ICC, a waste of African resources

The Democratic Alliance, an opposition political outfit in South Africa appears to have run out of steam and is seeking extra fodder to power its waning relevance. This week, the party hit the headlines urging President Cyril Ramaphosa to change his stance on Zimbabwe following what it terms crimes against humanity. The party further threatened to take the Harare administration to the International Criminal Court should the ANC government fail to rein in their northern neighbour. Before going into the political matrix surrounding the Zimbabwe demo, it ought to be pointed that the 20 year old Hague institution has so far shown a record failure in successful prosecution of alleged war crimes especially in Africa.

The ICC which has been spurned by the USA shows a great deal of partiality as it sets its compass in Africa yet domiciled in the Netherlands. It paints a picture that falsely portrays Africa as the only turf where war crimes are committed. The record failure in their 20 year journey in international prosecution of crimes shows the court is nothing but a jokers' club designed to embarrass Africa while at the same time milking it of its resources away to legal firms dotted outside of Africa as defendants struggle to finance their defence. Very little of the legal value chain ignited by the goings on at The Hague benefits Africa despite Africa being a top customer of this partial court.

As you read this, Laurent Gbagbo, former president of Cote d'Ivoire is on his way out of prison after the court dismally failed to nail him down in a three year crawling trial connected to the Abidjan violence of 2010 following a disputed election. While Gbagbo has lost his freedom for a long period on end, Ivoirians have lost finances to The Hague; his political party has been without his leadership while his family has been without a father in a pipe dream legal case lacking a justiceable basis.

And back to Harare, has the DA involved itself in trying to ascertain the trail of destruction, looting and arson committed by criminals with no relationship to Zanu PF at Entumbane? Does that party know that livelihoods have been lost in senseless looting of private property in a pseudo stay away? If the DA had offices and business establishments in Zimbabwe and they had been looted down by the marauding gangs was it going to think of taking the government to court or the gangs? Instead of appreciating the government efforts at protecting public and private property, the DA chooses to attack the protector.

In fact, it is not profitable to talk about this DA brouhaha, let me speak last of this party in this very sentence.
And back to Bulawayo, very little of Government property was destroyed, looted or vandalised. The biggest losers are private individuals trying to eke a living out of honest enterprise. It is the same businesspersons who are paying taxes to keep the government buoyant and be able to provide service to the nation. If anybody thinks there is need to take anyone to the ICC for crimes related to the mayhem of this past week, certainly it cannot be government to be taken to this discredited outfit.

Writing in The Washington Post, Oumar Ba, an assistant professor of political science at Morehouse College in Atlanta said, "it is important to reiterate that the trial judges decided to acquit Gbagbo and Blé Goudé in the middle of the trial, without finding it necessary to let the defence present its case. Legal analysts and human rights groups see this as a major setback for the ICC's prosecution team. The decision also spotlights the fact that the ICC thus far has been unable to successfully prosecute any state official - charges against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta were dropped; Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto's case was dismissed; Congo Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba was acquitted by the Appeals Chamber; and Sudanese President Omar Bashir is still at large.

 "However, countries that oppose the court, such as the United States, will yet again question the need for the ICC, and its efficacy. After more than 17 years of operations, the court has convicted only three individuals - all of them rebels or militia members - for atrocity crimes," noted Ba.
 
With such a pitiable success track, the ICC is proving to have developed a fetish of chasing after African leaders with grainy evidence sources that do not deserve to be invested energies in. Agreed, crimes would have been committed but the question is, are the correct culprits being brought before the law to answer to their crimes so that justice is seen to be at work and indeed working to soothe the wounds of the victims. In Zimbabwe's case, it is not the state that burnt down shops. It is not the state or Zanu PF which looted shops empty. Neither is it president Mnangagwa who caused wholesale mayhem across the country. For the record, the President was out working inside his leave days in pursuit of national benefit.

Now that Gbagbo has been acquitted, have the people of Cote d'Ivoire received the justice that has been evading them since the fateful election of 2010? Will the hapless businesspersons who lost their goods find justice from the prosecution of a government that sought to keep the criminals attacking their businesses at bay? Will the family of the slain young policeman benefit anything from the prosecution of the state which employed him?

If ever there is a need for an international court to administer African Justice,  that court must be in Africa, run by Africans for Africans. Imperialist legal establishments are nothing but tools designed to foment necessary confusion in Africa for the purposes of looting its resource endowment by west capitalist establishments. Who from the West has ever come from Europe to be tried by an African court? Why should Africa subject itself to designs of the west in its domestic affairs? There is nothing international about the International Criminal Court.