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 African government wanted to leave the ICC as a result of the court's alleged bias against African nations.

A South African court has ruled the government's plan to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) was "unconstitutional and invalid", providing a boost to the embattled Hague-based institution.

The court has recently been fighting off allegations of pursuing a neo-colonial agenda in Africa, where most of its investigations have been based.

Three African states - South Africa, The Gambia and Burundi - last year signalled their intention to quit the ICC. The Gambia's President Adama Barrow, elected in December, said earlier this month it will remain in the ICC.

READ MORE: Africa's human rights court and the limits of justice

South Africa announced in October that it had lodged its decision to pull out with the United Nations, after a dispute over Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visiting the country in 2015.

South African authorities refused to arrest Bashir despite him facing an ICC arrest warrant over alleged war crimes, saying he had immunity as a head of state.

"The cabinet decision to deliver the notice of withdrawal... without prior parliamentary approval is unconstitutional and invalid," said judge Phineas Mojapelo in the North Gauteng High Court.

 

The president and ministers "are ordered forthwith to revoke the notice of withdrawal," he added.

The court ruling was a setback for President Jacob Zuma's government, but Justice Minister Michael Masutha said the government still plans to withdraw from the court.

Masutha described the government's notification to the UN of its intent to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty establishing the Hague-based court, as a policy decision.

He said the government would decide how to proceed, including a possible appeal, after reading the full judgment.

The opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) party, which was one of the groups that brought the court case, on the other hand, welcomed the judgement.

 

"The withdrawal by the South African government from the ICC was irrational and unconstitutional," DA MP James Selfie told AFP news agency.

 

"We would like South Africa to stay in the ICC because we believe that it is consistent with our constitution and with the legacy of Nelson Mandela.

 

"The government should go back to the drawing board and reconsider the thing afresh in light of this judgement."

The ICC, which launched in July 2002 and has 124 member states, is the first legal body with permanent international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. </s> PRETORIA (Reuters) - South Africa said on Friday it was quitting the International Criminal Court (ICC) because membership conflicted with diplomatic immunity laws, dealing a new blow to the struggling court and angering the political opposition.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir addresses a news conference in Cape Town South Africa, November 7, 2007. Picture taken November 7, 2007. REUTERS/Mike Hutchings/File Photo

Pretoria last year announced its intention to leave after the ICC criticized it for disregarding an ICC order to arrest Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide and war crimes, when he visited South Africa. Bashir has denied the accusations.

The United Nations on Friday confirmed receipt of South Africa’s withdrawal from the ICC, which will take effect one year from Oct. 19, spokesman Stephane Dujarric said, making it the first country to quit the Rome Statute.

The instrument of withdrawal document, seen by Reuters on Thursday, has been assessed by the United Nations as bona fide and is being processed, Dujarric said.

The announcement puts new pressure on the world’s first permanent war crimes court, which has had to fight off allegations of pursuing a neo-colonial agenda in Africa, where all but one of its 10 investigations have been based.

Burundi’s leader this week signed a decree to leave the ICC, and Kenya’s parliament is considering following suit.

U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the United States was “concerned” about the South African decision, but he declined to speculate what Kenya and Burundi would do and said it was too early to speak of a “trend” toward African withdrawal from the court.

Kirby said the United States, while not a member of the court, believed the ICC had made “valuable contributions in the service of accountability ...and we hope that other countries would share that assessment.”

Justice Minister Michael Masutha told reporters in Pretoria that the government would draft a bill to repeal its adoption of the ICC’s Rome Statute to preserve its ability to conduct active diplomatic relations, and had given formal notice.

He said the statute conflicted with South Africa’s Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, which was cited in the decision to ignore the court order to detain Bashir, but that the government remained committed to the fight against impunity.

The ICC said it had not formally been notified of South Africa’s intention to leave the Rome Statute.

A document seen by Reuters at the United Nations on Thursday showed the move would take effect one year after notice was formally received by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Related Coverage U.N. confirms South Africa withdrawal from war crimes court

The document was signed by South African International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and dated Oct. 19.

“UNCONSTITUTIONAL” WITHDRAWAL

James Selfe, a senior executive at the main opposition Democratic Alliance, said it would file a court application on Friday to set aside the plans “on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, irrational and procedurally flawed”.

Former South African judge Richard Goldstone, a respected figure in international justice and former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, said quitting the ICC was “demeaning” to the country.

“From a moral standpoint, it detracts from the inspiring legacy of the administration of President Nelson Mandela that so strongly supported the ICC,” said Goldstone, chairman of the advisory board of the coalition for the ICC, which provides strategic guidance on key issues.

Masutha, the justice minister, said Pretoria would drop its appeal to the Constitutional Court against a ruling that the state had made an error in letting Bashir leave the country.

In June 2015 Bashir was in Johannesburg for an African Union summit. He was allowed to leave even though the ICC had ordered that he be kept in South Africa until the end of a hearing on whether he should be detained under a global arrest warrant.

The High Court ruled Bashir should have been arrested to face genocide charges at the ICC since, as a signatory of the Rome Statute, Pretoria was obliged to implement arrest warrants.

The government lost an appeal at the Supreme Court in March and the appeal to the Constitutional Court was its last chance of overturning the ruling.

The ICC, which sits in The Hague and has 124 member states, is the first legal body with permanent international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

But it has secured only five substantive verdicts in its 14-year history, all of them on African suspects, and several African countries have expressed concern that the continent is being picked on.

In January, the African Union backed a proposal by Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta for officials of various member states to “develop a road map” on possible withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The decision was not legally binding as the final decision to leave the ICC would be taken by individual nations.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir attends during signing of agreements ceremony with Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (unseen) at the El-Thadiya presidential palace in Cairo, Egypt October 5, 2016. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

A high-profile ICC attempt to try Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto over post-election violence failed amid diplomatic lobbying and allegations of witness intimidation.

Adan Duale, leader of the majority in the Kenyan parliament, said impetus was building there to pass a bill on quitting the ICC that has been slowly making its way through the assembly. </s> South Africa’s High Court blocked the government’s attempt to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Wednesday, the latest blow to President Jacob Zuma.

A high court judge instructed the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the court based in The Hague, Netherlands.

South Africa’s main opposition party had gone to court, saying the government's notice was illegal because parliament was not consulted. “South Africa does not want to be lumped together with pariah states who have no respect for human rights,” the Democratic Alliance said.

“This is a victory for the rule of law and indeed for our country's human rights-based foreign policy which Zuma and his cronies have tried so hard to depart from,” DA spokesman James Selfe said. “Clearly Zuma and his ANC have absolutely no respect for the constitution.”

“What is so pressing for the national executive about the withdrawal ... which cannot wait for our legislative processes to take their course?” the court's ruling said. “Government respondents have not provided any explanation for this seemingly urgent need to withdraw from the Rome Statute” that created the tribunal.

Justice Minister Michael Masutha said the government would press ahead with withdrawing from the Hague-based tribunal, noting that the ruling was based largely on procedure – that the decision to pull out did not pass first through parliament.

Mr Masutha said the ruling amounted to a delay that would not stop the government's bid to leave an institution that some African governments feel unfairly targets Africans and which Pretoria said was at odds with its diplomatic immunity laws.

The ICC, which was launched in July 2002 and has 124 member states, is the first legal body with permanent international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Pretoria notified the United Nations of its intent to withdraw in October, starting a year-long divorce period that would have made South Africa the first country to quit the court in October this year.

South Africa's withdrawal announcement followed a 2015 dispute over a visit by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. Al-Bashir was allowed to leave South Africa even though a local court ordered authorities to arrest him.

Under the Rome Statute, signatory countries have a legal obligation to arrest anyone sought by the ICC. South Africa said the treaty contradicts its diplomatic immunity law and prevents the country from acting as a regional peacemaker, a role that could require it to host adversaries on its own soil.

The government previously said a withdrawal bill would go to parliament, where the ruling African National Congress party has a majority and likely would approve it. However, the court's ruling could mean a significant delay in the process, and some legal experts speculate that the government might consider dropping its withdrawal plan ahead of the next presidential elections in 2019.

South Africa withdrawal notification alarmed international human rights groups and has raised fears of an African exodus from the court, which has more than 120 member states.

Some African countries have argued that the court has unfairly targeted their continent and have instead advocated strengthening their own institutions to deal with threats to human rights. All but one of the court's full-scale investigations are in Africa, though the majority were referred to the court by the African countries themselves and two by the UN Security Council.

Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had said he regretted South Africa's decision to withdraw from the ICC and expressed hope that the government would reconsider it. A country's withdrawal becomes effective a year after formally notifying the U.N. chief. In South Africa's case, that is expected in October. It was not immediately clear whether the court ruling has stopped the clock on that process.

Backers of the court were dismayed by South Africa's move to withdraw, especially after former President Nelson Mandela had been a strong advocate for the court's creation.

Three African states - South Africa, Gambia and Burundi – last year signalled their intention to quit the ICC. Gambia’s President Adama Barrow, elected in December, said earlier this month that the tiny West African nation would remain in the ICC. </s> A South African court ruled Wednesday that the government's decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court without parliament's approval was unconstitutional. The country had been set to become the first to leave the tribunal that prosecutes the world's worst atrocities.

A high court judge instructed the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the court based in The Hague, Netherlands.

South Africa's main opposition party had gone to court, saying the government's notice was illegal because parliament was not consulted. "South Africa does not want to be lumped together with pariah states who have no respect for human rights," the Democratic Alliance said in a statement Wednesday.

"What is so pressing for the national executive about the withdrawal ... which cannot wait for our legislative processes to take their course?" the court's ruling said. "Government respondents have not provided any explanation for this seemingly urgent need to withdraw from the Rome Statute" that created the tribunal.

A government statement said it would "reflect on the judgment" before deciding whether to appeal.

South Africa's withdrawal announcement last year followed a 2015 dispute over a visit by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. Al-Bashir was allowed to leave South Africa even though a local court ordered authorities to arrest him.

Under the Rome Statute, signatory countries have a legal obligation to arrest anyone sought by the ICC. South Africa said the treaty contradicts its diplomatic immunity law and prevents the country from acting as a regional peacemaker, a role that could require it to host adversaries on its own soil.

The government previously said a withdrawal bill would go to parliament, where the ruling African National Congress party has a majority and likely would approve it. However, the court's ruling could mean a significant delay in the process, and some legal experts speculate that the government might consider dropping its withdrawal plan ahead of the next presidential elections in 2019.

South Africa notified the United Nations secretary-general that it would withdraw from the treaty that created the ICC, alarming international human rights groups and raising fears of an African exodus from the court, which has more than 120 member states.

Some African countries have argued that the court has unfairly targeted their continent and have instead advocated strengthening their own institutions to deal with threats to human rights. All but one of the court's full-scale investigations are in Africa, though the majority were referred to the court by the African countries themselves and two by the U.N. Security Council.

Former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had said he regretted South Africa's decision to withdraw from the ICC and expressed hope that the government would reconsider it. A country's withdrawal becomes effective a year after formally notifying the U.N. chief. In South Africa's case, that is expected in October. It was not immediately clear whether the court ruling has stopped the clock on that process.

Backers of the court were dismayed by South Africa's move to withdraw, especially after former President Nelson Mandela had been a strong advocate for the court's creation.

The Democratic Alliance statement echoed concerns that the country under current President Jacob Zuma had drifted far from its ideals. "This is a victory for the rule of law and indeed for our country's human rights-based foreign policy which Zuma and his cronies have tried so hard to depart from," it said of the court's ruling. </s> JOHANNESBURG—A South African court ruled Wednesday that the government’s decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court without parliament’s approval was unconstitutional. Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo in the North Gauteng High Court instructed the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the human rights tribunal based in The Hague, Netherlands. South Africa is set to become the first country to leave the tribunal that prosecutes the world’s worst atrocities. South Africa’s main opposition party had gone to court, saying the government’s notice was illegal because parliament was not consulted. “South Africa does not want to be lumped together with pariah states who have no respect for human rights,” the Democratic Alliance said in a statement Wednesday. South Africa’s withdrawal announcement last year followed a 2015 dispute over a visit by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. Al-Bashir was allowed to leave South Africa even though a local court ordered authorities to arrest him.

Under the Rome Statute that created the ICC, signatory countries have a legal obligation to arrest anyone sought by the tribunal. South Africa said the treaty contradicts its diplomatic immunity law and prevents the country from acting as a regional peacemaker, a role that could require it to host adversaries on its own soil. The government said after its notice of withdrawal that a withdrawal bill would go to parliament, where the ruling African National Congress party has a majority. South Africa notified the United Nations secretary-general that it would withdraw from the treaty that created the ICC, alarming international human rights groups and raising fears of an African exodus from the court, which has more than 120 member states.

Some African countries have argued that the court has unfairly targeted their continent and have instead advocated strengthening their own institutions to deal with threats to human rights. All but one of the court’s full-scale investigations are in Africa, though the majority were referred to the court by the African countries themselves and two by the U.N. Security Council. Former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had said he regretted South Africa’s decision to withdraw from the ICC and expressed hope that the government would reconsider it. A country’s withdrawal becomes effective a year after formally notifying the U.N. chief. In South Africa’s case, that is expected in October. Backers of the court were dismayed by South Africa’s move to withdraw, especially after former president Nelson Mandela had been a strong advocate for the court’s creation. The Democratic Alliance statement echoed concerns that the country under current President Jacob Zuma had drifted far from its ideals. “This is a victory for the rule of law and indeed for our country’s human rights-based foreign policy which Zuma and his cronies have tried so hard to depart from,” it said of the court’s ruling. </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> 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> South Africa's High Court has ruled the country's decision to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC) is unconstitutional. Last October, South Africa notified the United Nations its decision to leave the court claiming its membership conflicted with diplomatic immunity laws.

It is not clear whether the government would appeal the court's ruling. The process of withdrawal lasts one year and, in the case of South Africa, would take place this October.

The decision to leave the court, accused of bias by some African countries, was opposed by the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA).

Following the ruling on 22 October, the party said on its Twitter page: "We have won in our application to have SA's withdrawal from the #ICC set aside."

South Africa had longed warned it would leave the ICC following widespread criticism for its refusal to arrest Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, wanted by the ICC for alleged crimes including genocide committed during the Darfur conflict, which began in 2003.

Under the Rome Statute, South Africa as an ICC member has an obligation to arrest anyone sought by the tribunal.

Bashir has always rejected the charges and refuses to stand trial as his country does not recognise the ICC's jurisdiction, which the head of state slammed as "a tool to terrorise countries that the West thinks are disobedient."

Earlier this year, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) upheld a High Court ruling that the government should have arrested Bashir while he was in the country in June 2015. Earlier in October, Burundi became the first nation to announce its intention to leave the ICC.

Is the ICC biased towards Africa?

Some African leaders and analysts have claimed the ICC seems prone to prosecute African figures, while it ignores perpetrators of the same crimes in other parts of the world.

South Africa and Burundi announced their withdrawal in 2016, claiming, among other things, that the ICC was biased towards African nations.

Gambia, under the leadership of former leader Yahya Jammeh, also announced it would pull out from the organisation, arguing the court "ignores war crimes" committed by Western countries. But new leader Adama Barrow said he will revert the decision.

Kenya, which the ICC is currently investigating, said it was watching the withdrawals "with very keen interest."

Earlier this year, the African Union (AU) approved a strategy for a mass withdrawal from the ICC, signalling Africa's increasing frustration towards the perceived biased attitude of the court.

However, in an exclusive interview with IBTimes UK, the court rejected allegations of bias against African countries and denied its investigations focus exclusively on Africa. A spokesperson for the court said the prosecutor's office is conducting preliminary examinations on other continents, including Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Palestine and Ukraine.
South Africa will notify the United Nations that the country is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This separation would take effect one year from when notice is formally received by the U.N. Secretary-General. Last week, Burundi's parliament voted to leave the ICC, but the required paperwork has not yet reached the U.N.