Why crying wolf to ICC is a vain strategy

Rwanda is renowned for its mountain gorillas. Each year, celebrities and visitors from all walks of life pay top dollar to visit Virunga foothills in the north to give newborns names.When I toured the famed park last year, the chest-thumping habit of these majestic creatures made quite an impression. The silverbacks often pound their chests to signify self-importance. It’s simply their world.

And in our world, there’s the adage of the boy who cried wolf. He fooled people into believing a wolf was mauling his sheep.

He would yell and yelp until villagers come to help, only to find no threat.

But when the predator came for real, the boy sought help only to be ignored. The wolf ate up all the sheep, and the naïve young man lived to regret his folly. He learnt firsthand how empty words can lose their power, and liars can’t be trusted even when telling the truth.

Exactly my point. When the International Criminal Court (ICC) sought to investigate alleged crimes against humanity in Kenya following the 2007 poll chaos, its activities were heavily politicised.

Protagonists and antagonists made it a battlefront. One MP said ‘don’t be vague, let’s go to The Hague.’

It was a drawn-out push and pull. But when cases against the cases fell with a thud, I was personally relieved to hear there was no evidence against Jubilee leaders who were in Moreno-Ocampo’s list.

There were claims of non-cooperation. Prior to this debacle, however, we chest-thumped much like the gorillas that we could solve our issues locally. How true?

Alongside allies like South Africa, we threatened to officially ditch the ICC. MPs voted, and the rest is history. For the record, it wasn’t only our fellow citizens in the dock at The Hague. The ICC was also probing cases in Central African Republic, DRC, Libya, Mali, Sudan, Uganda, Ivory Coast, as well as in Colombia, Afghanistan, Georgia and South Korea.

Previously, we’ve dissed the International Court of Justice (ICJ), too. In 2021 when ICJ ruled against us in a territorial row with Somalia, we laughed it all off, calling it a travesty of justice.

It was all politics. We didn’t think the UN justice system could shield us against international humanitarian law violations.

But since we ‘vanquished’ the ICC in 2016, it’s curious how we still invoke its name in our daily squabbles. We’ve a bad hangover.

Last week in Tetu, ‘truthful man’ Rigathi Gachagua ‘invited’ the court to probe alleged resurgence of a gang. His allies like Gathoni Wamuchomba and Karungo wa Thangwa want an inquiry launched.

“It is the only international body capable of ensuring justice,” Mr Gachagua says.

This isn’t the first time a leader of Mr Gachagua’s stature is calling for the ICC to come fix local issues.

There were similar calls when police clashed with pro-opposition protestors in 2023.

Azimio’s Raila Odinga pulled the ICC card, and linked top Kenya Kwanza leaders to mass murders. This year, we must tell politicians to spare the ICC their tantrums as we face 2027.

Invoking the court for political convenience makes us pretty much like the boy who cried wolf. We will be ignored when we most need help.

Also, dropping the ICC’s name in trivial ways mocks poll chaos victims who didn’t get justice.

This isn’t to say local issues don’t merit ICC’s attention. What’s key isn’t the street talk but cooperation by countries to ensure universality of the Rome Statute that created the court in July 2002 to address crimes of global concern.

If we didn’t cooperate in 2008, what has changed?  

Take it or leave it, seeking ICC’s help is now water under the bridge. We’ve embarrassed ourselves enough.

Fairness requires careful action. Moreover, justice can’t be important only when the shoe is on the other foot or when seeking political sympathy. Chest-thumping and crying wolf are vain strategies. 

-The writer is a communications practitioner. X:@markoloo