Sahel states withdraw from international criminal court: impact on victims and global justice

Why the Sahel’s withdrawal from the international criminal court is a blow to justice

The Global Initiative Against Impunity (GIAI)—a coalition including the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CCPI), Redress, Trial International, and Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ)—has strongly condemned the decision by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s Rome Statute. This move represents a significant setback, undermining decades of African leadership in the fight against impunity and weakening both the Court and the broader international justice system at a critical moment.

Withdrawal is not immediate

On September 22, 2025, the three member states of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) announced their exit from the ICC, claiming it would take effect immediately. However, under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, a state must formally notify the United Nations Secretary-General in writing, and withdrawal only becomes effective one year after this notification. Until then, these Sahel nations remain fully bound by their obligations under the Rome Statute, including the duty to cooperate with the Court. Furthermore, the withdrawal does not affect ongoing proceedings for crimes committed before the withdrawal takes effect.

Currently, the ICC is handling cases related to Mali, referred by the Malian government in July 2012. The reparations process in the Al Mahdi case is nearing completion. Al Mahdi was convicted on September 27, 2016, for intentionally directing attacks on religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu. Additionally, the Court is expected to rule within months on reparations in the Al Hassan case, following his June 26, 2024 conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the same city. An arrest warrant also remains active against Iyad Ag Ghaly, the alleged leader of the jihadist group Ansar Dine.

From leadership to withdrawal: victims abandoned

Africa has played a pivotal role in establishing the ICC, with many nations ratifying the Rome Statute and even referring domestic situations to the Court. This support provided victims of the gravest crimes with a vital international ally when national justice systems failed them. The announced withdrawal contradicts this legacy, leaving victims with fewer avenues to seek justice.

This decision follows the three states’ departure from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in January 2025—another institution they helped shape—undermining human rights protections and deepening isolation at a time when regional and international cooperation are crucial, particularly in the face of terrorism-driven atrocities.

“The decision to withdraw from the ICC weakens the situation of victims, for whom the Court often represents their last hope for justice. After leaving ECOWAS, the loss of ICC protection leaves victims in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger without recourse for grave human rights violations they continue to endure,” said Drissa Traoré, Secretary-General of the FIDH. “In these countries facing multidimensional crises, national courts still lack the capacity or political will to deliver justice and reparations for war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

A vulnerable international justice system under pressure

The withdrawal comes as international justice faces mounting challenges. Earlier this year, Hungary also announced its intention to leave the Rome Statute, a move widely criticized for undermining global efforts to combat impunity.

While the ICC has faced criticism for its perceived focus on Africa, it has increasingly expanded its reach beyond the continent. Investigations and cases are now underway in regions such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Palestine, Ukraine, Venezuela, Libya, and the Philippines. Recent arrests, including of Libyan suspects and former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, demonstrate that no region or high-ranking official is beyond the Court’s reach. This growing universality strengthens the ICC’s legitimacy but also makes it more vulnerable to political attacks.

“States must show resilience and reaffirm their commitment to the Court, the fight against impunity, and the rights of victims worldwide,” emphasized Alix Vuillemain, Executive Director of Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WIGJ). “At a time when the Court faces increasing attacks, states must advance toward universality, not retreat. Turning away now only reinforces impunity.”

The role of states in preserving international norms

The ICC’s role in international justice is vital. It complements existing mechanisms such as truth-seeking processes and transitional justice initiatives, which are essential for sustainable peace. The Rome Statute enshrines key principles: no immunity for heads of state, complementarity with national jurisdictions, and victims’ rights to participate in judicial processes and seek reparations. The withdrawal risks weakening these protections domestically and compromising decades of progress in establishing global norms against impunity.

The GIAI urges all ICC member states to reaffirm their commitment to the Rome Statute. In an era where victims in Africa and beyond face escalating violence, preserving the ICC as a court of last resort is essential for upholding justice and accountability.