HOW NIGERIA, OTHERS AVERTED AU’S WITHDRAWAL FROM ICC

EMERGING details of what
transpired at the just-concluded African Union (AU) extra-ordinary summit at
the weekend in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, have revealed the role played by
President Goodluck Jonathan in averting what some Nigerian diplomats now
describe as a Kenyan coup against the International Criminal Court (ICC).

While the AU Assembly of
Heads of States just managed to agree to requesting the United Nations Security
Council to ensure that the ICC defers its cases against sitting African heads
of states, diplomatic sources at the meeting revealed that Kenya had wished AU
withdraw from ICC or at least threaten to do so. It was learnt that the
proposal was tabled both at the ministerial and heads of states levels of the
AU summit in Addis Ababa.

Sources said the timely
intervention of President Jonathan, followed by South Africa and a few other
African heads of states “saved the day,” after the Kenyan delegation led by its
President had made a very emotional appeal at the summit over ICC’s trial of
the country’s President and Vice President. In fact, the Ugandan President who
spoke after Kenya’s President, had also said Uganda was ready to pull out of
ICC once the AU so decides.

For instance, at the AU
Executive Committee level where ministers met on Friday, a day before the heads
of states met, the Kenyan delegation “had made a very eloquent presentation of
her case with a generous dose of emotion and sentiment, concluding that the
ultimate goal of the ICC case was “to effect regime change in Kenya, pure and
simple.”

But the ministerial meeting
could neither reach agreement on a proposal that no AU member-state should
refer any matter to the ICC without first informing and seeking the advice of
the AU Assembly nor was there any agreement on the threat of mass withdrawal if
the UN Security Council/ICC failed to accede to the request for deferral of the
Kenya cases. Even there was no agreement for a proposal for another AU summit
on November 25, 2013 to review progress on the matter. Also, there was no
consensus on the demand that the Kenya trial be terminated forthwith. With that
stalemate at the ministerial meeting, the Assembly of Heads of States meeting
held the following day without a clear direction.

Normally, the ministerial
meeting agreement would be what the heads of states would work from, but the
Assembly of Heads of States opened without an agreed decision or declaration
submitted for consideration by the Executive Council.

President Kenyatta
reportedly delivered an equally sentimental speech, according to sources,
causing a lot of emotional responses at the meeting, but no concrete or
agreeable proposal on required action was directly tabled by the Kenyans, and
many of the AU leaders were said to have been careful not to be caught on the
wrong side.

According to a source in
Addis Ababa, “heads of states were reluctant to take the floor after President
Kenyatta spoke.   President Museveni was said to have spoken next,
endorsing everything President Kenyatta said, and after lampooning the ICC “in
his characteristic style”, he informed of his singular mission to withdraw
Uganda’s membership of the ICC/Rome Statute if the AU Assembly would so direct.

But sources said not until
President Jonathan spoke was there a clear direction regarding what role AU
leaders can and cannot play in the matter.

Jonathan, who had been
expected to first deliver a formal address and was surprised the meeting was
more of a closed-door session at the start, struck the nail on its head when he
changed the tempo of the discussion by requesting “his colleagues to set aside
sentiments.”

Jonathan, according to
diplomats at the meeting, told other AU leaders that “no one could love the
Kenyans more than the Kenyans themselves; no one could understand the Kenyans
better than the Kenyans themselves; no one could solve the problems of Kenyans
better than Kenyans and no external organisation could bring reconciliation and
healing to Kenyans except Kenyans.”

Sources said Jonathan’s
remarks then opened a floodgate of responses from other AU leaders, starting
from South Africa threading the same path as the Nigerian president. A source
said “immediately after the Nigerian President’s remarks, the entire electronic
board was filled with requests for the floor, led by South Africa.”

It was then that the AU
leaders eventually agreed that:

• African States parties to
the Rome Statute should not withdraw from it;

• a demarche for deferral
should be made to the Security Council;

• the problematic Articles
of the Statute viz Articles 27, 63 and 98 should be amended;

• in addition, the Assembly
agreed to establish a five-member Contact Group to interface with the UN
Security Council on the deferral issue;

• Kenya’s decision that
President Kenyatta will not attend court on November 12 as scheduled was
endorsed;

• the decision that Deputy
President William Ruto will cease to appear before the court should be
endorsed; and

• the entire case against
the two accused persons – Kenya’s president and his deputy – should be
terminated.

Expectation that AU might
decide to withdraw African nations from the ICC had actually caused a stir in
western capitals around the world and at the UN headquarters where ICC was
birthed. Human rights groups around the world had also formed a global
coalition and spoke with one voice and with the support of two African Nobel
Peace Laureates – Kofi Annan and Archbishop Desmond Tutu – all concluding that
such a withdrawal by any African nation would be a shame.

In fact, after the meeting
concluded without such a resolution that African nations pull out of the ICC,
New York-based Human Rights Watch put out a statement over the weekend
virtually applauding the fact that the AU did not call for withdrawal from ICC

According to the statement
issued in New York by Elise Keppler, HRW Associate International Justice
Director “at this summit, states reinforced the importance of the ICC when they
didn’t bite on possible withdrawal.”