For years the story was one of divorce. African leaders accused the International Criminal Court of hunting the continent while ignoring the powerful elsewhere, and a handful threatened a mass walkout. Yet most African states have stayed, and show little sign of leaving.
The grievance was never baseless. Nearly all of the court’s early cases targeted Africans, feeding a perception of selective justice that governments amplified whenever one of their own landed in the dock. The rhetoric of a “neo-colonial” tribunal became a reliable applause line at continental summits.
The reasons to stay proved stronger than the reasons to storm out. For many governments the court offers leverage against rivals and a shield of legitimacy; for victims it remains one of the few venues where a head of state can, in theory, be held to account. Quitting would hand impunity a victory few citizens want.
The result is a marriage of convenience that neither side fully trusts but neither can easily end. Africa’s continued membership is less an endorsement than a bet that a flawed court beats no court at all, which says more about the thin state of global accountability than about the ICC itself.
