In an unprecedented joint statement issued Monday evening, the governments of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger declared their withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC), describing the institution as a “colonial tool of imperial repression.”
This decision marks a dramatic shift in the political orientation of the Sahel region following a wave of military coups between 2020 and 2023. It also raises pressing questions about the future of international justice across Africa.
Regional Context and Historical Grievances
The Sahel has long grappled with instability, armed insurgencies, and eroding public trust in international institutions. Accusations of Western double standards have fueled skepticism, particularly toward the ICC, which has faced criticism for disproportionately targeting African leaders.
While the Court handed down landmark convictions—such as a 30-year sentence for Congolese warlord Bosco Ntaganda and 10 years for Malian jihadist Al Hassan—it also acquitted high-profile figures like former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, his ally Charles Blé Goudé, and former Congolese Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba.
Earlier this year, Hungary also announced its withdrawal from the ICC in protest of an arrest warrant issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In 2016, Gambia, South Africa, and Burundi signaled intentions to leave the Court, though Gambia and South Africa later reversed their decisions.
Legal Ramifications of Withdrawal
Despite the immediate announcement, the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—requires a one-year waiting period after formal notification to the UN Secretary-General before withdrawal becomes effective. During this interim, the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed within these countries or by their nationals. Ongoing investigations will remain unaffected.
Stated Justifications and Alternative Vision
The joint communiqué from the three Sahel governments accused the ICC of selective enforcement, claiming it fails to address war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression outside Africa. The statement also outlined plans to establish a regional criminal court for the Sahel, alongside domestic mechanisms to uphold justice and peace—reflecting a broader push for institutional sovereignty and independence from international oversight.
Human Rights Concerns and International Response
While Western capitals have yet to issue formal reactions, human rights organizations have voiced alarm. Amnesty International called the move “a dangerous step backward in the fight against impunity,” warning that it undermines justice for victims of grave crimes. “It’s an insult to survivors,” said Marceau Sivieude, Amnesty’s regional director for West and Central Africa. “Leaving the Rome Statute will harm future access to justice for those who cannot find it at home.”
ReliefWeb, a UN-affiliated humanitarian platform, cautioned that the withdrawal could weaken accountability and deprive Sahelian populations of international human rights protections during conflict.
Though largely symbolic for now, the decision carries significant legal and political weight. For Sahel governments, it signals a reassertion of sovereignty. For critics, it risks dismantling the fragile architecture of international justice and eroding the principle of accountability
