International Criminal Court cannot afford to ignore concerns of African members

Deputy President William Ruto, and radio journalist Joshua Sang are not the only ones facing trial today at The Hague in the Netherlands.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), is also on the dock in the African court of public opinion.

Since its inception in July 2002, the office of the prosecutor has faced two primary critiques; first that it has been inefficient and second that it has preoccupied itself with Africa and failed to investigate equally severe conflicts elsewhere. This has raised concerns about the legitimacy of the ICC and its ability to dispense indiscriminate justice for crimes under its jurisdiction.

The strain in the relations between the Prosecutor and the African Union (AU) is profound and calls for a quick solution. Leading the charge, the AU and some other critics of the Prosecutor’s policy on Africa that transcend ethnic, racial, cultural and regional barriers, allege that the ICC’s prosecutorial policies towards Africa are destabilising and insensitive to other avenues put in place to provide African solutions to African problems.

Failure to resolve or, at least, reduce the strain between the AU and the ICC could see the process to withdraw from the Hague-based institution that started in Kenya last week snowball. This would weaken ICC still further considering that African members constitute about a third of the ICC membership.

It is instructive that the US, China, India, Pakistan, Japan and Turkey have not ratified the Rome Statute which set up the ICC. The OTP’s refusal to investigate crimes allegedly committed in Venezuela and by British troops in Iraq has not been lost on its critics. These actions, among others, have led to charges that the ICC is targeting Africa inappropriately.

Supporters of the ICC, who include most victims, see it as the only avenue to hold certain military and political leaders accountable. They know all too well that without the ICC, impunity will prevail for state sponsored and other mass crimes. The Kenyan situation has, however, given rise to a different kind of victim who does not believe the ICC process is necessary. Instead, many of the victims are asking for compensation for the loss of life and property during the post-election violence.

What is important here as Kenyans listen, watch and sift through the evidence presented at The Hague, is for everyone to ensure that no one falls into the all-too-common practice of wailing more than the bereaved. The sobriety, calm and normalcy prevailing in the areas that witnessed most of the violence should be maintained above all else.

The political class, which brought the country to this lowest point in its history in the first place, must strive to do things differently. They must not be allowed to politicise the already volatile situation in their never- ending efforts to score points against real and imaginary opponents. True, this will not be easy. No one said it would be, given the gladiatorial nature of the country’s politics. But this is where the interests of the country clearly trump those of an individual.

Even as the cases begin, the country should begin addressing the issue of compensation. True, IDPs will either be given land or money. Yet, that is not enough as there are people out there who did not go to camps despite losing everything.