10 September, 2013

Why Kenya should quit the ICC

In a normal, just world - any one who commits a crime has to face justice; who ever that person is and whatever that person's position is - who ever commits a crime has to be punished. But, we don't live in a normal, just world. The words 'crime', 'justice' and 'punishment' are used selectively. Especially by the one court that's supposed to serve all the world's people: the International Criminal Court. The ICC decides, hunts, convicts and punishes selectively. The court, so far, has meted out its so called justice - only on Africa.

Whatever one might think; however hard one tries to look at it, there is no doubt that the ICC is selectively, unfairly and biasedly focused only on Africa and Africans. Cases in point: leaders in Sudan and Kenya are indicted by the ICC and yet those in Sri Lanka, where similar or worst crimes happened, are not; Joseph Kony is wanted and hunted by the ICC and yet the Burmese Buddhist monk, Ashin Wirathu - whose terrifying methods is very similar to Kony's - is not; and there is Syria and all the atrocities being committed there and, so far, the ICC, incredibly, doesn't have a single one of the perpetrators on its list. And no other country has acted with so much arrogance and impunity as Israel; it continues to blockade and strangle Gaza, and it continues to brutally oppress and suppress Palestinians with no action, at all, from the so called international court. If the ICC was/is just and equitable, there should be no hiding place. But international law never reaches into some corners because the levers that control the wheels of justice, we discover, are sometimes leaned on by the criminals themselves - quoted from Veterans Today.

With these, and some more such cases in mind, why should Kenya (and other African countries for that matter) continue being a member of the ICC with its selective, unfair and biased system?

Search Safari Notes