{UAH} Uganda is right to question the International Criminal Court By Beti Kamya-Turwomwe

Uganda is right to question the International Criminal Court
By Beti Kamya-Turwomwe

It is a pity that the average debate on whether or not Uganda should pull out of the International Criminal Court (ICC), like most debates in Uganda, is politically partisan rather than objective!

The ICC was conceptualised as a court of last resort and enacted under the Rome Statute to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity, where States are unable or unwilling to do so through their own judicial systems.
While the ICC spirit is commendable for "standing up to Goliath", it should never replace the need to build credible national judicial systems, for the simple reason that by its very nature (of being accountable to 122 member states, each with its own interests), the ICC is vulnerable to political pressures. Indeed, it is for that reason that the USA, Israel and China pulled out of the ICC.

Israel fears the "inevitable political pressure on the ICC…, and believes the geographical appointment of judges would disadvantage her…"
The USA argues that (i) the ICC is a political court without Appeal, it would deny USA citizens their right of appeal - that offends the USA Constitution, (ii) submitting to the ICC would be tantamount to cession of judicial authority to another body other than the USA Supreme Court, which is unconstitutional.
Contrary to the ICC spirit, the USA (i) passed the American Service members Protection Act, (dubbed "The Hague Invasion Act"), which provides for immunity from prosecution, of American soldiers, outside USA jurisdiction, when they commit crimes during war (ii) signed Bilateral Immunity Agreements with 101 of the 122 ICC Member States, prohibiting the surrender to the ICC by those States, of any USA national, (iii) threatened to veto renewal of all UN peacekeeping missions unless her troops were granted immunity from ICC.

So Americans can go anywhere, terrorise the world and go home safe and sound, under the cover of the Bilateral Immunity Agreements that protects them from the ICC, yet the ICC is the court of last resort!

But when it is convenient, the USA can use her seat and veto power on the UN Security Council to refer other nationals to the ICC, an institution she snubbed!

China's concern, among other things, is that the ICC prosecutor's immense power under the Rome Statute, plus the "open cheque" to determine the various nation's ability or willingness to conduct free trials make him / her vulnerable to political influence.

China's fears came to pass when Sudan's President Omar el Bashir was referred to the ICC for investigation by the UN Security Council, although Sudan is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. Clearly, the UN Security Council does not rate as crime-against-humanity enough to refer to the ICC, the consequences of former US President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's lies about the elusive weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the invasion of Libya, the civil war in Syria, or the atrocities meted against Palestinians by Israel.

But when Kenyans were trying to put their past behind them and elect a new government under a new Constitution, the West would not let them, with their threats of "decisions have consequences…" China can rest her case.
Surely, are these not reasons enough (there are scores more but for lack of space!) for Uganda to question to whom the ICC is accountable, and demand a review of the Rome Statue?

The ICC might or might not work in one's favour depending on the USA / Israel's interests of the day. It is, therefore, shortsighted to subject our quest for justice to such external whims. Instead of defending or criticising the ICC, we should discuss how to build our own credible judicial system, accountable to Ugandans, rather than to the vagaries of USA / Israel foreign policy, channeled through the ICC.

Ms Kamya is the president, Uganda Federal Alliance. ufapresident@gmail.com

--
H.OGWAPITI
-----------------------------------------------------
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that  we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic  and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt