and since then the row has been simmering, with this historic withdrawal – soon to be followed by that of Burundi, whose parliament voted last week to leave – well signalled by Pretoria and simply a matter of time.

The South African decision has caused fury among the country’s opposition and international human rights groups, many of whom maintain withdrawal is not possible without parliamentary approval.

James Selfe of the main opposition Democratic Alliance, said his party would file a court application to set aside the withdrawal “on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, irrational and procedurally flawed”.

Human Rights Watch said the move showed “startling disregard for justice from a country long seen as a global leader in accountability for victims of the gravest crimes”, while Richard Goldstone of the Coalition for the ICC described it as “demeaning” for the parliament and people of South Africa.

Whatever happens inside South Africa, the decision to withdraw will give new impetus to calls within the AU for a mass withdrawal from the ICC – possibly replacing it with the African Court for Human and People’s Rights, which allows sitting heads of state immunity from prosecution.

Even if that does not happen immediately, one has to wonder how long it will be before the withdrawals of South Africa and Burundi are following by that of Kenya, America’s closest ally in the region – and the drip, drip of the ICC’s receding influence in Africa. </s> Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir was in South Africa for a meeting of African leaders in 2015

South Africa has formally begun the process of withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC), notifying the UN of its decision.

South Africa did not want to execute ICC arrest warrants which would lead to "regime change", a minister said.

Last year, a South African court criticised the government for refusing to arrest Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir.

He is wanted by the ICC on charges of genocide and war crimes.

Mr Bashir was attending an African Union summit in Johannesburg, when the government ignored an ICC request to arrest him.

He denies allegations that he committed atrocities in Sudan's troubled western Darfur region.

Several media outlets say they have obtained a copy of the "Instrument of Withdrawal", signed by South Africa's foreign minister.

"The Republic of South Africa has found that its obligations with respect to the peaceful resolution of conflicts at times are incompatible with the interpretation given by the International Criminal Court," the document says.

'Runaway train'

Justice Minister Michael Masutha said at a press conference that the government would table legislation in parliament to withdraw South Africa from the ICC.

The Rome Statute, under which the ICC was set up, required the arrest of heads of state for whom a warrant was issued.

The consequence of this would be "regime change" and the statute was incompatible with South African legislation which gave heads of state diplomatic immunity, he added.

Analysis: Anna Holligan, BBC ICC correspondent

Image copyright EPA Image caption President Zuma recently met his Kenyan counterpart Uhuru Kenyatta, against whom an ICC prosecution failed

The ICC has a notoriously fractious relationship with the African continent. Despite 34 African nations voluntarily signing up to the court's jurisdiction - in recent years a handful of governments have decided their idea of international justice is incompatible with that set out in the Rome Statute.

When the Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta was charged with crimes against humanity, the African Union argued that heads of state should be entitled to immunity for the duration of their term in office, a direct contravention of the ICC's raison d'etre to hold the most powerful to account. The trial against Mr Kenyatta later collapsed because of a lack of evidence.

There were almost farcical scenes when the Sudanese president attended a summit in Johannesburg at the invitation of the African Union, then disappeared during dinner after resounding calls from human rights groups for South Africa to uphold its obligation as a member of the ICC to detain him in line with the outstanding arrest warrant.

It seems this divided loyalty between the competing demands of AU and ICC has driven South Africa to initiate the process of pulling out. Nine out of 10 of the ICC's current investigations are in Africa - leading to allegations of bias against African countries.

So is this the beginning of the end of the world's first permanent war crimes court? The answer will partly depend on whether this withdrawal generates a domino effect.

Human Rights Watch has criticised South Africa's decision.

"South Africa's proposed withdrawal from the International Criminal Court shows startling disregard for justice from a country long seen as a global leader on accountability for victims of the gravest crimes," said Dewa Mavhinga, the NGO's Africa division senior researcher.

"It's important both for South Africa and the region that this runaway train be slowed down and South Africa's hard-won legacy of standing with victims of mass atrocities be restored," Mr Mavhinga said.

Image copyright AFP Image caption The ICC says its focus is on helping victims of conflict achieve justice

Mr Masutha said the government had also decided to drop its appeal against a ruling of South Africa's High Court, that it had violated its international obligations by failing to arrest Mr Bashir.

The appeal was due to have been heard next month.

The move to leave comes a week after the South African President Jacob Zuma visited Kenya, a country that has been highly critical of the ICC ever since the prosecutor charged its President Uhuru Kenyatta with crimes against humanity.

He denied the charges, and the trial later collapsed beceause of a lack of evidence.

The ICC and global justice:

Came into force in 2002

The Rome Statute that set it up has been ratified by 123 countries, but the US is a notable absence

It aims to prosecute and bring to justice those responsible for the worst crimes - genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes

In the court's 14-year history it has only brought charges against Africans.

What is the International Criminal Court?

Two weeks ago Burundi said it would pull out of the ICC - a decision described by the court as "a setback in the fight against impunity". MPs backed the decision and its president signed the measure into law on Tuesday.

Last year, Namibia also said it planned to withdraw from the ICC, describing the court as an an "abomination" which wanted to "dictate" to Africans on how they should be governed.

Previously, the African Union has urged member states not to co-operate with the ICC, accusing it of being racially biased against Africa by failing to prosecute suspected war criminals from other parts of the world.

The ICC denies the allegation, saying it pursues justice on behalf of Africans who are victims of atrocities.

The 124-member ICC opened in 2002. It is the first legal body with permanent international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
South Africa formally begins the process of withdrawing from the International Criminal Court amid a dispute over the country's refusal to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir at last year's African Union summit in Johannesburg.