ICC exit sparks concerns over accountability in Sahel region

The Alliance of Sahel States—Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger—announced on 22 September that it will withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), marking a major shift in the region’s approach to international justice. The alliance cited “selective” justice as the primary reason for its exit. Mali’s Prime Minister Abdoulaye Maïga reiterated the alliance’s commitment to a multilateral system, provided all countries participate, during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly. However, a joint communiqué issued by Malian President Assimi Goïta, in his capacity as AES President, stated that the three nations will rely on local and endogenous mechanisms to consolidate peace and justice rather than on the international system.

This is not the first time the ICC has faced criticism for perceived double standards. Between 2009 and 2015, the court was condemned by African states and the African Union for having only African situations on its docket. In 2022, Amnesty International warned that such double standards threatened the court’s future. The AES’s departure may undermine efforts to achieve universal ratification of the ICC. While African countries have called for reforms—such as investigating situations beyond Africa—most ICC investigations and cases remain in Africa, largely because affected states have self‑referred.

The withdrawal could also limit victims’ avenues for justice, particularly in Burkina Faso and Mali, where war crimes and crimes against humanity have allegedly occurred. Human‑rights groups fear that, without independent accountability mechanisms, the AES’s exit widens the impunity gap. Under the Rome Statute, a 12‑month notice period is required before a withdrawal takes effect, during which a country can reverse its decision. Yet the AES is unlikely to change course, given its recent departure from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

The implications of the AES’s decision are significant for the ICC and the broader international justice system. The move raises questions about accountability and the risk that unchecked sovereignty could drift toward authoritarianism. The ICC was created to complement national and regional jurisdictions, offering multiple spaces for accountability. Any new mechanisms must enshrine key principles: no one is above the law, and victims’ rights to participation and reparations must be guaranteed.