South African government criticises US sanctions on ICC for undermining the rule of law
Image: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek
The South African government has expressed deep concern over United States sanctions targeting judges of the International Criminal Court, calling it a 'direct affront to the principles of international justice and the rule of law.'
'These measures, in addition to those imposed earlier on the Prosecutor, represent a direct affront to the principles of international justice and the rule of law,' said Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco), Ronald Lamola.
Phiri stated that these punitive actions against judicial officers fulfilling their mandated duties are regrettable, as they undermine the independence of the ICC and jeopardise the integrity of international legal institutions.
'They furthermore hinder the Court and its personnel in the exercise of their independent judicial functions.'
He said South Africa, as a founding member of the ICC, views these sanctions and previous threats as an attempt to intimidate and obstruct the Court's efforts to hold perpetrators of the most serious crimes accountable.
'The ICC operates under the Rome Statute, to which 125 states are parties, and its mandate is to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to do so.'
Phiri said the imposition of sanctions on ICC judges sets a 'dangerous precedent' that could embolden those who seek to evade accountability for egregious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.
'It also poses a significant challenge to the global fight against impunity and the enforcement of international norms.'
'South Africa reaffirms its commitment to the principles enshrined in the Rome Statute and will continue to work with like-minded nations to safeguard the integrity of the international legal institution,' he added.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
According to Phiri, this highlights the country's participation in the Hague Group, a coalition of countries dedicated to defending the rulings and authority of the ICC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
'The pursuit of justice for victims of the gravest crimes must not be compromised by political considerations.'
'Upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability are essential for the maintenance of international peace and security as well as a rules-based international order based on international law,' Phiri added.
Meanwhile, IOL News previously reported that Dirco said it was not fazed by reports that the US may impose sanctions on the ICC, an independent global judicial institution dedicated to combating impunity for the gravest crimes against humanity.
The US sanctions package is designed to target individual ICC personnel, judges, and prosecutors, classifying them as an organisation threatening the interests of the US government.
According to reports, these measures aim to create conditions allowing the court to independently withdraw its arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
11 hours ago
- The South African
I want a three-way with Putin and Zelensky, says Trump on pending meeting
US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he was planning a second meeting with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin soon after Friday's Alaska summit – this time with Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky included. Trump is due to sit down with Putin in Anchorage on Friday, the first meeting between the Russian leader and a sitting US president since 2021. 'If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one,' he told reporters. 'I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between president Putin and president Zelensky and myself, if they'd like to have me there.' The high-stakes talks come with Trump seeking to broker an end to Russia's nearly three-and-a-half year war in Ukraine, and Zelensky and his European allies have urged the Republican to push for a ceasefire. A stepped-up Russian offensive, and the fact Zelensky has not been invited to the Anchorage meeting Friday, have heightened fears that Trump and Putin could strike a deal that forces painful concessions on Ukraine. Trump said Russia would face 'very severe consequences' if Putin did not agree to end the war after Friday's meeting, without elaborating. The US leader promised dozens of times during his 2024 election campaign to end the war on his first day in office but has made scant progress towards brokering a peace deal. He threatened 'secondary sanctions' on Russia's trading partners over its invasion of Ukraine but his deadline for action came and went last week with no action announced. Trump told reporters he'd had a 'very good call' with European leaders including Zelensky as he took questions from reporters at an arts event at Washington's Kennedy Center. 'I would rate it at 10. You know – very, very friendly,' he said. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news. © Agence France-Presse
The Citizen
13 hours ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party file urgent court bid to challenge Ramaphosa's Mchunu decision
The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party have not given up the fight and have lodged an urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the High Court in Pretoria. The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. What Zuma wants In the notice of motion, Zuma and his party want the high court to declare Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave. They also want the appointment of Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be declared invalid, null and void and unconstitutional and set aside. ConCourt ruling The ConCourt on 31 July 2025 ruled that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. 'This matter does not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them. 'Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days' notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,' Hofmeyr said. This basically means that Zuma and the MK party had to approach the high court first, which they have now done. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The court ruling was handed down two hours after it hosted a special ceremonial sitting for retiring Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, whom Ramaphosa appointed to chair a commission to probe explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanzi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system. Constitutional matter In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the 'interest of justice' he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party. 'The twin purposes of this application are to re-assert the merits of the application which were left unadjudicated by the Constitutional Court on account of its findings on exclusive jurisdiction and direct access; and to raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events which arose post the 30 July 2025 hearing in the Constitutional Court,' Zuma argues. Zuma said that the present application is indisputably a constitutional matter. Section 169(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of South Africa may decide any constitutional matter except a matter that the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear by way of direct access or is assigned by legislation to another court of a status similar to the High Court. 'This is such a matter because the Constitutional Court, rightly or in my view wrongly, declined to grant direct access. That decision must be respected as a fact until or unless it is set aside,' Zuma said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring 'most serious' violations by Ramaphosa Urgency In his papers, Zuma argues that in his Constitutional Court application, Ramaphosa did not contest the urgency, exclusive jurisdiction, and/or direct access. 'The president sought and was allowed to opportunistically hide behind those technicalities to escape much-needed judicial accountability for the unjustifiable multiple breaches of the rule of law. There are no more hiding places. 'The serious and unprecedented revelations of alleged criminality made by Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi, as another highly qualified whistleblower, in the tradition of former Intelligence Chief Arthur Fraser, can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet at the request of the president,' Zuma argued. Zuma explains that the urgency of the application is 'clearly not self-created, and it can never be reasonably asserted that relief may be obtained in due course.' 'The impugned commission has already commenced and continues to operate at huge cost to the taxpayer. In the (unlikely) event of its delivering a final report in six months' time, the matter would still not have been heard in due course.' Cachalia Zuma also argues that Cachalia has since assumed office and will be 'making decisions which affect the security of the people of South Africa' while Mchunu 'who has been illegally placed on leave of absence by the president continues to earn a salary and enjoy other expensive privileges such as bodyguards, drivers, free ministerial accommodation, air travel domestic workers and the like.' 'It is trite that the matter involves very serious and unprecedented allegations of executive and judicial capture which, if true, constitute a threat to the very democracy prevailing in South Africa. 'It is impossible to imagine a greater catastrophe than that which would transpire if the allegations are true and the matter is not heard as one of the utmost urgency. In relation to the question of urgency, the merits must be regarded as true and proven,' Zuma argues. Senzo Mchunu Zuma also argues that there is 'no express legal provision which empowers Ramaphosa to place a minister on leave of absence. 'The respondents can therefore only rely on an implied power which is said to flow from the power to dismiss. 'It will be argued that the decision does not pass the reasonable necessity test because the power to dismiss in section 91(2) must not be confused with the power to dismiss an employee,' he said. 'Financial benefit' Zuma said the appointment of Cachalia is 'totally incoherent' and false explanations given by Ramaphosa in 'respect of this decision owe to the fact that it is rooted in improper motives and bad faith'. 'Its purpose if to grant undue financial benefits to Minister Mchunu at the expense of the taxpayer and to shield him from accountability and well-deserved dismissal or removal from the Cabinet. 'In explaining this appointment, the president has performed both somersaults and backflips in a series of incompatible volte face manoeuvres, all pointing to sheer irrationality,' Zuma argued. In his papers, Zuma argued that following the swearing in of the acting police minister, both Ramaphosa and Cachalia gave media interviews, with differing accounts of his official title and status. Questions to Ramaphosa Zuma's attorneys sent a letter to Ramaphosa on 4 August 2025, posing 15 unanswered questions regarding his actions and justifications. Zuma said Ramaphosa's response was 'inadequate'. 'Given the public importance of the issues and the imminence of the 1 August date for the assumption of office by Professor Cachalia, the matter cries out for direct access.' ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… Madlanga Commission Zuma also argues that there is no legal provision which is capable of endowing the president with the power to confer upon the Madlanga Commission the powers which are reserved to the Judicial Service and/or Magistrates' Commissions, to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of members of the judiciary. 'There are specific and well-accepted policy reasons why such powers are exclusively reserved for the bodies referred to above. These include the preservation of the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary.' The matter is expected to heard on 26 August 2025. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
IOL News
14 hours ago
- IOL News
EFF backs government in rejecting US State Department's human rights report
EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo says the US is hypocritical in their report on human rights. Image: File The EFF and the South African government have come together to dismiss the recent United States State Department Human Rights Report, calling out the US for its hypocrisy on human rights issues. The report claimed that South Africa's human rights record has "significantly worsened," and documented several instances of arbitrary or unlawful killings committed by the government or its agents. But both the EFF and government claim this assessment is flawed and biased. It also claimed that the EFF incited violence against Afrikaner farmers, claiming that the party achieved this by reintroducing the contentious song 'Kill the Boer' song at its gatherings and through other acts of incitement. The report said that a provincial police commissioner confirmed in July that police had fatally shot at least 40 criminal suspects in shoot-outs since April. A January report from the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) was also referenced. This report detailed the 2021 unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng, which led to 337 deaths and 3,400 arrests. However, both the EFF and the the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) criticised the US report for applying double standard on human rights. The EFF pointed out that the US has a history of using human rights narratives to justify sanctions, isolation, and even military aggression against other nations. "It is the same tactic used in Iraq under the lies of 'weapons of mass destruction', which left over a million people dead while US corporations looted oil fields,' EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said. "The US has no moral standing to lecture any nation on human rights. This is a country that cages migrant children in detention centers; that has rolled back reproductive rights and stripped millions of women of the freedom to control their bodies," The party also criticised the report for selectively presenting incidents of police brutality while ignoring the broader context of South Africa's struggle against violent crime. "These cases, picked from our broader struggle against violent crime, are inflated to serve Washington's narrative that our nation is unfit to govern itself," the EFF said. 'This report was clearly crafted to smear South Africa for daring to assert its sovereignty, reclaim its land, and stand in solidarity with the oppressed peoples of the world, particularly the people of Palestine,' Thambo said. The Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation's spokesperson Chrispin Phiri also expressed profound disappointment with the report, describing it as "inaccurate and deeply flawed." Phiri said the report's reliance on contextual information and discredited accounts is highly concerning. "The report cites an incident involving the deaths of farm workers and, despite the matter being actively adjudicated by our independent judiciary, misleadingly presents it as an extrajudicial killing," Phiri explained. The government noted that South Africa operates a transparent system where information is freely available from law enforcement agencies and Chapter 9 institutions, which are constitutionally mandated to protect and advance human rights. The government also noted the irony that the US, having exited the UN Human Rights Council, would seek to produce one-sided fact-free reports without any due process or engagement. "This is particularly striking given the significant and documented concerns about human rights within the United States, including the treatment of refugees and breaches in due process by its agencies, such as ICE," the government said. "In contrast to the US report, the UN Human Rights Office in Geneva has praised South Africa's Land Expropriation Act, signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa, as a "critical step in addressing the country's racially imbalanced land ownership". This recognition underscores the integrity of South Africa's legislative processes aimed at rectifying historical injustices in a constitutional and human-rights-based manner,' Phiri said.
