The question of whether Mali should remain a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is once again sparking intense debate, amid mounting skepticism from African nations over the court’s impartiality.
Dr. Boga Sako Gervais, a university lecturer in Côte d’Ivoire and President-Founder of FIDHOP, an organization committed to defending fundamental freedoms, offers a scathing critique.
“Nearly three-quarters of the cases handled by the Court concern Africans, while Western countries systematically enjoy impunity, despite military operations with devastating consequences,” he argues. Among the cited examples: the 2003 Iraq invasion by the United States and the United Kingdom, which led to massive civilian casualties, and NATO’s 2011 airstrikes in Libya, the chaotic aftermath of which still destabilizes the region. “No political or military leader from those countries has ever stood before The Hague,” the researcher laments.
According to him, the ICC suffers from a glaring lack of independence. “Its actions are driven by the political calculations of major powers. It only intervenes when strategic alignment allows, making it unfit to represent true global justice,” he explains.
The Malian case as a revealing example
Mali’s current situation highlights this dysfunction. The Malian authorities have officially alerted the UN Security Council to alleged French complicity with armed groups and violations of the country’s sovereignty. Ukraine is also suspected of carrying out covert operations in northern Mali.
“Legally, if these allegations are proven, they could qualify as acts of aggression, holding the responsible leaders criminally accountable. Yet no one seriously believes the ICC will dare open such cases,” says Dr. Boga.
The same skepticism surrounds the 2021 French airstrike on Bounti, which killed many civilians during a traditional ceremony. “When a military operation causes civilian deaths without valid justification, it constitutes a war crime. Defense agreements must never be used as a blank check,” he insists.
Toward an African rethink of international justice
Given this bleak assessment, Dr. Boga suggests that Mali’s withdrawal from the ICC could paradoxically serve its national interest. “It would reignite the debate around a fairer international justice system and affirm the right of people to self-determination in the face of institutions seen as biased,” he argues. Several African capitals have already taken similar steps, including Bujumbura, Pretoria, and Banjul—each citing judicial harassment. Most recently, Hungary, a European country, officially announced its withdrawal from the ICC in April 2025, further undermining the court’s claim to universality.
Dr. Boga’s conclusion is unequivocal: the ICC, mired in geopolitical bias, struggles to embody universal justice. In the face of this persistent imbalance, African states now stand at a crossroads—either to push for deep reforms within the existing system or to build credible regional alternatives. For Mali, as for its neighbors, the choice lies between resignation and the reassertion of long-denied judicial sovereignty.