Member Withdrawals Mount Pressure on the International Criminal Court

The Alliance of Sahel States (AES) consisting of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announced their withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in June 2026. On July 27, 2026, Chad also announced its withdrawal from the ICC, making it the fourth African country to renounce court membership within a year. Across these withdrawals is a common complaint: the ICC is biased against African countries. While the ICC has discredited these claims, the matter has yielded great controversy about the integrity and competence of the court.

The International Criminal Court is the world’s first permanent international criminal court. It is tasked with investigating grave crimes that have proved a concern for the international community: war crimes, genocides and other crimes against humanity. It serves as a court of last resort, and is governed by the Rome Statute. While the institution formerly enjoyed support from 125 member states, international powers like the United States, China, and Russia have kept a distance. Still, the ICC continued to attend to its judicial duties across member states until recent pressure from the United States.

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netayanhu, his former chief defense officer and Hamas’ military chief, accusing them of grave crimes against humanity. The warrant had been issued following the peak of Israel’s death toll in Gaza at 44,000 people. The ICC launched a full investigation into the matter, however the warrant was not enforced. In February 2025, the United States under President Donald Trump condemned the investigation of the Israeli Prime Minister by the ICC. According to President Trump, the warrants were baseless, and illegitimate, considering neither Israel nor its ally, the United States were members of the Court. The United States promised to impose sanctions on the ICC for its ‘transgressions’,and the pressure on member states happens to be one of these sanctions.

Apart from the neo-colonialist accusations that have been laid against the Court, the Chad foreign minister recently confirmed that the national decision follows a request from the United States. The Chadian Foreign Minister reported that the US Deputy Secretary of State for African Affairs had reached out to request that the government reconsider its Court membership. Also, after Venezuela exited the Court in 2025, the US reached out to affirm the decision, denouncing the processes of the ICC and praising the government for joining the American-led efforts to dismantle the ICC. Since the announcement of sanctions on the ICC by the United States, about five member states have withdrawn, posing great institutional threats to the Court.

The African prejudice criticism is not new to the Court as for many years, the African Union has faulted the institution for persistently focusing its investigations on African countries. However, in recent times, the Court has diversified its examinations as reflected in its current focus on Ukraine, Palestine, Venezuela, Bangladesh and the Philippines. The AES had also cited the Israeli war as a show of the Court’s inability to address war crimes, however being non-members, the Prime Minister enjoys immunity according to international law. Julien Antouly, expert in International Law told RFI that the AES departure came as a surprise since they had not been subject to any investigations at the time. This establishes an unstable comparison to the departure of Chad and Venezuela whose crimes were being investigated at the time they left.

The controversy surrounding the Court is worsened by the recent dismissal of the ICC prosecutor Karim Khan over alleged sexual misconduct. Khan’s legal team has remarked that the decision is political and closely tied to the promised sanctions by the United States administration. The International Criminal Court is facing turbulence from multiple sides even as it struggles to attend to claims of bias against African countries, hostile opposition from the United States and internal issues. The European Union and supporters like Netherlands and Japan have denounced the position of the US, expressing support for the Court; however, no practical steps have been taken to show this support. Other African member states of the Court are yet to lend a voice to the matter at hand even as suspicion grows around the validity of the African prejudice claims.