The International Criminal Court (ICC) asked Malawi for an explanation as to why the country had not arrested Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir during his visit to Malawi last month. Malawi explained that although it continues to commit itself to the Rome Statute the government found that because Sudan is not a party to the Statute, Malawi could not waive any immunities under Article 27 that it would otherwise provide to the Heads of State. Malawi further argued that it agreed with the position of the African Union that no African leader should have to be brought to the Hague and should otherwise be tried in Africa. The Malawian President would see the act of bringing Bashir to the Hague as undermining the African judicial system. President Mutharika is arguing that the ICC should not be given jurisdiction of the case because courts in Africa are able and competent. However, this case was referred to by the United Nations, in which case the ICC is given jurisdiction. There is a definite need for the international community to cooperate with the ICC and adhere to the jurisdiction it is given in order to give the court a chance. Efforts made by Western countries to take a stance on the issue is important to set an president for what is expected and to add legitimacy to the ICC. Some western countries have already pulled around $1 billion of aid from Malawi for its own human rights abuses and for hosting Bashir, a known wanted war criminal. It is important for the United States to also suspend aid to show that it will not tolerate Malawi's allowance of immunities to Bashir, but it is of further importance that other countries outside of western governments take a stand so to orchestrate a more universal acknowledgment of the ICC and its jurisdiction.
To read more:http://www.sudantribune.com/Malawi-explains-to-ICC-why-it-didn,40711
-Kathleen Fultz
No comments:
Post a Comment