Skip to main content

Kenya MPs urge withdrawal from war crimes court

Thursday, December 23 02:51 pm

Kenyan lawmakers have passed a motion urging the government to withdraw from the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court.

The move by parliament is an attempt to block proceedings against six prominent Kenyans who were named by the ICC last week and face charges of crimes against humanity over 2007-8 post-election violence.
"This house resolves that... the government takes appropriate action to withdraw from the Rome Statute," read the motion, which was overwhelmingly approved by acclamation late Wednesday.

The motion came exactly a week after the world court's prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, revealed the names of the six for whom he requested summonses over their role in the violence that tore Kenya apart three years ago.
Among them are key political figures such as Finance Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, who is also a deputy prime minister and the son of the country's founding president.

If ICC judges accept Ocampo's evidence against the six as sufficient, they can issue summonses.
If the suspects do not voluntarily present themselves in The Hague, arrest warrants can then be issued. As a signatory of the Rome Statute establishing the court, Kenya would be under the obligation to arrest them.
Several leading members of parliament rose to defend the motion on Wednesday, arguing that the ICC case was a manifestation of Western imperialism.
"It is only Africans from former colonies who are being tried at the ICC. No American or British will be tried at the ICC and we should not willingly allow ourselves to return to colonialism," Energy Minister Kiraitu Murungi said.
The motion argued that the new constitution adopted by Kenya in August obviated the need for the masterminds of the post-election violence to be tried by a foreign court.
It demanded "that any criminal investigations or prosecutions arising out of the post-election violence of 2007-8 be undertaken under the framework of the new constitution."
Around 1,500 people were killed in the aftermath of the disputed December 2007 presidential poll and hundreds of thousands were displaced.

Trade Minister Chirau Mwakwere urged other African nations to withdraw from the Rome Statute and said he felt ashamed to have been among the officials who signed it in 2005, when he was foreign minister.
All suspects in the ICC's five ongoing cases are Africans



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ?

Pourquoi les sanctions amĂ©ricaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ? Auteur : The African Rights Campaign. Londres, Royaume-Uni PubliĂ© en : mars 2026   Introduction Lorsqu'un gouvernement est accusĂ© d'exĂ©cutions extrajudiciaires, de dĂ©placements massifs, de violences sexuelles, de violations des droits de l'homme et du pillage systĂ©matique des ressources naturelles d'un pays voisin, la rĂ©ponse diplomatique attendue est un dĂ©menti catĂ©gorique, Ă©tayĂ© par des preuves. Le Rwanda ne l'a pas fait. Lorsque le dĂ©partement amĂ©ricain du TrĂ©sor a imposĂ© des sanctions aux Forces de dĂ©fense rwandaises (FDR) et Ă  quatre de leurs commandants les plus haut placĂ©s, le 2 mars 2026, la porte-parole officielle de Kigali, Yolande Makolo, a dĂ©livrĂ© une dĂ©claration que les analystes diplomatiques Ă©tudieront attentivement pour ce qu'elle omet conspicuement. Elle a dit que les sanctions Ă©taient « injustes », qu'elles ciblaient « uniquement...

Le Rwanda au Mozambique : qui les a placés là, pourquoi ils ne peuvent pas rester et pourquoi la SADC doit les remplacer avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents

  Qui a placĂ© le Rwanda lĂ -bas, pourquoi la France refuse de le remplacer, comment le dĂ©ploiement est devenu un bouclier contre les sanctions, et pourquoi la SADC doit agir avant que les dĂ©gâts ne deviennent permanents Mars 2026   RĂ©sumĂ© exĂ©cutif Les sanctions occidentales contre les Forces de DĂ©fense du Rwanda (RDF), imposĂ©es par les États-Unis le 2 mars 2026 en vertu du Global Magnitsky Act et relayĂ©es par une pression croissante de l'Union europĂ©enne, ont mis Ă  nu une contradiction stratĂ©gique de premier ordre. La mĂŞme force militaire sanctionnĂ©e pour son soutien opĂ©rationnel direct au groupe rebelle M23 en RĂ©publique dĂ©mocratique du Congo est simultanĂ©ment le principal garant sĂ©curitaire d'un projet de gaz naturel liquĂ©fiĂ© (GNL) de 20 milliards de dollars exploitĂ© par le gĂ©ant français TotalEnergies Ă  Cabo Delgado, dans le nord du Mozambique. Cette analyse rĂ©pond Ă  trois questions interconnectĂ©es dont les rĂ©ponses dĂ©finissent ...

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important Author: The African Rights Campaign. London, UK Published: March 2026   Introduction When a government is accused of extrajudicial killings, mass displacement, sexual violence, human rights abuses, and the systematic pillage of another country's mineral resources, the expected response in international diplomacy is an unequivocal denial backed by evidence. Rwanda did not do that. When the United States Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its most senior commanders on 2 March 2026, Kigali's official spokesperson Yolande Makolo made a statement that diplomatic analysts will study carefully for what it conspicuously omitted. She said the sanctions were 'unjust,' that they targeted 'only one party to the peace process,' and that they 'misrepresent the reality and distort the facts.' Rwanda's government, described by Bloomb...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute