Full article

West Africa Breaks with the International Criminal Court: Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger Announce Their Withdrawal

On September 23, 2025, the military governments of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger officially announced their decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), in a joint move that marks a turning point in Africa’s relationship with the system of international criminal justice. The withdrawal, which will take effect in accordance with the procedure established by the Rome Statute, has been justified by the three States as a response to what they describe as a “tool of neocolonial repression.”

Political and Legal Context

Since their recent coups d’état, the military regimes in Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey have strengthened their cooperation in matters of security and foreign policy. The creation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in 2023 already foreshadowed a break with the West, both militarily and diplomatically. The decision to withdraw from the ICC is part of this geopolitical shift toward greater autonomy and rejection of international institutions perceived as externally imposed.

The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, was established in 1998 through the Rome Statute to prosecute the most serious crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and, more recently, the crime of aggression. Although conceived as a court of universal scope, its legitimacy has been repeatedly questioned by States that consider its actions disproportionately focused on Africa.

The Criticisms: Selective Justice?

One of the central arguments of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger is the “selectivity” of international justice. Of the more than 30 cases opened by the ICC since its creation, the overwhelming majority have focused on African countries, while crimes committed in other regions have not received the same judicial response.

This adds to the perception that the Court responds more to the political interests of Western powers than to a true universality of justice. In the words of the spokesperson of the government of Burkina Faso: “We will no longer accept being the testing ground for an international justice that ignores the abuses committed by the powerful in other parts of the world.”

Legal and Political Consequences

The withdrawal of these three States represents both a symbolic and practical blow to the ICC. Legally, the Court will lose jurisdiction over future crimes committed in their territories, unless the United Nations Security Council refers the cases, as occurred with Sudan and Libya. However, the withdrawal does not affect proceedings already initiated nor prevent the ICC from prosecuting crimes committed before the effective date of withdrawal.

Politically, the decision reinforces the narrative that Africa must build its own mechanisms of regional justice. There are already initiatives in this direction, such as the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, although its scope and effectiveness have been limited. The possibility that the AES will promote a regional criminal justice court is beginning to gain traction.

Risks for Victims

Human rights organizations have reacted with concern. For Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the decision opens the door to greater levels of impunity in a region marked by armed conflicts, terrorism, and serious human rights violations. The absence of an independent international mechanism would leave thousands of victims without guarantees of redress or effective justice.

An Expanding Trend

This is not the first time that an African country has considered leaving the ICC. In 2016, Burundi became the first State to formally withdraw, and others such as South Africa and The Gambia announced their departure, although later reversed the decision. However, the fact that three countries are doing so in a coordinated manner sets a precedent of major significance.

The underlying question is whether this is an isolated episode or the beginning of a regional disengagement that could draw more States from the continent. What is clear is that, in a context of growing international polarization and a crisis of legitimacy for multilateral organizations, the ICC is facing one of the greatest challenges in its history.

The Erosion of International Institutions

The joint withdrawal of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger not only questions the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court, but also reflects a broader crisis of international organizations. Institutions such as the UN, the ICJ, or the ICC itself were conceived after World War II and in the 1990s with the aspiration of universality, impartiality, and the primacy of international law.

However, in practice they face three recurring problems:

A. Selectivity in the application of justice: States perceive that the decisions of these bodies respond to the geopolitical interests of major powers.
B. Lack of real enforcement mechanisms: except in exceptional cases, they lack effective tools to ensure compliance with their rulings.
C. Disaffection among member States: when countries believe that the benefits of remaining are less than the political costs, they choose to withdraw or disobey.

In this context, the decision of the three Sahel countries is a symptom of the structural weakening of international justice. If States perceive that the system is neither impartial nor effective, the trend will be to create alternative forums — more regional, more aligned with their immediate interests — leaving behind the ideal of a truly universal international law.