Being laid low by an allergy last week, I was generally
unaware of quite a few things, so I heard the news rather late that the MP for
Assin North had been reported to the International Criminal Court. I thought at
first that it was a joke, especially when I heard a wag suggest that someone
else should report Mr. Lante Vanderpuje of Odododiodo fame for ethnic cleansing.
But after a brief check I realized that it was true that Messrs Francis Kojo Arthur,
Eric Akomanyi, and Fortune Sase of the Coalition had indeed referred Mr.
Agyapong to the ICC.
The members of the Ghana Coalition of the ICC are probably
sincere in their expressed belief that events in Ghana since 2009 give them
cause to believe that “some politicians especially within the opposition New
Patriotic Party (NPP are plotting to unleash Violence, War, Genocide and Ethnic
Cleansing either prior to or in the event that they lose the December 2012
Ghanaian elections”. Their petition goes on to claim that “Since losing the
2008 elections, the rhetoric of the opposition NPP and its leadership has
assumed very inflammatory and alarmingly belligerent tones. Both publicly and
in secret, they have urged their followers to resort to violence in order to
win the 2012 elections”.
There is no doubt that
the trigger for the Coalition’s petition to the ICC is Kennedy Agyapong’s
recent outburst on radio; they actually provide an English translation of the
MP’s infamous statement for the benefit of the ICC, as a case in point. If this
is the case, as one should believe it is, then the decision to petition the ICC
is a strange one, which could lead to all kinds of speculation and
interpretations. This is because Mr. Agyapong who provides the ready material
for the Coalition’s worry has been arrested, arraigned before a court here in
Ghana and bailed. Why was it necessary to petition the ICC?
The International Criminal Court was established by the Rome
Statute as an independent tribunal to try genocide, crimes against humanity and
war crimes, with the subtext being the international community’s desire to end
impunity and avoid situations such as happened in the former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda in the past thirty years. The ICC is serious business designed to deal
with cases that domestic judicial processes, for whatever reason cannot deal
with.
I think it is important that I declare my interest in this
matter. In the early 1990s, I was closely associated with the NGO Coalition for
the International Criminal Court, CICC, which was organised under the umbrella
of the Open Society Initiative with its headquarters in New York. Mr. William
R. Pace, the Convener and a team of highly motivated individuals and
organisations started the coalition which they have sustained till now. Today,
the CICC includes 2,500 civil society organizations in 150 different countries
working in partnership to strengthen international cooperation with the ICC.
Its main remit is to ensure that the Court is fair, effective and independent
and to make justice both visible and universal; and advance stronger national
laws that deliver justice to victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and
genocide.
I have retained my personal interest in matters of the Court
even though my core business these days is no longer directly related to its
activities. However, anyone who is remotely interested in the ICC, as all of us
should be, must be concerned that the venerable global court is not used for
purposes for which it is NOT intended or that people who should promote its
interests do not make a mockery of it.
Anyone remotely associated with the ICC, especially an NGO
that has standing with the Court would know that the ICC is not the right forum
for either the Kennedy Agyapong case or even for the perceived possibility of
violence in Ghana; this must be obvious. The ICC is a Court of last resort;
what this means in this context is that it has complementary jurisdiction. It can
only take up a case for investigation if the national authorities are either
unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute. So the standard is two pronged:
first ICC crimes must have been committed- Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes
against Humanity, and second, the national authorities must be either unwilling
or unable to prosecute. The cases that have gone to the ICC and for which some
people have been indicted involve countries and crisis-infected circumstances
in which the luxury of normal judicial processes is simply not an option. This
is not the case in Ghana.
My worry is this: by taking a Ghanaian case to the ICC at
this time, irrespective of who is involved, is to signal to the world that our
government led by President John Mills is incapable of handling the situation. The
logic of international law is that the STATE has the responsibility to protect
its citizens, therefore this implied indictment of President Mills and his
government is both wrong and unfair. President Mills has on numerous occasions
issued warnings about the effect of violent talk on the political climate in
the country, and given the assurance that he is equal to the task of ensuring
security for all under any and all circumstances. The Inspector General of
Police has given muscular assurances to the same effect, and as we know, even
from the Kennedy Agyapong saga, the police and courts are capable of dealing
with the situation. So why is the Coalition dragging the reputation of the
government in the mud?
That is not all. Consider the kinds of countries and
situation that have landed people at the ICC. In Sudan we have Darfur; in DR
Congo we have Goma in the East where a violent insurgency has been going since
the eruptions in the Great Lakes Region some twenty years ago, in northern Uganda
the Lord’s Resistance Army held sway for years kidnapping children and killing
civilians; Ivory Coast and Kenya there have been post-election civil wars in
which thousands of people have died. With the greatest respect to these
countries, one has to ask whether Ghana is in the kind of crisis that has led
to indictment of some people in the countries I have cited above?
The Coalition may say that we don’t have to wait for a civil
war before we ask the ICC to intervene, and that is a fair point. However it is
invalid insofar as the country’s legal and legitimate authority is able to deal
with any matters that can be foreseen to arise at the moment. I repeat that it
is not right to put the President to such unmerited ridicule.
My final worry is this: when you place your country at par in
terms of security with Eastern Congo and northern Uganda you simply drive out
investment, denigrate your economy and drive down the value of your currency. Is
it any wonder that the value of the cedi is falling so fast against all other
currencies? No, it is not surprising because the Ghana Coalition for the ICC
and all those who are trumpeting the likelihood of election violence are
telling the world that this is not a safe place to invest.
I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that the members
of the Ghana Coalition for the ICC are working on behalf of any political party,
however I am worried that this group could not be doing the ICC any favours
here in Ghana. I suggest that they join hands with all those who want peace to
avoid creating fear and panic, and not to undermine the authority of our
legitimate institutions. As things stand, all leaders of political parties have
sworn to ensure that violence will be averted. We need to remember that the
cedi is already dancing azonto at the bar of international
public and business opinion, including potentially in front of judges at the
ICC – if the Coalition would have its way. Whether it will stand or fall
depends on us.
There is a lovely proverb that says that we should not be
deluded into thinking that we are enjoying the taste of meat when in fact it is
our own tongues we are eating.
kgapenteng.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment