The President of the International Criminal Court was on TV recently. The BBC’s interviewer, Stephen Sackur, might have thought he could beat Chile Eboe-Osuji with some hard-to-answer questions. But he got more than he bargained for. Osuji showed he knew his terrain. He showed that much sophistication expected of a judge and an international figure in his responses. I’m proud of him, and I don’t state this just because he’s a Nigerian.
That time, the BBC interviewer came out firing as usual and I was concerned he might make Eboe-Osuji look bad in the eyes of the global audience. Midway into the session, however, I was already applauding the judge. Sackur asked some of his questions based on the criticisms of the ICC which were out there. I had made submissions on some of such issues on this page in the past. But one of the latest issues raised when Eboe-Osuji sat opposite Sackur was the extent America had made up its mind to work against the ICC. The US, just because it doesn’t want its military operations across the globe to be questioned, has never liked the ICC. When the Court called to account the action of some of its soldiers in Afghanistan, the US threatened the ICC, calling it names and imposing sanctions on members of the Court. The ICC prosecutor has remained adamant though
Sackur stated that the US was so powerful that no one ever successfully dared it. So how did Oboe-Osuji’s court think it could withstand the US? In my assessment, the judge’s response contained what he actually said and what he diplomatically chose to not say. In that I saw class. But even here I was initially concerned that he might give a response that would further aggravate the tension, causing the US officials to dig in their heels in this unpredictable season in Washington DC. He didn’t. Instead, what I heard was what I expected of a person who was circumspect, a man who was as polished on the bench and he was in public communication. He did say the ICC had been called many names by many people, but he gave reasons why his court didn’t deserve such uncomplimentary names. He said his court wouldn’t touch a case where the state concerned had actually taken action. It’s when a state refuses to do this that the ICC takes interest. In spite of the reservations expressed by some, he said the interest of justice would have to continue to be served and that’s what his Court is doing.
Oboe-Osuji added that the ICC didn’t set out to offend anyone. It’s just that its judges have resolved to do what is right with regard to any case of crime against humanity wherever it happens. He reminded the BBC that this was the reason so many nations came together and ensured the UN established the ICC. He pointed out that European nations remained enthusiastic supporters of the ICC. And so are Africans. At least many informed Nigerians are. The last time the former President, Goodluck Jonathan, wasn’t distancing Nigeria from the effort by Kenya to form an alliance and withdraw African nations from the ICC, I reported him to Nigerians (The PUNCH, ‘Reporting Mr President to Nigerians’, September 20, 2013). I gave my reasons at the time as to why the then Nigerian president would be encouraging impunity across Africa if he joined any move by some African nations to withdraw from the ICC.
On the BBC, Eboe-Osuji was also asked why, in spite of harsh criticisms, he thought the ICC deserved to be sustained. The University of Calabar graduate said being criticised was normal; it would help the Court improve in relevant areas. The important thing is that the ICC is pursuing a lofty goal and it doesn’t want to lose focus of that for which it is set up. Needless to state that Eboe-Osuji’s kind of answers are what I expect. I’m ever keen to hear people like him talk, and I picked valuable lessons from his intelligent, measured responses. It was the reason I watched the full interview anyway. For some of us, he didn’t need to defend the ICC. We’re already fans of his Court.
He spoke at length about the objectives for establishing the body. To him, the fact that the ICC is in existence in the first place means there’s a place where people could seek redress. He did concede that there were rooms for improvement, but as far as he was concerned a world without the ICC would be a world where injustice reigned. It’s not the kind of world he would like to see. It’s not what I like to see either. It was the reason I had marvelled when some Africans sided with African leaders who argued that the ICC focused on prosecuting African leaders alone. They missed the point, focusing instead on peripheral issues.
The point is that with the ICC, no one, Africans or non-Africans, who dehumanises others can forever hide from justice. If they’re left off the hook at home, the Hague is there waiting. If the ICC prosecuted more Africans in its early days, I don’t believe it’s deliberate. In one of my earliest pieces on the ICC, I stated how I thought Africans who should gain the most from the existence of the ICC were being deceptively persuaded to believe African leaders were victimised. If an African leader doesn’t show cruelty to their citizens, he has no business fearing the ICC. I had also noted at the time that it would take someone who didn’t know a bit about the past to join any group to badmouth the ICC.
A body similar to the ICC but which was later disbanded was established after the World War II. That Tribunal focused on Europeans, especially Germans, who perpetrated crimes against humanity in the course of the war. After years of thinking about it, the ICC finally came into existence at the time an African, Kofi Anan, was in the driving seat at the UN. This was close to the period a series of atrocities were committed across Africa, including the killing of almost a million people in Rwanda. Added to that were cases of African leaders who wanted to grab power by all means, setting ethnic groups against one another to achieve their goals as was the case in Kenya. Also, there were leaders who wanted to remain in power illegitimately as happened in Cote d’ivoire, and in the process they wasted people.
I reckon if such leaders ended at the ICC, it wouldn’t be the fault of the body, or that it deliberately targeted them. This is more so as its statutes mandate it to take on cases where the nation concerned doesn’t show the willingness to prosecute offenders, a phenomenon most common in Africa. Perhaps it says much about us, as I once noted, that the outside world once again intervenes in Africa in the form of the ICC. I don’t see this pattern changing for as long as we continue to run Africa in the manner we do. When democracy, rather than military rule, was to stay on the continent after the end of the Cold War, it took the intervention of Europe. In West Africa, especially, the EU made regular election a condition for its assistance from the 1990s onward, and that was one way military interventions were reduced. Equally, it was in this same period in the 20th century that foreigners came in as colonialists and forcefully stopped domestic slavery in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, the BBC also picked on the criticism by some that the ICC judges asked for better pay. There was this suave manner Eboe-Osuji responded to this, saying the judges were asking for a humble raise from 200 to 250 Euro as wages. According to him, this was not anywhere near the 1.5 million Euros which some top journalists received. For obvious reasons, this caused Sackur some discomfiture, and he smiled, making an effort to stop Osuji from pursuing that line of argument. It’s what happens when an interviewee is on top of the issues he’s discussing. By the way, in case Osuji needs any form of support for the ICC to function effectively, he should feel free to come home and ask. I’m confident all Nigerians will join him to ask the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), to grant his requests.
END
Be the first to comment