ICC: Why AES Countries Ditched the West’s ‘Instrument of Neo-Colonial Repression’

By Mayowa Durosinmi – Oct 28, 2025

“If Africa wants to take charge of itself, it must be entirely self-reliant, in every domain of life.”

These were the exact choice of words profoundly uttered by a Sahelian in an interview with Comra when Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, the three founding members of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), announced their withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on September 22, 2025.

This historic move, deemed by the collective Western-funded human rights bodies as a “serious backwards step in the fight against impunity in the Sahel region”, is not simply a legal repositioning, but a political and ideological shift in prioritising regional justice systems.

In a joint communiqué, the governments of Niamey, Bamako, and Ouagadougou declared that the United Nations-backed ICC had become nothing more than “an instrument of neo-colonial repression in the hands of imperialism” and had “proven itself incapable of prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression,” especially when committed by the powerful.

Justice Must Be Indigenous
Far from abandoning accountability for African victims of impunity, the AES bloc outlined plans to establish the Sahelian Criminal and Human Rights Court (CPS-DH)—a regional judicial mechanism designed to try major crimes in accordance with the Sahel’s values, systems, and political realities.

The Sahel Confederation called it “an indigenous mechanism for the consolidation of peace and justice.” What this effectively means is that justice will no longer be outsourced to a courtroom in The Hague – which is created, enforced, and interpreted by imperialist actors – but shaped, tried, and delivered on Sahelian soil.

A Sahelian put it clearly:

“What is the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court, the ICC? Today, we see clearly what is happening in Gaza. It is truly a crime against humanity.”

Another local put it as thus:

“We can see how things work in practice: the ICC has mostly judged Africans,” hence the need for a withdrawal from the global court for the creation of a regional but more efficient court.

The Court Of The Powerful, Not The Just
The ICC, since its creation in 2002, has marketed itself as the world’s only permanent court to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. But in reality, its actions reflect the geopolitical architecture of empire, rather than representing an impartial arbiter of global justice.

In over two decades of existence, nearly all of its investigations and prosecutions have focused more on Africa, while sparing Western-backed allies, including Israel, whose occupation forces the UN Commission confirmed to have committed well-documented war crimes in Gaza, with full support from the United States and the European Union.

The West’s Selective Outrage Comes African Clarity
While the AES countries’ withdrawal has been widely welcomed across their capitals as a long-overdue assertion of sovereignty, Western pundits and NGOs have reacted with predictable outrage.

Maxine Rubin, a post-doctoral fellow at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies, downplayed the AES states’ move.

“I would hesitate to adopt that language that has been put forward by these [AES] countries,” she stated in an interview with Al Jazeera, adding that ‘It [became] a popular critique after Al Bashir’s [Sudan’s former President] arrest warrant was issued’ and that ‘it seems to be a veil for other motivations behind the [AES] withdrawal.’

Rubin further likened the motivation for the Sahel Confederation’s exit from the global Court to their political alliances with Russia.

“So, I suspect there’s a political pressure for them to make a stand against the International Criminal Court,” Rubin unsubstantiatedly stated.

Western NGOs followed the same script. The Human Rights Watch, Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), REDRESS, TRIAL International, Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ), and Amnesty International strongly criticised the three countries’ sovereign decision to exit the ICC, with the latter describing it as a “serious backwards step in the fight against impunity” in the Sahel region.

But what none of these Western-funded institutions dared to confront was the unpopular truth that African nations are not legally or morally bound to remain subordinate to Western-led institutions whose record shows selective prosecution, racial bias, and silence in the face of Western and allied atrocities.

Moreover, the ICC in question has offered no formal response—no press conference, no rebuttal, no official statement—since the AES countries announced their exits from the Court.

Similarly, the UN, which provides support and a legal framework for the Court, has remained mute. This silence is deafening, especially when three sovereign nations publicly, and in a concerted effort, break away from the Court and reject its legitimacy, indicating a tacit acknowledgment of the laid accusations.

Interestingly enough, this notable exit solidifies the writings of Kwame Nkrumah, who warned in Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism that the West would seek to maintain control not through military means, but through institutions, debt, and legal systems dressed as “international cooperation.”

And in 1961, Frantz Fanon wrote in The Wretched of the Earth that “each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it, or betray it, in relative opacity.”

Apparently, the AES states are discovering theirs and intend to fulfill them.

AES Countries Exit the ICC, Denouncing It as ‘An Instrument of Neo-Colonial Repression’

What Lies Ahead?
Procedurally, Article 127 of the Rome Statute requires a one-year notice period before withdrawal becomes legally effective. Until that time, the AES countries technically remain bound by ICC obligations for past crimes. But the political and symbolic message has already been sent: the Sahel will no longer participate in systems it neither created nor trusts.

More so, the proposed creation of the Sahelian Criminal and Human Rights Court (CPS-DH) will be a test of capacity, legitimacy, and the region’s commitment to justice.

It is worth noting, however, that new institutions are never born perfect. The ICC itself was flawed at inception, shaped more by the geopolitical whims of its Western funders than any universal moral code.

The CPS-DH is not expected to mirror the West’s systems. It is being forged from the legal, political, and cultural frameworks of the Sahel, where justice is meant to serve its people.

Nonetheless, the AES countries have made it clear that they will no longer legitimise a system that shields imperialism and punishes the Global South. They are not walking away from justice. They are walking towards a new one rooted in sovereignty, dignity, and self-determination.

Mayowa Durosinmi is a writer, researcher, and journalist. His work focuses on politics and security in West Africa and the Sahel region.

(Vox Ummah)