The withdrawal of Sahel nations from the International Criminal Court: what it means for victims and global justice
The Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI), which includes prominent organizations like the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CCPI), Redress, Trial International, and Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ), strongly condemns the decision by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This move represents a significant setback, undermining decades of African leadership in the global fight against impunity. It not only weakens the ICC but also jeopardizes the broader international justice framework at a time when unity is crucial.
Why this withdrawal won’t take immediate effect
On September 22, the three member states of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) — Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger — announced their intention to leave the ICC with immediate effect. However, under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, a state must submit a formal withdrawal notification to the United Nations Secretary-General. The withdrawal only becomes effective one year after this notification. Until then, the Sahel states remain fully bound by their obligations under the Rome Statute, including the duty to cooperate with the Court. Importantly, the withdrawal does not affect ongoing proceedings for crimes committed before the effective date of withdrawal.
Currently, cases related to the situation in Mali—referred to the Court by the Malian government in July 2012—are ongoing. The reparations process in the Al Mahdi case is in its final stages. Al Mahdi was convicted on September 27, 2016, for intentionally directing attacks against religious and historical buildings in Timbuktu. Additionally, the Court is expected to rule in the coming months on reparations in the Al Hassan case, following his conviction on June 26, 2024, for war crimes and crimes against humanity also committed in Timbuktu. An arrest warrant also remains active against Iyad Ag Ghaly, the alleged leader of Ansar Dine, a jihadist group operating in Mali.
From leadership to withdrawal: abandoning victims
African states played a pivotal role in the creation of the ICC in 1998, with widespread ratification of the Rome Statute and even referring domestic situations to the Court. This commitment provided victims of the gravest crimes with a vital international ally when justice was unattainable at the national level. The announced withdrawal contradicts this legacy of leadership, leaving victims with diminished avenues for justice.
This decision follows the January 2025 departure of the same three states from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), another institution they helped shape and which has built a strong human rights track record through its Court of Justice. These withdrawals signify a regression in the fight against impunity, leaving victims without recourse, weakening human rights protections, and increasing isolation at a time when regional and international cooperation are essential—particularly in countries grappling with terrorism-related atrocities.
“The decision to withdraw from the ICC further jeopardizes the situation of victims, for whom the Court often represents their last hope for justice,” said Drissa Traoré, Secretary-General of the FIDH. “After their departure from ECOWAS, the loss of ICC protection leaves victims in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger without recourse for the most serious human rights violations they continue to endure.” He added, “In these countries facing multidimensional crises, national jurisdictions still lack the capacity to deliver justice and reparations to victims due to a lack of political will and an inability to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity.“
A blow to a vulnerable international justice system
The withdrawal announcement comes as international justice faces mounting pressures. Earlier this year, Hungary also announced its intention to leave the Rome Statute—a decision widely criticized for undermining the global fight against impunity.
While the ICC has faced criticism in the past for the selectivity of its cases and what some perceive as an overemphasis on Africa, the Court has made strides in expanding its mandate beyond the continent. It now has ongoing investigations and cases in Afghanistan, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Palestine, Ukraine, Venezuela, Libya, and the Philippines. Recent arrests of suspects in Libya and the former President Rodrigo Duterte demonstrate that no region or high-level official is beyond the reach of justice. This broadening of scope enhances the Court’s legitimacy but also makes it more vulnerable to political attacks.
“The States Parties must demonstrate resilience and reaffirm their commitment to the Court, the fight against impunity, and the rights of victims worldwide,” emphasized Alix Vuillemin, Executive Director of Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ). “At a time when the Court faces increasing attacks, States must move toward universality, not retreat. Turning away now only emboldens impunity.“
The role of states in preserving international norms
The ICC’s role in international justice is significant. It does not replace but complements existing mechanisms such as truth-seeking processes and transitional justice initiatives, which are essential for sustainable peace. The Rome Statute enshrines key principles that underpin international justice: no immunity for heads of state, complementarity with national jurisdictions, and victims’ rights to participate in judicial proceedings and seek reparations. Withdrawing from the Statute risks weakening these protections at the national level and compromising decades of progress in establishing global norms against impunity.
The GIAI urges all States Parties to the ICC to reaffirm their commitment to the Rome Statute. As violence escalates against victims in Africa and worldwide, preserving the ICC as a court of last resort is essential.
*The Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI) is a consortium of eight international NGOs and the Coalition for the ICC, co-financed by the European Union. Its mission is to contribute to the fight against impunity by supporting a holistic, integrated, and inclusive approach to justice and accountability for perpetrators of grave human rights violations and international crimes. This statement does not necessarily reflect the position of all member organizations.*
Key developments in the ICC’s cases involving Sahel states
- Mali: Ongoing cases include the Al Mahdi conviction for attacking Timbuktu’s cultural sites and the Al Hassan case, with reparations pending. An arrest warrant also remains active against Iyad Ag Ghaly, leader of Ansar Dine.
- Burkina Faso and Niger: While no active ICC cases are currently underway, the withdrawal threatens future accountability for crimes committed in these countries.
How the withdrawal affects victims
Victims in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger face increased challenges in seeking justice:
- Limited access to international legal recourse for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- Reduced protection under the Rome Statute’s guarantees, including victims’ rights to participation and reparations.
- Increased reliance on national jurisdictions, which often lack the capacity or political will to deliver justice.
Why this matters for global justice
The ICC relies on the cooperation of States Parties to function effectively. Withdrawals like those announced by the Sahel states weaken the Court’s authority and send a troubling signal to perpetrators of international crimes. The international community must respond by:
- Reaffirming support for the ICC and the Rome Statute.
- Encouraging universal ratification of the Statute to ensure no region is left without recourse.
- Strengthening transitional justice mechanisms to complement the ICC’s work.