New Delhi: In a dramatic rebuke of international justice, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, three West African nations under military rule, announced their immediate withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Monday night. In a joint statement, the countries denounced the ICC as an “instrument of neo-colonial repression” manipulated by imperialist powers, accusing it of selective justice and failing to effectively address war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of aggression. Led by Burkina Faso’s Captain Ibrahim Traore, Mali’s Colonel Assimi Goita, and Niger’s General Abdourahamane Tchiani, this coordinated exit signals a bold push for sovereignty amid growing regional instability and shifting geopolitical alliances.
The ICC: A Global Court with Limited Reach
Established by the Rome Statute in 1998 and operational since 2002, the ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, is the world’s first permanent international criminal court. It prosecutes individuals—not states or organizations—for four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. With 125 member states, the court’s jurisdiction is restricted to events after July 1, 2002. Notably, major powers, including the United States, Russia, China, India, and Israel, are not parties to the Rome Statute, limiting its global authority.
Funded primarily by member states, the ICC’s decisions are legally binding, but enforcement remains a challenge. Lacking its own police force, the court depends on member states for arrests and cooperation, often facing resistance. For example, France recently declined to enforce an ICC arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, citing his immunity as a head of state from a non-member country. This incident underscores the court’s enforcement limitations, a key grievance for critics.
A Defiant Statement: Rejecting Western Influence
In their joint statement, the military leaders of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger condemned the ICC for serving Western interests and targeting less privileged nations. “The ICC has proven itself incapable of handling and prosecuting proven war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, and crimes of aggression,” they declared, without providing specific examples. The leaders vowed to establish “indigenous mechanisms for the consolidation of peace and justice” to assert greater sovereignty.
This move aligns with their broader rejection of Western influence. The three nations, which form the Alliance of Sahel States, withdrew from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) earlier in 2025 after rejecting demands to restore democratic governance. They have also severed defense ties with France, their former colonial power, and strengthened relations with Russia, which pledged support for a planned 5,000-soldier joint military force. The ICC’s 2023 arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over alleged war crimes in Ukraine may further contextualize their alignment with Moscow.
A Region in Turmoil: Coups and Conflicts
The withdrawals follow military coups between 2020 and 2023 that installed juntas in each country. In Mali, Colonel Assimi Goita seized power; in Niger, General Abdourahamane Tchiani ousted the elected government, detaining the president in the presidential palace; and in Burkina Faso, Captain Ibrahim Traore assumed control. These regimes are grappling with insurgencies linked to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, which control significant territories and stage attacks on military targets.
Human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about alleged atrocities. In Burkina Faso, Human Rights Watch documented the military’s execution of over 220 civilians, including 56 children, in February 2024. In Mali, United Nations experts reported in April 2025 that summary executions by government forces could constitute war crimes. Mali’s military, alongside Russian Wagner mercenaries, is implicated in a 2022 massacre of hundreds of villagers, potentially amounting to crimes against humanity. In Niger, Amnesty International reported a drone strike that killed 50 civilians, alongside other abuses, including the suppression of dissent, jailing of journalists, and cancellation of elections.
The ICC has been investigating alleged war crimes in Mali since 2013, focusing on northern regions like Gao, Timbuktu, and Kidal under armed group control. A notable conviction was that of Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi in 2016 for destroying cultural heritage in Timbuktu, a case seen as a milestone for prosecuting similar acts globally.
Criticisms of the ICC: Bias and Enforcement Gaps
The Sahel nations’ accusations echo longstanding criticisms of the ICC. Many view it as a neo-colonial institution, exerting indirect control over developing nations through Western-dominated frameworks. Of the 33 cases the ICC has pursued since 2002, 32 targeted Africans, with the sole exception being former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, charged with crimes against humanity. This disparity has fueled claims of anti-African bias, a view shared by Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame.
The absence of major powers from the Rome Statute undermines the court’s universal jurisdiction. Political resistance further complicates enforcement, as seen in U.S. sanctions on ICC judges following the Netanyahu warrant, which accused him of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza. Former President Trump’s February 2025 executive order labeled the ICC’s actions “illegitimate and baseless” against the U.S. and Israel. The court’s reliance on member states for arrests, coupled with self-referrals by African governments, adds complexity to its operations.
Expert Perspectives: Strategic Move or Solidarity?
International law expert Owiso Owiso suggests the withdrawals may be a calculated effort to evade accountability for human rights violations. “It may be a case of the juntas trying to minimize their potential exposure to the ICC,” he said, describing the move as “performative Pan-Africanism.” Owiso also pointed to solidarity with Russia, which has grown closer to the Sahel nations since their coups. The region’s escalating violence—accounting for over half of global terrorism-related deaths in 2024, according to the Global Terrorism Index—underscores the stakes of abandoning ICC oversight.
Implications for Justice and Stability
The withdrawal, effective September 2026 after notification to the UN secretary-general, could inspire other nations to reconsider ICC membership. South Africa, Gambia, and Burundi previously announced similar intentions, though only Burundi completed the process in 2017. For the Sahel, the exit risks exacerbating impunity amid ongoing conflicts, where civilian casualties are mounting.
The Alliance of Sahel States aims to implement domestic justice mechanisms, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. Globally, the ICC faces pressure to address perceptions of bias and enforcement gaps to maintain credibility. The non-membership of major powers like the U.S., driven by fears of prosecuting its citizens, mirrors the Sahel nations’ concerns, highlighting a broader distrust in international institutions.
A Pivotal Moment for Global Justice
The decision by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to exit the ICC marks a critical juncture, challenging the court’s legitimacy and amplifying neo-colonial critiques. As these nations deepen ties with Russia and prioritize sovereignty, their ability to deliver justice domestically will face intense scrutiny. This move not only reshapes West Africa’s relationship with global governance but also prompts a reevaluation of fairness in international law.
For more on the Sahel’s evolving dynamics, explore stories on regional conflicts, Mali’s coup allegations, or Burkina Faso’s human rights challenges. Share this article to spark dialogue on global justice and sovereignty.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why are Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
The military-led governments of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger announced their withdrawal from the ICC on September 23, 2025, accusing the court of being a “tool of neo-colonial repression” controlled by imperialist powers. They criticized the ICC for selective justice, claiming it disproportionately targets less privileged nations, particularly in Africa, and fails to effectively prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of aggression. The countries aim to establish “indigenous mechanisms” to pursue justice and assert greater sovereignty.
2. What is the International Criminal Court (ICC), and what does it do?
The ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, is the world’s first permanent international criminal court, established by the Rome Statute in 1998 and operational since 2002. It investigates, prosecutes, and tries individuals for four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. With 125 member states, the ICC’s jurisdiction applies only to events after July 1, 2002. However, major powers like the United States, Russia, China, India, and Israel are not members, and the court relies on member states for enforcement, lacking its own police force.
3. How will the withdrawal affect Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger?
The withdrawal, effective one year after notification to the UN secretary-general (September 2026), may shield the military juntas from ICC investigations into alleged human rights abuses, such as civilian executions and war crimes reported in the Sahel. However, it could exacerbate impunity, as the countries must develop effective domestic justice systems. The move aligns with their rejection of Western influence, including ties with former colonial power France, and strengthens their alliance with Russia, potentially impacting regional stability amid ongoing conflicts with jihadist groups.
4. Why do these countries claim the ICC is biased?
Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, along with critics like Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame, argue the ICC exhibits an anti-African bias, as 32 of its 33 cases since 2002 have targeted Africans, with the exception being former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. They view the court as a neo-colonial institution serving Western interests, particularly since major powers like the US and Russia are not subject to its jurisdiction. Enforcement challenges, such as France’s refusal to act on an ICC warrant against Israel’s Prime Minister, further fuel perceptions of selective justice.
5. What are the broader implications of this withdrawal for international justice?
The withdrawal could inspire other nations to exit the ICC, following Burundi’s 2017 departure, weakening the court’s global authority. It highlights ongoing criticisms of the ICC’s perceived bias and enforcement limitations, pressing the need for reforms to address these concerns. In the Sahel, the absence of ICC oversight risks unchecked human rights abuses, especially given reported atrocities by military forces and their allies. The shift toward Russia and the Alliance of Sahel States signals a broader realignment, challenging the framework of international law and accountability.
