South African government criticises US sanctions on ICC for undermining the rule of law
The South African government has strongly slammed the United States for imposing sanctions on judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Image: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek
The South African government has expressed deep concern over United States sanctions targeting judges of the International Criminal Court, calling it a 'direct affront to the principles of international justice and the rule of law.'
'These measures, in addition to those imposed earlier on the Prosecutor, represent a direct affront to the principles of international justice and the rule of law,' said Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco), Ronald Lamola.
Phiri stated that these punitive actions against judicial officers fulfilling their mandated duties are regrettable, as they undermine the independence of the ICC and jeopardise the integrity of international legal institutions.
'They furthermore hinder the Court and its personnel in the exercise of their independent judicial functions.'
He said South Africa, as a founding member of the ICC, views these sanctions and previous threats as an attempt to intimidate and obstruct the Court's efforts to hold perpetrators of the most serious crimes accountable.
'The ICC operates under the Rome Statute, to which 125 states are parties, and its mandate is to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to do so.'
Phiri said the imposition of sanctions on ICC judges sets a 'dangerous precedent' that could embolden those who seek to evade accountability for egregious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.
'It also poses a significant challenge to the global fight against impunity and the enforcement of international norms.'
'South Africa reaffirms its commitment to the principles enshrined in the Rome Statute and will continue to work with like-minded nations to safeguard the integrity of the international legal institution,' he added.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
According to Phiri, this highlights the country's participation in the Hague Group, a coalition of countries dedicated to defending the rulings and authority of the ICC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
'The pursuit of justice for victims of the gravest crimes must not be compromised by political considerations.'
'Upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability are essential for the maintenance of international peace and security as well as a rules-based international order based on international law,' Phiri added.
Meanwhile, IOL News previously reported that Dirco said it was not fazed by reports that the US may impose sanctions on the ICC, an independent global judicial institution dedicated to combating impunity for the gravest crimes against humanity.
The US sanctions package is designed to target individual ICC personnel, judges, and prosecutors, classifying them as an organisation threatening the interests of the US government.
According to reports, these measures aim to create conditions allowing the court to independently withdraw its arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Ceasefires and future fires — unholy trinity of Iran, Israel and the US presages a murky future
Following a week when the ceasefire between Israel and Iran (with the US as a supporting actor) took hold, it is still unclear what happens next, how things will evolve, or if a more permanent, peaceful settlement among the protagonists is even possible. The newly negotiated — and, so far, holding at the time of this writing — ceasefire between Iran and Israel (along with the US in its supporting role as both a midwife of the ceasefire and the deployer of those bunker-buster bombs) opens the door to several possibilities. Some of them are good, some are bad; some are exciting, and, of course, some are truly terrifying. What might some of those possible futures look like? Over the past three-quarters of a century, the Middle East has been the cockpit for a catalogue of ceasefires between combatants. Some have eventually — and painfully — evolved into actual peace arrangements, such as the negotiated settlement between Egypt and Israel via the Camp David Accords. Others barely survived their announcement before fighting began anew. Still others produced cold cessations of hostilities, usually monitored by the UN but without an actual peace agreement or treaty. This could include the line-of-control arrangements that ended fighting in 1948 between Jordan and the then nascent state of Israel. That ceasefire did not, of course, lead to the establishment of state-to-state relations between the two parties. (Jordan later relinquished a claim to administer the West Bank following the Six-Day War in 1967. Only years later was a chilly peace between Jordan and Israel achieved.) Meanwhile, further to the east, the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir and Jammu has remained unsettled since 1947. This has been despite ceasefires following bouts of fighting that have periodically erupted across the disputed Line of Control. Or, consider the fighting between Iran and Iraq that began with Iraq's invasion of Iran over a land dispute (and with some important foreign encouragement) in 1980 and lasted until 1988. That conflict raged on until the two exhausted nations grudgingly accepted a UN Security Council resolution. Ceasefires thus do not always bring about a longer, more permanent peace unless one side is vanquished completely — thus the periodic fighting between India and Pakistan that resists a final resolution. Alternatively, consider the rivalry between Rome and Carthage over two millennia ago that lasted for more than a century, a struggle that included wars and peaceful periods, until Carthage was destroyed by a rising Rome. Or consider Europe in the 1600s with conflicts that ran for more than four destructive decades as part of a monumental struggle between the Catholic Church and rulers insistent on individual state sovereignty in matters of faith. Then, throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, the rivalry between Britain and France generated conflict around the globe, including the Napoleonic Wars. It was a rivalry that was only brought to an end when the competition was redirected into building colonial empires at the end of the nineteenth century. In the immediate aftermath of the most recent clash that pitted Israel — and the US — against Iran, one key variable, at least publicly, has been that leaders from all three nations are claiming versions of success as a result of their respective aerial actions. US triumphalism For the US, as the whole world knows by now, President Donald Trump's typically over-bombastic claim has repeatedly been that three Iranian nuclear processing plants (with their uranium isotope, gaseous separation centrifuges and stockpiles of already enriched U-235) were 'totally obliterated' by a group of B-2 stealth bombers, employing 30,000-pound (13.6-tonne) bunker-buster bombs designed to reach deep into the ground and then explode. Almost immediately after that mission was completed, the president (and his eager subordinates) engaged in public chest thumping, insisting the attacking planes had carried out an unparalleled mission. However, the glow from neutralising the three Iranian nuclear sites was soon undermined by a leaked, initial evaluation from the Defense Intelligence Agency (the US government has more than a dozen separate intelligence gathering or analysis agencies, each focusing on different aspects of intelligence) that the bombing had not come close to obliterating the sites. In fact, per the agency's leak, rather than obliteration, the bombing may have only set back potential Iranian nuclear weapons developments by some months. It is important to note that all of the other intelligence agencies and their analyses have yet to be released publicly, and they may (or may not) have different conclusions or interpretations. Nevertheless, in the days that followed, Trump continued to insist the bombing's objectives and their effects were the 'obliteration' of Iran's nuclear capabilities. In rebuttal to the leaked report, Trump cited information apparently gleaned from Israeli sources and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — as well as arguing that other US intelligence bodies would reinforce his assessment once their analyses were in. And so, what is the course for the US's strategic framework vis-à-vis Iran? The bottom-line US objective remains a non-nuclear-capable Iran, especially after the Iranians managed a symbolic attack on a major US military base in Qatar. The effect of that, however, was performative rather than substantive. But the continuing ability of Iran to launch missiles remains a concrete threat to the US, given that 40,000 military personnel are stationed in facilities in the Persian Gulf region in several nations, along with naval berths and airfields. Reports indicate that most US aircraft and personnel had been removed from their base in Qatar before the missiles were launched, and the Iranians gave a heads-up to Qatari authorities that the missiles were coming. Further, it has been reported that the Trump administration gave quiet acquiescence to the attack and its symbolic rather than substantive impact, once there was little possibility of harm to personnel or military assets. Still, despite everything, there are comments from Trump administration officials that they would entertain negotiations with Iran over its presumed nuclear programme, effectively recapitulating in some way the agreement that had been hammered out during the last stages of the Obama administration. This is except for the fact that Iran's nuclear programme has presumably advanced since the Trump 1.0 administration's withdrawal from that agreement. Unwisely, the Trump administration rescinded its participation in the five-nation agreement, a decision effectively lowering restrictions for future Iranian nuclear developments. If the Americans have a realistic plan to address their relationship with Iran, they have failed to articulate it plainly in any public forums. In the absence of such a plan, the mutual hostility is likely to continue, absent a plausible Plan B and off-ramp from confrontation. Stark choices for Israel As far as Israel is concerned, the policy choices are more dramatic — and starker. One reason is that while most Iranian rockets launched at their nation were destroyed before they could do grievous damage and fatalities, Israel's Iron Dome air defence system was not infallible. The immediate, primary threat, therefore, is not a nuclear-armed Iran, but the possibility of a vengeful Iran eager to even the score somehow. That 'somehow', of course, is the question. Does Iran still have a significant supply of launchable rockets and the means to launch a major salvo of them? While the Israelis have made a major success in greatly blunting Hamas and Hezbollah as credible fighting forces (at enormous, continuing cost and suffering to the inhabitants of Gaza), as well as being able to applaud the change in the government and orientation of Syria, they have been unable to offer a clear plan for their withdrawal from Gaza — or who will take over the governance of the shattered territory. Moreover, Israel's policies towards the West Bank remain seriously problematic, especially as the Israeli government continues to authorise new Jewish settlements in the territory. As some observers argue, while Israel's strategic position has improved significantly vis-à-vis the region at large, the closer one looks at its immediate neighbourhood, the more troubling the lack of a coherent strategy becomes. For many Israelis, furthermore, the key issue remains gaining the release or return of the remaining 7 October hostages — or the remains of those who have died in captivity — rather than continuing the attacks in Gaza. Major complicating factors for the Netanyahu government remain its slender coalition in the country's parliament — which is dependent on some serious hardliners — and the growing likelihood of an imminent corruption trial of the incumbent prime minister. Difficult questions for Iran And what of Iran? After undergoing serious nuclear and missile infrastructural damage (albeit without real clarity of just how much), as well as the deaths of key military leaders and nuclear scientists, the country's leaders must face the question of just how they plan to address the new strategic imbalance. Do they wish to 'double down' on nuclear developments and continue to enrich uranium to near or at weapons grade and assemble sufficient amounts to begin a nuclearisation process — at great cost and sacrifice — and the possibility of additional raids against such efforts? Once they do that — if they choose to do so — do they want to create potential weapons out of that uranium? The next choice is whether they would signal that effort quietly (as with Israel) or publicly (in the manner of North Korea some years ago). If they do so with the strictest secrecy, would they choose to avoid inspections by the IAEA, and formally leave the limitations of the non-proliferation treaty — an agreement to which they remain signatories? Beyond their nuclear conundrum, do they want to — or can they — reconstitute their collection of allies and proxies surrounding Israel? This would be despite Syria now being in very different hands, Hamas and Hezbollah being shattered, and Russia having its hands full with its own war of choice in Ukraine. Would they try to prevent the flow of oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz — a seaway used by around 20% of all such flows globally? Regime change Hanging over all of this, of course, is how Iranians decide to respond to the authoritarian theocracy they live under, which has brought them to this place. Will there be a push for a fundamental change of government by restive minorities around the periphery of the core of the Iranian state, as well as younger people (and especially women) tired of the restrictions on thought, travel and free expression that the supreme leader's government continues to carry out? Even as those muttered semi-threats of 'regime change' from the outside are unrealistic, the country's leadership must surely be casting a wary eye in all directions over the possibility that a change of regime could be pushed for by Iranians on their own. (It did, after all, happen in 1979-80 with the fall of the shah and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini as supreme arbiter of the country. This was true even if the original student proponents of the change to eliminate the shah's regime were shoved aside by religious fanatics.) What this points to is that it is impossible, now, to predict what the outcome of any change of regime would look like in Iran. Would it be a more fanatical regime eager to rebuild its influence in the region, or might it be one focused on rebuilding the fabric and economy of the nation? In sum, among the three antagonists, an aura of unpredictability remains. There are too many ways things could go sour. Given the unpredictability of Trump's foreign policy, fissures in Israeli society over the country's current strategies, and the impossibility of knowing which course of action the Iranian government will take, the best that can be hoped for may be a tense, cold ceasefire, but one that holds. Nevertheless, a more permanent settlement via the hard work of real diplomacy, rather than weapons flexing and chest beating, will almost certainly be the only way to move forward more permanently. Right now, such an outcome is unlikely. DM
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Molefe and Gama in Hawks custody as Transnet corruption returns to court
More than a decade after the dodgy locomotive deal, two senior MK party MPs — Brian Molefe and Siyabonga Gama — face legal action for allegedly siphoning off R93m through Trillian Capital. Their arrests revive old Zondo Commission questions about whether grand corruption ever really pays back. Former Transnet bosses Brian Molefe and Siyabonga Gama — long seen as State Capture architects — handed themselves over to the Investigating Directorate for Corruption (Idac) on Monday morning. The pair — now sitting MPs for Jacob Zuma's uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party — are expected to appear in the Palm Ridge Magistrate's Court on fraud, corruption and money laundering charges directly tied to the wider Transnet locomotives corruption scandal that formed one of the core chapters of the Zondo Commission's State Capture reports. Read more: Backstory: the locomotive deal symbolic of an era Under Jacob Zuma's presidency, Molefe was appointed CEO of Transnet in 2011 with a mandate to oversee a massive rail expansion plan. In May 2015, a transaction advisory contract for 1,064 new locomotives — one of the single biggest procurement deals in South African state-owned enterprises history — was awarded to JP Morgan but soon cancelled amid internal battles and reassigned to Trillian Capital, a Gupta-linked firm. By December 2015, Transnet paid Trillian R93.4-million, signed off by CFO Garry Pita and then-CEO Gama. Three days later, R74-million was quietly rerouted — a diversion that Justice Zondo's report flagged as a key laundering step in the wider locomotives corruption scheme. Today, the long train of justice is inching back into court. Idac spokesperson Henry Mamothame confirmed their arrests to Daily Maverick, noting that a broader press release would be issued after the two had appeared in court. Zondo Commission: findings The Zondo Commission named Molefe as a 'primary architect' of Transnet's State Capture phase, finding he misled the board, suppressed oversight, and signed off on contracts that enabled Gupta proxies to loot through Regiments and also explicitly linked this R93-million payment to the bigger locomotives procurement fraud, and recommended that Molefe, Gama and others be prosecuted to break what it called the 'cycle of impunity' that allowed grand corruption to thrive unchecked. The politics of public money Their arrests put the MK party under an uncomfortable spotlight. MK party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela had not responded to calls or questions from Daily Maverick by the time of publication. The locomotives procurement cost jumped from R38-billion to more than R50-billion — billions that the public purse absorbed through Transnet's balance sheet while oversight bodies looked the other a decade later, the question is whether those billions can ever be clawed back. What's waiting at the next stop? The Palm Ridge court will rule on bail conditions this week. The National Prosecuting Authority must now show whether it can go beyond headlines to force real accountability on powerful networks that, for years, treated SOEs as private cash the case holds or finds itself in infinite legal limbo will demonstrate whether the willpower left to pursue the Zondo Commission's recommendations remains. DM
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
UN conference seeks boost for aid as US cuts bite
SEVILLE - A UN conference aiming to rally fresh support for development aid begins in Spain on Monday with the sector in crisis as US-led funding cuts jeopardise the fight against poverty. At least 50 world leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Kenya's William Ruto, EU chief Ursula von der Leyen and UN head Antonio Guterres will gather in the city of Seville from 30 June to 3 July. But key player the United States is snubbing the biggest such talks in a decade, underlining the erosion of international cooperation on combating hunger, disease and climate change. More than 4,000 representatives from businesses, civil society and financial institutions will also attend the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development. UN sustainable development goals set for 2030 are slipping from reach just as the world's wealthiest countries are withdrawing funding for development programmes. International charity Oxfam says the cuts to development aid are the largest since 1960 and the United Nations puts the growing gap in annual development finance at $4-trillion. More than 800 million people live on less than $3 per day, according to the World Bank, with rising extreme poverty affecting sub-Saharan Africa in particular. Disruption to global trade from Trump's tariffs and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine have dealt further blows to the diplomatic cohesion necessary for concentrating efforts on helping countries escape poverty. Among the key topics up for discussion is reforming international finance to help poorer countries shrug off a growing debt burden that inhibits their capacity to achieve progress in health and education. The total external debt of the group of least developed countries has more than tripled in 15 years, according to UN data.
