The leadership of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to the Rome Statute has expressed deep concerns over the recent announcement by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger regarding their intention to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC). In an official statement, the ASP presidency warned that such a move could undermine global efforts to combat impunity and weaken international judicial cooperation.
ICC warns of consequences for justice system
Päivi Kaukoranta, President of the ASP, voiced regret over the decision, stressing that the withdrawal of these three Sahel nations could disrupt the delicate balance of international justice. The ICC remains a cornerstone of the global legal framework, she emphasized, urging Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to reconsider their stance and continue their engagement in the Assembly’s proceedings.
The presidency highlighted the existence of internal mechanisms within the Assembly that allow member states to address their grievances constructively. It also pointed out a critical legal reality: a withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not absolve a state of its obligations incurred while it was a party to the treaty. This means that any future accountability measures for crimes committed during their membership would still apply.
Niger’s formal withdrawal triggers ICC response
The situation escalated after Niger officially notified the United Nations Secretary-General—acting as the depositary of the Rome Statute—of its withdrawal on June 18, 2026. Under the treaty’s provisions, this decision will take effect exactly one year later, on June 18, 2027, giving the international community a limited window to engage in dialogue.
Sahel leaders criticize ICC’s perceived flaws
In September 2025, the leaders of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES)—comprising Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger—publicly declared their intent to leave the ICC. A joint statement, signed by Malian transitional leader General Assimi Goïta in his capacity as AES chair, accused the Court of failing to effectively prosecute perpetrators of grave crimes. The alliance condemned what it described as a selective justice system, alleging that the ICC had become a tool of neo-colonial repression.
The AES further argued that the Court had remained silent on certain atrocities while disproportionately targeting actors outside the perceived circle of institutionalized impunity. This critique reflects broader frustrations in the region over the perceived uneven application of international law.
