South Africa’s Ramaphosa says governing party wants ICC exit

The decision comes after an arrest warrant against Russia’s Putin and ahead of a BRICS summit in South Africa later this year.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has said the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party has decided that South Africa should leave the International Criminal Court, which issued an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin last month.

The order against Putin in March means that Pretoria, which will host this year’s BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit, must detain him upon arrival.

“Yes, the governing party… has made the decision that it is prudent for South Africa to withdraw from the ICC,” Ramaphosa said at a press conference co-hosted with Finland’s visiting president Sauli Niinisto.

Ramaphosa said the decision, which follows a weekend meeting of the ANC, was made “largely” because of what is perceived as the court’s unfair treatment of certain countries.

“We would like this issue of unfair treatment to be properly discussed, but in the meantime the governing party has again decided that there must be a withdrawal,” he said.

Putin’s arrest warrant followed allegations that the Kremlin had unlawfully deported Ukrainian children.

On whether South Africa would arrest Putin, Ramaphosa said that “that matter is under consideration”.

South Africa, a continental superpower, has refused to condemn the invasion of Ukraine, which has largely isolated Moscow on the international scene. It says it wants to remain neutral and prefers dialogue to end the war.

It is not the first time South Africa has attempted to withdraw from the ICC.

It attempted to do so in 2016 after a dispute a year earlier when then Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visited the country for an African Union summit. It refused to arrest him, despite al-Bashir facing an arrest warrant from the ICC for alleged war crimes.

However, the controversial decision to withdraw was overturned when a national court ruled that such a move would have been unconstitutional.