By: Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger’s recent decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) presents a complex and multifaceted situation for Ghana and the wider African continent. While these three nations, now under military rule and part of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), echo long-standing criticisms of the ICC’s perceived anti-African bias and neo-colonialist overtones, Ghana’s position is starkly different. As one of the first countries to sign and ratify the Rome Statute, Ghana has consistently championed the court’s role in ending impunity for severe crimes. This divergence highlights a critical debate within Africa about justice, sovereignty, and the continent’s relationship with international institutions.
Ghana’s Unwavering Stance on International Justice
Ghana’s position on the ICC is a cornerstone of its foreign policy, reflecting its deep-seated belief in the rule of law. The country was an early signatory to the Rome Statute, a testament to its commitment to accountability. This is further highlighted by a Ghanaian, Professor Charles Akam, having served as a vice president of the court. Ghanaian leaders have consistently emphasized the ICC’s importance in deterring war crimes and crimes against humanity, viewing it as a vital tool for justice where national systems fail. This stance reflects Ghana’s belief that international justice is a shared responsibility, not a violation of sovereignty.
This approach is deeply ingrained in Ghana’s post-independence history, marked by a commitment to multilateralism and a rules-based international order, a stark contrast to the revolutionary and anti-imperialist rhetoric of the Sahel states.
The “African Bias” Debate
The Sahel states’ withdrawal from the ICC has reignited the long-standing debate about the court’s perceived anti-African bias. Critics note that most of the ICC’s cases have been in Africa, leading to accusations of a “neo-colonialist” agenda. However, this argument overlooks a crucial detail: many of these investigations were initiated at the request of the African governments themselves. As former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a Ghanaian, once said, “Africans want justice, preferably from their own governments if they can and, if not, from the International Criminal Court.” This statement underscores that the ICC’s involvement is often a last resort when domestic legal systems are unable or unwilling to prosecute.
In their joint statement announcing the withdrawal, the three countries also accused the court of “inexplicable silence” regarding certain offenses and “persecuting certain actors outside the closed circle of beneficiaries of institutionalized international impunity.” They also said that they would create their own regional criminal and human rights court. This proposed “Alliance of Sahel States Criminal and Human Rights Court” is intended to handle a range of serious crimes, from war crimes and genocide to terrorism and money laundering, signaling a desire to build a more localized and sovereign justice system. However, the viability and independence of such a court, particularly under military rule, remains a significant question. It raises concerns about whether these new institutions will truly be independent or merely serve as a tool for the military juntas to legitimize their rule and evade accountability.
Reactions to the Withdrawal
The decision has been met with mixed reactions, exposing a deep ideological fissure within the continent. Human rights organizations have condemned the move as a setback for justice. Marceau Sivieude, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for West and Central Africa, described the withdrawal as a “serious backwards step in the fight against impunity.” He added that withdrawing “would not have any impact on the ongoing ICC investigation in Mali, or on the state’s continuing obligations towards the Court.”
The official silence from the ICC and Ghanaian government officials is notable, but ordinary Ghanaians and civil society have voiced concerns. “It’s a worrying development because justice for victims of atrocities in the region will be at risk,” said one Ghanaian human rights activist speaking on condition of anonymity. “The instability in the Sahel is a direct threat to our security.” Meanwhile, supporters of the move argue it is a necessary step to assert African sovereignty.
The decision by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger is not merely a political statement; it has profound human consequences. It creates a dangerous “impunity gap” for victims of atrocities, leaving them without recourse for justice when their national systems are unable to act. For Ghana, this is a worrying development. The instability and human rights abuses in the Sahel could easily spill over into its own borders. Ghanaians should care because the lack of accountability in the region poses a direct threat to their national security and stability.
Geopolitical Implications and Ghana’s Role
The coordinated withdrawal is a serious blow to the universal application of international law. It provides a dangerous precedent for other countries that may wish to evade accountability. The move also signals a clear geopolitical shift, with the Sahel countries aligning more closely with Russia and distancing themselves from Western-led institutions. This dynamic places Ghana in a difficult position. The country must continue to champion the ICC while engaging with its neighbors. The episode forces African leaders to confront the difficult question of how to deliver justice for victims in a world where global institutions are increasingly viewed through the lens of power politics and competing alliances. Ghana’s role will be to continue advocating for a balanced approach, supporting reforms within the ICC while also promoting the development of strong domestic and regional justice systems. The recent withdrawal from the regional bloc Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and closer security and diplomatic ties with Russia further solidifies this geopolitical pivot. Ghana, as a key player in ECOWAS and a stable democracy, will be challenged to maintain regional security and promote a rules-based international order while navigating these new alliances and growing tensions on its northern border. The formation of the AES as a direct response to ECOWAS’s threat of military intervention underscores a deep regional divide.
The AES has also announced the creation of the Confederal Bank for Investment and Development (CBID), aimed at reducing dependence on external institutions and gaining financial sovereignty. These actions represent a concerted effort to create a new, parallel regional order, challenging the established norms championed by Ghana and ECOWAS. This shift is a direct challenge to Ghana’s long-standing diplomatic strategy and its position as a regional leader, forcing it to recalibrate its foreign policy to adapt to a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
