South Africa, Research Network, Transnational Criminal Justice (former TRANSCRIM)

UWC Centres of Excellence training workshop on the new DigiFace digital teaching and learning platform

In the first week of December 2020, the two UWC DAAD Centres of Excellence – the South African-German Centre for Development Research SA-GER CDR and the South African German Centre for Transnational Criminal Justice TRANSCRIM – took part in a training workshop on the use of the new DigiFace digital teaching and learning platform. Colleagues from Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, who are managing partners of the DigiFace project, organized and run the training workshop in a venue close to Cape Town.

DigiFace – short for “Digital Initiative for African Centres of Excellence” – is a new project funded by DAAD that aims at supporting and facilitating Higher Education learning and research at all DAAD African Centres of Excellence. The project is strengthening the Centres’ digital competencies as well as the networking among all the Centres – between all institutions involved, between staff, students, and alumni.

Core element of the DigiFace-initiative is the creation and establishment of a central interactive digital platform which is based on the Moodle learning management system. Participants in the training workshop started to develop course material and got a good understanding of both theoretical and practical knowledge required to make full use of the different tools and facilities of the platform. The workshop that way supported both Centres in offering course designs suitable for blended and hybrid learning, – both essential elements of the current and future learning environment at UWC. The two Centres, going forward, are joining forces to promote the use of the new platform in their respective institutes, and to collaborate more closely within the digital infrastructure that the new DigiFace project provides.

Members and facilitators of the training workshop: (back row right to left): Prof. John-Mark Iyi (UWC / TRANSCRIM), Lance Scheepers (UWC / SA-GER CDR), Ruth Knoblich (UWC / SA-GER CDR), Dr. Nortje Windell (UWC / TRANSCRIM), Elmien Waring (NMU Port Elizabeth), and Mike Swanepoel (NMU Port Elizabeth); (front row right to left): Shamiso Mandioma (UWC / SA-GER CDR), Karlien Potgieter (NMU Port Elizabeth), Prof. Paul Webb (NMU Port Elizabeth), and Dr. Michael Nguatem Belebema (UWC / SA-GER CDR).

Alumni-Conference: “Transitional Justice in Sub-Saharan Africa” 20th – 24th November 2019 Berlin, Germany

The African-German Research Network for Transnational Criminal Justice (“Network”) held its first annual conference on “Transitional Justice in Sub-Saharan Africa” between 20th and 24th November 2019 in Berlin at Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. The Network was established after the 10-year-funding period for the South African-German Centre for Transnational Criminal Justice (“Centre”), which was supported by DAAD and offered an LL.M.- and PhD-Programme, has ended in 2018. It aims to provide the very successful Alumni of the Centre with the basis and the resources to further their academic and personal exchange. The Network is directed by Prof. Dr. Gerhard Werle at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and supported by DAAD and the German Federal Foreign Office.

In addressing legacies of gross human rights violations, Transitional Justice is usually considered as instrumental in establishing, amongst others, the rule of law, reconciliation, and democracy. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the approaches used over the last decades evince a lot of diversity, in the wake of many countries in the region recovering from protracted conflict or dictatorial regimes. Recent developments in countries such as Ethiopia, South Sudan, or Zimbabwe once more highlight the relevance of the field. While Transitional Justice mechanisms have to be tailored to meet the requirements of the specific situation, analyzing and comparing different approaches can provide valuable insights that can be used to develop best practices and improve the implementation of Transitional Justice.

For more information about the African-German Research Network for Transnational Criminal Justice visit


United States Foreign Policy, Global Magnisky Act &Social Media Monitoring in Uganda

United States Foreign Policy , Global Magnisky Act and Social Media Monitoring in Uganda


By Samuel Matsiko

Image may contain: 7 people, text that says '2020 UGANDA RECOVERED DEATHS RFr950: TSh1,600) @of /dailymonitor No.342 Covid-19 Who is allowed Jobs to import Covid Over jobs Save the Children, vaccine? ...P.5 Uganda Airlines Energy ministry, Tororo District Service Commission, Education Development Centre, etc DAILY MONITOR TRUTH Army, police chiefs Qoop Scandal after scandal in face US sanctions 2020 spotlight The US House Representatives committee on Foreign Affairs wants the top military and police fficers anctioned over theirrole abuses Jganda. Daputy nipeg* NEWSP Counter Terrorism ballot papers polioeunit. hendor Chieftainey MEPARTIES TRUST POLICEL LtGenPet BOBI Land MajGan TEARGAS incomingeom P.6 E GUARO AOAPERS DISMISSED MEMBERS'

On 27th August 2019,Ismail Ajjawi a  Palestinian student admitted to Harvard University was detained at Boston International Airport, denied entry into the United States and his visa was cancelled. According to a statement issued to the Harvard Crimson by Ismail Ajjawi, the immigration officers deported him after they disapproved of his friend’s political comments on social media. 

In the past few days, several Ugandan officials including the permanent secretary to the judiciary Pius Bigirimana, deputy secretary-general of the ruling National Resistance Movement party Richard Twondongo, National Resistance Movement deputy treasurer Keneth Omona, Spokesperson of the National Resistance Movement secretariat Rogers Mulindwwa, Army  General Peter Elewulu and assistant inspector of police Asuman Mugenyi were denied US visas on allegations of corruption and human rights violations.  

This comes weeks after the US Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctioned the former inspector general of  the Uganda police force General Kale Kayihura under the Global Magnitsky Act. The Department also publicly designated his spouse, Angela Umurisa Gabuka, his daughter, Tesi Uwibambe, and his son, Kale Rudahigwa.

However, we need to look way beyond the allegations of corruption and human rights violations and look at the digital footprint of these individuals and their affiliates. What social media data did some of these individuals submit during their visa applications? What is their social media inventory including that of their affiliates and superiors for the last five years?  How is social media monitoring shaping domestic and foreign policy? Why we need to pay attention to social media monitoring by Governments.

The United States federal government agencies, in particular, the Department of Homeland Security and the Customs and Border Protection Agency have expanded their social media monitoring programs. At the beginning of June 2019, the United States State Department issued a social media policy for all visa applications. The policy requires all visa applicants to submit social media accounts they have used in the last five years including emails and accounts with end to end encrypted messaging applications like WhatsApp and telegram.

Such social media account information would give the United States government access to photos, locations, dates of birth,  IP addresses, religious opinions, political opinions and other personal data commonly shared on social media. This would probably make the United States the social media data capital of the world considering the millions of annual United States visa application.

The United States  Customs and Border Protection Agency uses social media monitoring software. The most notable software is dunami a product of a silicon valley company PATHAR linked to a CIA venture capital firm called In-Q-Tel. These digital tools were initially designed to determine networks of association and the potential of radicalisation on the war on terror. However, the tools can also be used to collect data points on individuals who commit gross human rights violations. 

American soft power is declining in a world where the global agenda is shaped by Twitter feeds. Two years ago, President Donald Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, proclaimed a hard power budget that would have slashed funding for the State Department and the US Agency for International Development. Uganda is beginning to experience this American foreign policy hard power through the Global Magnisky Act.  The United States to deny several senior  Ugandan government officials visas after years of mutual cooperation is totally unprecedented. I may not have evidence to substantiate my arguments but the United States must have collected a treasure trove of data points on these individuals and their affiliates to have an evidence-based reason to deny them visas.

Uganda with a social media tax regime is a very unique country when it comes to social media. Interesting social media cases include but not limited to city lawyer Fred Muwema v Facebook, Havard Student Hillary Seguya’s suit against  President Yoweri Museveni for blocking him on Twitter and Dr Stella Nyanzi’s conviction for cyber harassment. 

This year the  Uganda Communications Commission a regulatory body hired a social media monitoring personnel and issued a policy for social media influencers to register with the commission. A time has come for Ugandans and the world to pay critical attention to their digital footprint. Social media and the Global Magnisky Act is influencing domestic and foreign policy way beyond our likes and shares.

Samuel Matsiko is a Ugandan lawyer and academic based in Amsterdam


Academic Persecution: Independent International Crime or Subject to a Connection Requirement?

Academic Persecution: Independent International Crime or Subject to a Connection Requirement?

Around the world today, Turkey, Hungary , China, Syria, Iran & Uganda, scholars  and academics are attacked because of their words,  ideas and their place in society. Those seeking power and control work to limit access to information and new ideas by targeting scholars, restricting academic freedom and repressing research, publication, teaching and learning.

Scholars ask difficult questions and that can be threatening to authorities whose power depends on controlling information and what people think. When academics are silenced or subjected to self censorship their communities are disadvantaged. Every year thousands of academics across the world are harassed, censored tortured and killed. The persecution of academics has occurred repeatedly in the course of human civilization. Notable examples are the migration of the Greek scholars from Constantinople to Italy, the expulsion of the Huguenots from France , the intelligenzaktion of scientists and academics in occupied Poland and the arrest of Sudanese  biology Professor Farouk Mohammed for teaching evolution.

On 2nd June 2019, I submitted an Article 15 communication to the Office of the Prosecutor(OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The communication calls upon the ICC to conduct a preliminary examination on persecution as a crime against humanity committed against scholars and academics in Uganda. However, the purpose of this article is not to discuss the merits of the communication but rather to moot the conversation on academic persecution and its place in international criminal law as an independent crime. Is persecution an independent international crime or does it require a connection element?

Article 7(1)(h) of ICC Statute ,Connection Requirement and Ambiguities

The crime of persecution has always been subject to debate and raises fundamental questions.

Is persecution an independent international crime ?

Does the crime of persecution require a connection element?

Article 7 of the ICC Statute in the verbatim states that a crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population,with knowledge of the attack The ICC statute further describes the crime of persecution in (Article7(1)h) :Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. The statute goes on to  provide that for the purposes of the above : Persecution means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.

The ICC elements of crime provides the following  constitutive elements for the crime of persecution including the mental element as follows:

  • The perpetrator severely deprived, contrary to international law, one or more persons of fundamental rights.

  • The perpetrator targeted such person or persons by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity or targeted the group or collectivity as such.

  • Such targeting was based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, of the Statute, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.

  • The conduct was committed in CONNECTION with any act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia(ICTY) has a measurable body of  jurisprudence when it comes to the international crime of persecution. For example, out of the ninety (90) who to date have been convicted by the ICTY, forty(40) had been charged with the crime of persecution. It is important to note that the crime of persecution was hardly applied in international or national law before the start of the ICTY proceedings. The ICTY case law dealing with the crime of persecution is one of the most important contributions of the ICTY to international criminal law. This body of jurisprudence clearly rejects that the crime of persecution needs to be subject to a connection requirement. The (ICTY), in the Kupreškič case, affirmed that:The Trial Chamber rejects the notion that persecution must be linked to crimes found elsewhere in the Statute of the International Tribunal.

The other dilemma that has emerged is the problematic formulation by the International Law Commission (ILC) work on the proposed crimes against humanity convention. The ILC formulation provides for a rather troubling connection requirement for the crime of persecution with specificity to geneocide and war crimes. Article 3(1)(h) of the Draft ILC Articles reads as follows: Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or in connection with the crime of genocide or war crimes. The chairman of the ILC drafting committee Mr. Mathias Forteau stated in his report that the act of persecution defined in sub-paragraph (h) refers to any act “in connection with the crime of genocide or war crimes” while the ICC Statute refers to “any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court”.

I do argue that the use of the terms “in connection with” is vague, problematic and susceptible to many interpretations and misinterpretations. In sum these ambiguities trigger the need to moot a conversation on the international crime of persecution especially the persecution of scholars and academics and its place in international criminal law. Is it an independent international crime without a nexus to other crimes?If i  were to give the text of the statute its ordinary meaning or interpretation, persecution as a crime against humanity is an independent international crime without the need for a connection requirement. To my knowledge the connection requirement has no basis in international law and was merely a juridictional filter by the drafters of the text.

Scholars like Professor Gerhard Werle in the second edition of his book principles of international criminal law explained that “The requirement of a connection was intended to take account of the concerns about the breadth of the crime of persecution. With this accessorial design, the ICC Statute lags behind customary international law, since the crime of persecution, like crimes against humanity, has developed into an independent crime

Academics and scholars do belong to an identifiable group or collectively because of their scholarship. Perpetrators especially repressive and dictatorial regimes target such person or persons by reason of their identity as a group. The perpetrators often severely deprive, contrary to international law, one or more persons of fundamental rights. It is important to note that the crime of persecution as a crime against humanity is not about numbers, the text of the elements of crimes uses the wordperson or persons”. In Turkey as of 2016 approximately 23,400 academics were persecuted by the Turkish authorities. In Uganda as of December 2018 Dr. Stella Nyanzi was arrested and 45 academics at Makerere university were sacked without due process. The appaling  emergence of  academic perseuction across the globe needs to be viewed from an international criminal justice persective.

In sum the travaux preparatoires among government delegates during the negotiations of the ICC Statute clearly illustrates that the connection requirement was simply a compromise clause and merely a jurisdictional filter. I do believe that the requirement of a connection to other crimes was simply used as jurisdictional filter considering the scope of persecution as an international crime. The unsettled field of international criminal law often tends to create new constituencies that ought to be subjected to further academic interrogation. The need to moot a conversation on academic persecution as an international crime  is not only neccesary it is timely.

Samuel Matsiko is a research fellow at the Amsterdam Center for War Reparations.He is also an early-career investigator  with the EU Cost ActionJustice360– Global Atrocity Justice Constellations”  .


Interview with Dr. Fatuma Mninde-Silungwe // 2nd DAAD Alumni Conference

“African women need to be economically empowered!”

Dr. Fatuma Mninde-Silungwe is a lawyer from Malawi and Alumna from the South African German Center for Transnational Criminal Justice. The interview took place during the 2nd DAAD Centers for African Excellence Alumni Conference in Akosombo, Ghana, where Fatuma held a presentation which was titled: Contributing to the Achievement of the SDG 16 on Peace, Justice and strong Institutions through Training in Transnational Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention in Africa.

She has done research in International Criminal Law and in Electoral Law. Her fields of interest include International Criminal Law, Criminal Justice, Elections, Human Rights and Good Governance. She currently works as a Legal Analyst on Elections with the United Nations Development Program in Malawi.


May you introduce yourself to the readers?

Dr. Silungwe: My name is Dr. Fatuma Silungwe. I am an Alumna of the South African – German Center for Transnational Criminal Justice.

What did you study?

Dr. Silungwe: I studied law at the University of Malawi. In my Masters level, I studied for an LL.M. and Transnational Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention which I completed in 2013 with a cum laude. During my LL.M studies, I specialized in Anti Money Laundering, Anti-corruption, International Criminal Law and Transitional Justice. Then I proceeded to do my PhD in International Criminal Law. My PhD research was on Regionalization of International Criminal Justice in Africa and I graduated on 27 August 2018.

Have you studied abroad?

Dr. Silungwe: My first time to study abroad was for my Masters when I went to do my Masters in South Africa after I got a DAAD scholarship. When I was doing my PhD I also stayed in Berlin for some time and in Cape Town for some time. Those were the two experiences that I have stayed and studied abroad for a longer period of time. In another case it was just for a short period of time when I came to Ghana once for a certificate course in legislative drafting.

How did the DAAD grab your attention?

Dr. Silungwe: A friend of mine got a DAAD scholarship some years before I went to do my Masters. She forwarded to me a Call for Applications for a DAAD scholarship to study an LL.M in Transnational Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention. Before that, I did not know about that kind of scholarship but when she forwarded it to me I applied and was fortunate enough to be considered.

What kind of influence did the scholarship have on your career?

Dr. Silungwe: I would say my career has progressed, because when I joined the program, to do my Masters, I was working for the Government of Malawi as a State Advocate. After my Masters I was able to get the job where I work now with the United Nations Development Program as a Legal Analyst. The Minimum qualification was a Master of Law Degree so – obviously – If I did not have it, then I would not gotten that job. So yes, the scholarship has influenced my career progression.  I also think with the qualifications I have acquired, I believe that I will be able to get other opportunities, whether within the same institution or in other institutions.

Do you have children?

Dr. Silungwe: I don’t have children.

Do you think the DAAD scholarship can help women to combine career and family?

Dr. Silungwe: I think it does. I’ve seen others who have benefitted from DAAD scholarships getting a stipend for their children and even for their husband when they are studying abroad. So, it helps the family to be together, especially when such kind of funding is provided to cater for family members.

Apart from the family, what does a scholarship mean for women?

Dr. Silungwe: One key issue in terms of us African women is that we need to be economically empowered! And with more education comes more opportunities remunerable employment. I am economically empowered because I am educated. That’s important for a woman. Apart from economic empowerment, advancement in education enables women to contribute and influence policy from an informed point of view. Such policies include policies that encourage inclusion of women in different areas of the economy and governance of different African countries.

Regarding the empowerment of African women, I think, we can do more. So what do you think can the DAAD improve when it comes to the empowerment of women?

Dr. Silungwe: I think DAAD can do more in terms of opening up opportunities for qualified women enable them access education, because most of such women are not able to get funding to go and study abroad or even within their countries. As such by providing scholarship opportunities for them, women will be able to access education which is really important. In addition, in terms of research within the DAAD Centers of Excellence, the research could focus on how gender can be mainstreamed in all the courses that the Centers cover, because I believe gender is an overarching issue whether we are studying International Criminal Law, Transitional Justice or other courses. So DAAD should support the Centers to ensure that they are including gender in their course work.

We are now talking about Africa respectively Sub-Saharan Africa and I’m wondering, because not every country has the same development issues. So to what extent can we talk about Africa in general?

Dr. Silungwe: It’s important to note that Africa is a continent of 54 countries and each country has its own social-economic development issues. It’s not good to generalize and to say: Africa is this and that. You need to go the individual countries and regions and assess what kind of needs those countries have.  As such, when designing any program at a country-level, it should be a program that will fit the needs of that particular country, not just putting Africa on one platter.

In the European perception Africa is still often considered as “one country”.

Dr. Silungwe: Well, there is the European Union with different countries and we have the African Union with 54 countries. It’s important that people are aware of that.

Thank you very much, Dr. Silungwe.



The Interview was held by Lani Marie Doehring, a Student Assistant at GGCDS (Ghanaian-German Center for Development Studies) at the Center for Development Research Bonn, Germany.



Report on the Launch of the edited book ‘The African Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Malabo Protocol’

On 28 February 2017, the South African-German Centre for Transnational Criminal Justice (‘Centre’) launched the book: ‘The African Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Malabo Protocol edited by Professor Gerhard Werle and Dr. Moritz Vormbaum. The keynote lecture was held by Professor Dire Tladi, University of Pretoria, one of the contributing writers in the book, at the Law Faculty, University of the Western Cape. The book is volume 10 of the International Criminal Justice Series published by TMC Asser Press. The launch was attended by several guests including the Dean of the Law Faculty of the University of the Western Cape, the Directors of the Centre, Professors from the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch, LLM and PhD students of the Centre and staff of the Law Faculty.

The history of the book dates back to 2011 when a student of the LLM programme wrote a thesis on the idea of establishing an African Criminal Court. In 2014 when the African Union, adopted the Malabo Protocol, which aims to empower the African Court of Justice and Humans Rights with jurisdiction over international crimes, the Centre thought to comment on it, which culminated into the Berlin summer school symposium in 2015 that hosted presentations which form content of the book. The approach of the book is to avoid a ‘friend or foe approach’ to the Malabo Protocol, it looks into the actual content of the Protocol, it analyses, among others, the definition of crimes and the controversial immunity clause as well as the proposed Court’s relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC). The book also includes annexures of materials related to the African Criminal Court.

Key Note Address by Professor Dire Tladi

Following the brief introductory remarks on the African Criminal Court by the Director of the Centre, Professor Werle, and a short introduction of the keynote speaker by Co-ordinator of the Centre Dr. Vormbaum, Prof Tladi started his address by commenting on recent and unfolding events around international criminal justice. Tladi framed his lecture on three issues of particular interest in debates on Africa and the ICC from a South African context. These include the alleged ICC bias against African States, immunities under international law as well as the constitutional law impasse on whether or not South Africa needs a parliamentary approval to leave the ICC. All other questions that arise in the context of the Africa v ICC debate according to Tladi fall essentially within these three subjects.


According to Tladi, the claim that the AU is biased is often based on statistics. The contention is that one has only to look at the nine situations before the ICC to make a determination on whom it targets. Those who support the ICC counter this claim also by referring to statistics. The argument here is that most of these situations are self-referrals, thus claims of bias against African States are unfounded. The ICC, in fact,  claims that in other situations in which it is expected to act, the court does not have jurisdiction. Tladi argued that both positions are problematic. In the former argument, he noted that anti-ICC rhetoric in Africa arose after 2008 even though earlier than 2008 all situations before the ICC were from Africa. This gives rise to speculation that perhaps this is a dress up reason for the discontent with the ICC. According to Tladi, the latter argument does not stand either because it is not true that the ICC does not have jurisdiction in situations in which it would otherwise wish to act. Situations in Afghanistan or in Palestine were examples of these. However, the ICC had only taken extremely long drawn preliminary investigations, which were yet to be concluded in both situations. Thus Tladi argued that the claim of bias was actually an issue of power politics rather than skewed numbers. The AU would like to see the ICC go after powerful hegemonies, examples are the US and its allies. However, Tladi noted that while the ICC might desire to prosecute nationals of these countries, it is an overtly difficult political issue.

Immunities under International Law

The ICC has had occasion to deliberate over a number of cases on the failure to arrest President Omar Hassan Ahmed Al Bashir. South African domestic courts have two decisions on the issue. Of the total courts involved, only one court was correct on its interpretation of international law according to Tladi. The approach in both those cases basically has two strands. The first aspect emanate from the Malawi and Chad strand when they found themselves in the position South Africa found itself, with Al-Bashir in their territory and them failing to arrest him. The ICC found that both countries had the obligation to arrest him under Article 27 of the Rome Statute because there was no immunity before the ICC. The problem with this reasoning according to Tladi is that Article 27 speaks about immunity before the ICC, not immunity before the Malawian authorities. The Court he argued, had essentially merged these two issues and concluded that because Al-Bashir does not have immunity before the ICC, he lacked the same under Malawian law. The ICC completely ignored the fact that the Rome Statute itself recognises the possibility of immunity under customary international law and essentially provides that the court should not request cooperation if it would violate international law.

The ICC again had occasion to settle the same issues in the Democratic Republic of Congo (‘DRC’) case, needless to say, it came to the same conclusion; i.e., it decided that the DRC was in violation of its cooperation obligations in failing to arrest Al Bashir while he was in that country. However, in the DRC case, the Court essentially reversed itself completely and found that in fact, as a general point of departure, a head of state of a non-party state would ordinarily enjoy immunity under the Rome Statute. However, this is dubious because under the Rome Statute any accused does not have immunity before the ICC, thus this decision also was misguided according to Tladi. The question then was whether there is a legal duty for third states to arrest Al Bashir. Here, the Court decided that even though Bashir ordinarily would have had immunity before the ICC, he could not enjoy immunity in casu because his arrest arose in the context of the UNSC referral and because Sudan had a duty to cooperate. However, the UNSC resolution on Sudan does not reflect this position according to Tladi. Interestingly, even though the ICC came to the same conclusions on the facts in the Malawi and Chad cases as well as in the DRC case, the reasoning in both is inconsistent, in fact exclusively.

The High Court in Pretoria, in turn, rendered an even more problematic decision on 23rd June 2015 in that its reasoning merged the problems in all the other cases. However, Tladi opined, the Supreme Court of South Africa had come to a right conclusion as far as the interpretation of international law was concerned. It found that there was an international law duty not to arrest Al Bashir. Its point of departure, however, was that this did not matter because the South African domestic law required his arrest. Tladi then concluded that in his opinion there was no duty under international law for South Africa to arrest Al Bashir. It is important to note that there will always be a conflict of obligations as soon as Al Bashir lands in an ICC member state and these are some of the impasses that are inherent in international law.

Constitutional Law and Parliamentary Approval

On the question whether or not South Africa can withdraw from the ICC without the approval of the South African parliament, Tladi opined that it makes little sense that the South African government did not seek parliamentary approval to leave the ICC simply because it would not be difficult to get such approval. The argument essentially in the case was that since parliament approved ratification of the Rome Statute, it should approve cancellation of the same. However, Tladi argued that this does not necessarily have to be the position. He was of the opinion that parliamentary approval for leaving the ICC was not necessary because approval did not imply that parliament obliged the executive to become part of the treaty. Parliamentary approval merely gave permission to exercise a choice to become part thereof. Thus it would not make logical sense that the executive seek approval of parliament to leave the ICC.

It is worth noting that, on 7 March 2016, the South African government had revoked its withdrawal notice from the ICC.

Status Quo

There will be a hearing in The Hague on the 7th April 2017 on whether or not South Africa violated its obligations in its failure to arrest Bashir. Tladi preempted that the ICC would come to the same conclusion as it had consistently done in all Bashir matters. Secondly, he communicated that the South African government was contemplating on whether or not to appeal the decision of the Pretoria High Court. However, if this contemplation was based on legal considerations only, Tladi recommended that this would not be an ideal solution. On the other hand, if the government does not appeal, it means that the order of the court will be executed. Parliament will likely pass approval of the process to leave before the Supreme Court gets the opportunity to deliberate on an appeal. It thus seems futile to launch an appeal.

Tladi’s address ended with a question and answer session in which he emphasised that the problems within the ICC are not new, they are problems inherent in international institutions like the United Nations. However, this does not necessarily imply that the remedial action is to leave these institutions but rather to work out these problems within the institution itself.


Written by Thato Toeba