Nigeria will light a matchstick

Nigerians are patting one another on the back. President Goodluck Jonathan takes the lead. The number one citizen is delighted because his nation secured two international victories within five days. One is the victory of Super Eagles over Ethiopia in a World Cup qualifying match; the other is the non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council that comes Nigeria’s way. So, the President congratulates Nigerians and makes promises. For the UN Security Council seat in particular, he assures the global community that Nigeria will continue to ensure peace and security both in Africa and the rest of the world. This promise makes one remember another promise Nigeria seems prepared to break – its commitment to the UN’s International Criminal Court treaty it had signed. This can only be what this nation intends to do by being found among African nations that issue threats to the ICC. For there’s only one summary to the threat to withdraw from the ICC made by nations that were present at the last African Union meeting in Ethiopia: Don’t think of bringing justice to bear on leaders who visit misery on their helpless people. But this is essentially the voice of people in power, not traumatised Africans. It’s the voice of politicians, not those of the children made fatherless in Kenya, the widows in the Sudan, and the helpless majority that sit-tight leaders must of necessity suppress in places such as Cameroon and Burkina Faso. This is one reason a former UN Secretary General, Kofi Anan, says the voices against the ICC mean “individual interests of leaders have been misconstrued as interests of their country.” As this piece will show, Nigeria has no business being in the front seat at any meeting where issuing threats to the ICC is the agenda. And if it takes the front seat, it means this nation is bent on lighting a matchstick in a room filled with fume of cooking gas.

For long, the United Nations has recognised the need to establish an international criminal court to prosecute crimes like genocide. In Resolution 260 of December 9, 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The ICC is not the first UN body to try people for crimes. Tribunals had tried German war leaders after the Second World War. There had been the trial of war leaders after the breakup of Yugoslavia. Europeans were the major targets on both occasions. At the moment, it so happened that most of the mind-blowing human rights abuses that go on across countries are committed on the African continent. Of course, this is where kegs of gunpowder of state oppression and suppression that trigger violence are stockpiled the most. Or what does anyone expect when leaders regularly thwart the will of the masses even at the voting booth? Also, much of the misrule and war situations during which abuses are committed happen on the continent. But it should not be forgotten that the ICC only gets involved in states where concerned governments show no willingness to bring offenders to justice, or, where there seems not to be structures adequately empowered to so do. This also obtains mostly in Africa. So, if any Nigerian joins the bandwagon of those who say Europe and the US escape the ICC’s clutches, he should be reminded that the US, for instance, unilaterally tried its citizens that gave Nigerian officials bribe in the infamous Halliburton bribe-for-contract scandal. Did Nigeria try its citizens that had collected the bribes?

Since 1953, the UN has periodically considered the establishment of a permanent ICC. And by the time the international community met in Rome, Italy, in July 1998 and finalised a draft statute to establish the court, Anan called it “a historic response” to man’s capacity for evil that knows no limits. But why a permanent ICC? It’s been called the missing link in the international legal system. The International Court of Justice at The Hague handles only cases between States, not individuals. Without an ICC, acts of genocide and egregious violations of human rights often go unpunished. Part of the focus of the ICC are to end such impunity, help end conflicts, remedy the deficiencies of ad hoc tribunals, take over when national criminal justice institutions are unwilling or unable to act, and to deter future war criminals.

Now, this is the institution the AU leaders gathered in Ethiopia the other day to say they wanted their countries to withdraw from. It needs to be remembered that lack of an ICC was what made it possible for a certain Idi Amin Dada of Uganda to get away with atrocities against his people. One point here is this: the ICC has issues that make African leaders worry, but it’s an organ in its developmental stages; just as the UN has taken years to mature and become stronger so will this court be in an age when centralised formal institutions is the trend. True, some states currently stay out of the treaty that sets up the ICC, but it must be remembered that whether a state joins or not, the Security Council has power to make recommendations to the ICC and have leaders from any state charged to court. It means no African leader is exempted from justice ultimately, even if his country withdraws. Leaders who misrule in any part of the world are in reality potential fugitives whether their nation belongs to the ICC or not. So if the AU leaders think opting out of the ICC is a right, they shouldn’t be under any illusion that the entire humanity has the moral responsibility to demand justice wherever abuses take place.

Anan said what the AU leaders had gathered in Ethiopia early October to do would give Africa a “badge of shame”. And it’s true. He added that, “It’s impunity of individuals that’s on trial at the ICC, not Africa”. And truly it is. Meanwhile, one’s greater concern is that President Jonathan has been part of this AU thinking, going by some of his past comments. Yet, if any country carries more the weight of the need to send its men and materials to nations where leaders misrule and then murder their citizens until the rest of humanity feels so ashamed that it has to step in, it’s Nigeria. And to think Nigeria was one of the earliest nations on the continent to call on the ICC to look into cases of impunity in war-ravaged parts of the West African region. Nigeria will be setting this continent on fire by being part of an AU move that’s directly opposite the promises it has made as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. Why will Nigeria that is less likely to experience the misrule and the atrocities many Africans suffer support a move that will render the same people hopeless?  What are the arguments of the AU leaders anyway? That Kenyans have elected a man that had been part of mass killing as president, so the past should be forgotten. The AU leaders say making Uhuru Kenyatta to face justice will threaten peace in Kenya.

What these leaders forget is that without justice there can’t be peace. In Kenya, where justice and order are not restored, there can’t be healing, and it means violence and hatred still tick like a time bomb. And if Nigeria wants to find its voice in world affairs, it should be strengthening justice and the rule of law on this continent, not undermining them by being a part of this AU conspiracy. This nation desires to have the permanent seat at the UN Security Council, doesn’t it? One should think not that joining nations whose leaderships feel mauling people and getting away with it is cool is a credential to becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Nigeria has a duty to uphold certain basic principles in the international system. In that case, it shouldn’t be found lending a helping hand to leaders who are afraid of their own shadows. If Nigeria once again participates in an AU meeting where issuing threats to ICC is the agenda, it will be a great error. For such a position will not reflect the view of Nigerians who could remember acts of human rights abuses committed under one late dark goggle-wearing military dictator. Nigeria should, in this matter, let the AU hold itself out for ridicule as usual if that’s the will of the majority of its member states. Nigeria should not lead a crusade against the only institution that holds succour for millions of dehumanised Africans. One could hazard the guess that Nigerians don’t think their leadership has any reason whatsoever to be afraid of the ICC. In that case, it’s Nigerians’ sensibility on this matter Mr. President should have himself guided by. Next time the AU calls any meeting such as this, Jonathan should be represented. For on an issue such as this where responsible states are easily separated from rogue ones, it’s wisdom if Nigeria neither takes the front nor the back seat.