In Shelving Kenyatta Trial, ICC Confronts Limited Options in Africa

In Shelving Kenyatta Trial, ICC Confronts Limited Options in Africa
Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta waves to the crowd as Kenya celebrates 50 years of independence in Nairobi, Kenya, Dec. 12, 2013 (AP photo by Sayyid Azim).

On Sept. 5, the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) announced it was “indefinitely” halting its prosecution of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who is on trial for allegedly directing the ethnic violence that followed the country’s 2007 elections. The presiding ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, claimed that amid many delays since the start of the trial, the evidence required to bring a case against Kenyatta had still not materialized. But other factors may be at play: The lapsed prosecution, in fact, appears to reflect the limited authority of the ICC as well as unease over global governance jurisdiction in sub-Saharan Africa.

Key witnesses have withdrawn testimony since Bensouda first charged Kenyatta with crimes against humanity in 2011, two years before Kenyatta’s election as president. The case was also held back by the refusal of the Kenyan government to provide requested phone and bank records. Bensouda and the ICC have alleged that Kenyan officials intimidated witnesses. But that should have been expected, especially after Kenyatta assumed the presidency in 2013. The ICC can hardly expect to gather evidence in a sovereign country in order to prosecute and potentially remove its sitting president without interference.

In addition to the ICC’s limited prosecution toolkit, in Kenyatta’s case it was surely keen to avoid another long-running embarrassment in which an active head of state operated in disregard of the court. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted in 2009, had his first ICC arrest warrant issued that same year and his second arrest warrant issued in 2010—and yet he still leads Sudan to this day. The ICC’s inability to enforce its ruling on a sitting head of state in a sovereign country is understandable. But Bashir’s visits to China, the Middle East and much of Africa without consequence places the court in the awkward position of being repeatedly reminded of its limited authority.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.

More World Politics Review