Nairobi — Kenya’s president on Monday criticised the International Criminal Court as “not impartial”, saying his government “will give serious thought” to its membership of the court.

In a speech during celebrations marking 53 years since Kenya became independent, President Uhuru Kenyatta said he believed he would win a second term next year despite what he called “divisive politicians, external powers, the ICC or paid protesters”.

Kenyatta was elected in 2013 as he and his running mate, William Ruto, faced criminal charges at the ICC over their alleged roles in post-election violence in 2007-2008.

The charges against Kenyatta were withdrawn in 2014 while the case against Ruto was terminated earlier this year.

“In our pursuit of a more stable and just order, we are champions of global institutions grounded in fairness and respect for national sovereignty,” Kenyatta said Monday.

“The Kenyan cases at the International Criminal Court have ended but the experience has given us cause to observe that this institution has become a tool of global power politics and not the justice it was built to dispense.”

He added: “We have started to see many more nations openly recognising that the ICC is not impartial. Some have withdrawn. Others have considered that step. Twice, our parliament has passed motions to withdraw. We have sought the changes that will align the ICC to respect national sovereignty. Those changes have not been forthcoming. We will therefore need to give serious thought to our membership.”

Meanwhile, Kenyan police fired tear gas on Monday to disperse a protest march against government corruption.

The march was part of a protest movement by activists who want the government to do more to stem what they charge is rampant graft within the administration.

Police arrested at least three protesters in the capital, Nairobi, when they broke up the demonstration. The group later reunited at another location and resumed the march.

Kenya is considered to be among the world’s most corrupt countries, ranking 139 out of 168 countries in a 2015 index by Transparency International.

African nations have long felt they are unfairly targeted by The Hague-based court, and the current exodus began when Burundi in October voted to leave the ICC, after the court’s prosecutor said she might open a case against the government.

South Africa and The Gambia quickly followed suit, raising fears of mass defections from the continent.

The tribunal opened in 2002 in The Hague as a court of last resort to try the world’s worst crimes where national courts are unable or unwilling to act.

Currently nine out of the 10 ICC investigations are in African countries. The other is in Georgia.

However experts point out that many of the current investigations — in the Central African Republic, Uganda, Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo — were referred to the ICC by the governments of those states.

Cases in Libya and the Sudanese region of Darfur were referred by the UN Security Council. Only in Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire did the ICC’s prosecutor initiate investigations.

Kenya was actually the first country to hold a vote to leave the court in 2013 with a symbolic motion in parliament which was never formalised.

Kenya’s 2007 elections were marred by allegations of vote rigging, but what began as political riots quickly turned into ethnic killings and reprisal attacks, plunging Kenya into its worst wave of violence since independence in 1963.

Kenyatta and Ruto were fierce rivals in the 2007 vote, but teamed up in peaceful 2013 polls. — AFP </s> President Uhuru Kenyatta on Monday gave the clearest sign yet that Kenya is leaving from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The President said the government will consider two motions passed by Parliament for Kenya’s withdrawal from the ICC.

He said the latest decision is informed by the failure by the ICC to reform so that it can have respect for national sovereignty of member countries.

“We have sought the changes that will align the ICC to respect for national sovereignty. Those changes have not been forthcoming. We will therefore need to give serious thought to our membership,” said the President.

READ: Kenya criticises ICC at United Nations meeting

 The Head of State, who spoke when he led Kenyans in the Jamhuri Day (independence day) celebrations, said the ICC showed a lack of impartiality when it dealt with Kenya and many more nations have recognised the same.

“We are not the world’s richest or most powerful nation, but we are entitled to an equal share of respect for our nationhood, our sovereignty, and our laws,” said the President.

Stable and just world

He said Kenya has been a champion of global institutions grounded in fairness and respect for national sovereignty as part of its pursuit of a more stable and just world.

“The Kenyan cases at the International Criminal Court have ended but the experience has given us cause to observe that this institution has become a tool of global power politics and not the justice it was built to dispense,” said the President.

He said the choices Kenyans make are the basis for how Kenya will steer its destiny as a sovereign state.

“Our founders fought bravely to have the right to make choices free of external interference,” he said.

The President added that the ICC was a tool being used by foreign powers who wanted to undermine Kenya’s sovereignty. </s> NAIROBI, KENYA - Kenya's president on Monday criticized the International Criminal Court as “not impartial,” saying his government “will give serious thought” to its membership of the court.

In a speech during celebrations marking 53 years since Kenya became independent, President Uhuru Kenyatta said he believed he would win a second term next year despite what he called “divisive politicians, external powers, the ICC or paid protesters.”

Kenyatta was elected in 2013 as he and his running mate, William Ruto, faced criminal charges at the ICC over their alleged roles in post-election violence in 2007-2008.

The charges against Kenyatta were withdrawn in 2014 while the case against Ruto was terminated earlier this year.

“In our pursuit of a more stable and just order, we are champions of global institutions grounded in fairness and respect for national sovereignty,” Kenyatta said Monday. “The Kenyan cases at the International Criminal Court have ended but the experience has given us cause to observe that this institution has become a tool of global power politics and not the justice it was built to dispense.”

He added: “We have started to see many more nations openly recognizing that the ICC is not impartial. Some have withdrawn. Others have considered that step. Twice, our parliament has passed motions to withdraw. We have sought the changes that will align the ICC to respect national sovereignty. Those changes have not been forthcoming. We will therefore need to give serious thought to our membership.”

South Africa, Burundi and Gambia have announced plans to withdraw from The Hague-based court.

Meanwhile, Kenyan police fired tear gas on Monday to disperse a protest march against government corruption.

The march was part of a protest movement by activists who want the government to do more to stem what they charge is rampant graft within the administration.

Police arrested at least three protesters in the capital, Nairobi, when they broke up the demonstration. The group later reunited at another location and resumed the march.

Kenya is considered to be among the world's most corrupt countries, ranking 139 out of 168 countries in a 2015 index by Transparency International. </s> Nairobi (AFP) - Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta said Monday his country was seriously thinking of quitting the International Criminal Court, after several other African nations moved to pull out of the tribunal.

Kenyatta and his Vice President William Ruto were dragged before the court after deadly 2007-08 election violence left over 1,200 dead. However the charges were dropped in 2014 with ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda citing a "relentless" campaign of victim intimidation.

"Our experience at the ICC demonstrated a glaring lack of impartiality in this institution. Some have withdrawn. Others have considered that step. Twice, our parliament has passed motions to withdraw," Kenyatta said in a speech Monday.

"We have sought the changes that will align the ICC to respect for national sovereignty. Those changes have not been forthcoming. We will therefore need to give serious thought to our membership."

African nations have long felt they are unfairly targeted by The Hague-based court, and the current exodus began when Burundi in October voted to leave the ICC, after the court's prosecutor said she might open a case against the government.

South Africa and The Gambia quickly followed suit, raising fears of mass defections from the continent.

The tribunal opened in 2002 in The Hague as a court of last resort to try the world's worst crimes where national courts are unable or unwilling to act.

Currently nine out of the 10 ICC investigations are in African countries. The other is in Georgia.

However experts point out that many of the current investigations -- in the Central African Republic, Uganda, Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo -- were referred to the ICC by the governments of those states.

Cases in Libya and the Sudanese region of Darfur were referred by the UN Security Council. Only in Kenya and Ivory Coast did the ICC's prosecutor initiate investigations.

Kenya was actually the first country to hold a vote to leave the court in 2013 with a symbolic motion in parliament which was never formalised.

Kenya's 2007 elections were marred by allegations of vote rigging, but what began as political riots quickly turned into ethnic killings and reprisal attacks, plunging Kenya into its worst wave of violence since independence in 1963.

Kenyatta and Ruto were fierce rivals in the 2007 vote, but teamed up in peaceful 2013 polls. </s> The International Criminal Court has been used by real criminals to remove uncooperative leaders around the globe. Russia is leaving the fold. More African countries are leaving, too.

The Old World Order continues to crumble…

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an order on Russia’s refusal to take part in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, according to a document published on the Russian government’s official portal for legal information.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Putin instructed Russia’s Foreign Ministry to send a relevant notification to the UN secretary-general. The Rome Statute, which took effect in 2002, is the basis for the International Criminal Court’s activity. Russia signed the international treaty in 2000 but has not ratified it so far. “The International Criminal Court has not justified hopes placed on it and did not become a genuinely independent and authoritative body,” the document stated.

Russia is not the first to do it in the last 2 months.

Gambia is the latest African country deciding to pull out of International Criminal Court

NAIROBI — Gambia has announced that it will withdraw from the International Criminal Court, the third African country to declare its departure in just two weeks.

Explaining the country’s decision, Information Minister Sheriff Bojang said on state television late Tuesday that the global judicial body was really “an International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of color, especially Africans.”

Last week, Burundi announced its intention to leave the court, and on Friday South Africa did the same. There are worries that this could be the beginning of an African exodus from the court, a dwindling membership on a continent with a long list of conflicts and human rights abuses.

Experts believe Kenya, Namibia and Uganda could be among the next countries to leave the court.

Why is South Africa pulling out of the International Criminal Court?

South Africa announced on Friday that it would withdraw from the International Criminal Court. This makes it the second country this week to pull out, after Burundi filed to leave on Tuesday.

South Africa argues that a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflict through dialogue involves hosting foreign leaders on its soil – including, at times, ones who have run afoul of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC binds member countries to turn in visitors wanted for alleged crimes, however.

The departures may be a sign that some African nations have lost faith in the ICC. The Court has faced repeated criticism for allegedly pursuing its own agenda with court cases, which some Africans believe disproportionately target the continent.

All but one of the ICC’s 10 investigations have been based in Africa. All five of the Court’s substantive verdicts have been against African suspects. Though cases against non-African countries, including Britain, are undergoing preliminary examinations, the trend has led to calls for an African regional court.

The push to leave the ICC began when the Court indicted Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta in 2007, charging him with crimes against humanity after more than 1,000 people died in post-election violence. The case ultimately failed because of lobbying, bribery, and allegations that witnesses had been intimidated. But it frustrated African countries, which largely saw the charges against Kenyatta – a sitting president – as a form of international intervention in the affairs of a sovereign country.

This existence of this grossly lopsided world criminal court was ratified by Russia and 120 others, but not the United States and Israel.

The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal that sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court. The ICC began functioning on 1 July 2002, the date that the Rome Statute entered into force.

The Rome Statute established four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crime of aggression.

Following years of negotiation, aimed at establishing a permanent international tribunal to prosecute individuals accused of genocideand other serious international crimes, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression, the United Nations General Assembly convened a five-week diplomatic conference in Rome in June 1998 “to finalize and adopt a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court”.[9][10]

On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining.[6] Because the way each delegation voted was officially unrecorded, there is some dispute over the identity of the seven countries that voted against the treaty.[11] It is certain that the People’s Republic of China, Israel, and the United States were three of the seven because they have publicly confirmed their negative votes; India, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen have been identified by various observers and commentators as possible sources for the other four negative votes, with Iraq, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen being the four most commonly identified.[11]

On 11 April 2002, ten countries ratified the statute at the same time at a special ceremony held at the United Nations headquarters in New York City,[12] bringing the total number of signatories to sixty, which was the minimum number required to bring the statute into force, as defined in Article 126.[3] The treaty entered into force on 1 July 2002;[12] the ICC can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.[13] The statute was modified in 2010 after the Review Conference in Kampala, Uganda, but the amendments to the statute that were adopted at that time are not effective yet.

The Rome Statute is the result of multiple attempts for the creation of a supranational and international tribunal.

The ICC is a major component of the planned New World Order administered by a One World Government controlled by the Vatican.

The monopoly of Africans in the List of Indictees and Convicted [here], and the absence of any case filed against the perpetrators of the “war of terror” strongly indicate that this is not a court of justice at all.

So, that, the only recourse is to create our own independent Tribunal…

Lawsuit Against Bush and Blair for War Crimes? International Lawyers Seek Justice for Iraqis

International lawyers and activists converged at a conference titled The Iraq Commission, in Brussels, Belgium, April 16 and 17, with the primary aim of bringing to justice government officials who are guilty of war crimes in Iraq.

“Within a few days of this, a lawless atmosphere developed within my unit,” Ross Caputi, a former marine who took part in the brutal November 2004 siege of Fallujah told the Iraq Commission. “There was a lot of looting going on. I saw people searching the pockets of the dead resistance fighters for money. Some people were mutilating corpses.”

The conference represents the most powerful and most current organized attempt in the world to bring justice to those responsible for the catastrophe in Iraq, and included powerful international lawyers like International Court of Justice lawyer Curtis Doebbler and Louie Roberto Zamora Bolanos, a lawyer from Costa Rica who successfully sued the government of his country for supporting the war in Iraq.

Their goal for the conference was to begin taking concrete steps toward international lawsuits that will bring former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and former US President George W. Bush, along with those responsible in their administrations, to justice for the myriad war crimes committed in Iraq.

… While the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, former president George W. Bush, along with several members of his cabinet including Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, to name but a few, are guilty of war crimes for their roles in creating the conditions for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, according to lawyers at the conference.

“Lest current events cloud principles, and in order to restore focus on the rules of international rules, such as state responsibility, human rights, war crimes, crimes against humanity, there will be no justice for the victims of this crime against peace,” Al-Mukhtar stated, in concluding his opening remarks. “We will discuss practical approaches to ensure accountability and put an end to impunity.”

Tun Mahatir Muhammad, the fourth prime minister of Malaysia (and also the longest-serving prime minister of the country), backs the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War, which aims to make all acts of war illegal. Mahatir provided the conference a video message for the occasion.

“We must criminalize war because we consider the killing of one person by another as murder, and we are even prepared to punish him by taking his life,” Mohammed said. “But if you kill a million people in war, it is glorified, and the killers are given medals and statues and honored. There is a contradiction here, and it is time that killing be made a crime, whether it be in peace or in war. And if it is a crime, whoever starts an aggressive war should be considered a criminal and tried in a court of law. That is why our tribunal has tried Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair and found them both guilty as war criminals.”

… “This ‘war without borders’ is being carried out at the crossroads of the most serious economic crisis in world history, which has been conducive to the impoverishment of large sectors of the world population,” he said. “The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The killing of civilians is part of that agenda. The US agenda in the Middle East is to change countries into territories, this is the basis of destabilizing country after country across the world, and instituting PAX Americana.”

Chossudovsky believes that US worldwide militarization is part of a global economic agenda, and the invasion of Iraq was but one component of this agenda.

… the importance of the commission and of the work activists and lawyers have ahead of them, as they strive to bring justice to George W. Bush, Tony Blair and all other members of their cabinets who are responsible for the violations of international law that have occurred, and continue to occur, in Iraq.

“There has been a rollback of international law,” Nijar explained. “And this is why the role of the people’s tribunal now takes on an important role. Because the people alone are the motivating force in making world history.”

In short, it is a modern day Jesuit Inquisition aimed at eliminating all enemies of the Holy Crown.

Can we expect a Donald Trump to rise to the occasion and bring justice to the people of Iraq, and for all those Americans who died during and after WTC 911, by going against his own party by ordering the arrest and prosecution of the Bushes, et.al.?

Will he follow other world leaders who are already moving away from the Pyramid of Satanists into Knights of the Roundtable, in order to create a multipolar world?

Aside from the fiat monetary scam and bloodsoaked petrodollar, another significant source of funds for the Nazionist Khazarian Mafiais the “healthcare” industry which registered a whopping $3.09 trillion in 2014, and is projected to soar to $3.57 trillion in 2017, in the US alone. We believe that this is just a conservative figure.

We can all help the revolution by avoiding all Khazarian pharmaceutical drugs, defeat any viral attack and scaremongering, like the Zika virus, easily by knowing how to build our own comprehensive antiviral system. Find more about how we can kill three birds with one stone, right here. </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> 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> A third African country, Gambia, says it will leave the International Criminal Court as fears grow of a mass pullout from the body that pursues some of the world's worst atrocities.

Gambia announced the decision on television Tuesday night, accusing the court of unfairly targeting Africa and calling it the "International Caucasian Court."

The move comes after South Africa, once a strong ICC supporter under former President Nelson Mandela, notified the United Nations secretary-general it would leave the court.

Early last week, Burundi's president signed legislation to leave the court as well.

Only Africans have been charged in the six ICC cases that are ongoing or about to begin, though preliminary ICC investigations have opened elsewhere.

Gambia's decision is also striking because the ICC's chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, is Gambian.

The information minister of the tiny West African country, Sheriff Baba Bojang, said in the statement late Tuesday that the court is involved in "the persecution of Africans, and especially their leaders." He accused "at least 30" Western countries of having committed war crimes against their citizens since the ICC was founded more than a decade ago and said none has been targeted by the court.

The minister said Gambia has begun the process of withdrawing from the ICC, which involves notifying the U.N. secretary-general and takes effect a year after the notification is received.

Rights groups often accuse Gambian President Yahya Jammeh, one of Africa's longest-serving leaders, of abuses including a clampdown on political opponents. The next presidential election is in December.

Officials with other top African critics of the court, including Uganda and Kenya, have said in recent days they have not yet decided whether to leave the ICC as well. Uganda said it will be a "hot topic" at an African Union meeting in January.
Kenya threatens to leave the International Criminal Court.