Global Courant
Photo: IOL
Cape Town – International Relations and Cooperation Minister Naledi Pandor has offered a defense for South Africa’s decision to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to the BRICS summit, despite his arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Her reply came in response to a question from ANC MP Desmond Lawrence Moela, who questioned whether the government’s invitation to Putin represented support for his alleged human rights violations and disregard for international law.
As a member of the ICC, South Africa is obliged to execute the arrest warrant. Minister Pandor clarified in her written response that the invitation was issued to Putin before the ICC order was issued. She emphasized South Africa’s unaligned position in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. As to the merits of the allegations underlying the warrant, she claimed that a thorough investigation and legal process would determine their validity.
Pandor stated unequivocally that South Africa does not support or condone violations of the laws of war as set out in the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions. She affirmed that in times of war, all parties involved must respect and comply with the laws of war and related humanitarian laws. She reiterated South Africa’s position against violations of these laws, regardless of conflict or location.
Minister in the presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, recently informed the media that no decision had yet been made on the possible relocation of the BRICS summit to another country.
ICC-listed lawyer and barrister Michael Donen, SC, believed that South Africa’s failure to arrest and extradite former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to the ICC, despite an existing warrant, as unlawful Was considered. He suggested that a similar conclusion would hold in the case of the ICC order against Putin. Donen went on to explain that customary international law is part of South African law, as provided in the Constitution, unless it is contradicted by a South African statute. He argued that since the Nuremberg Trials in 1945, customary international law has ruled that heads of state cannot invoke immunity for crimes of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The order against Putin appears to cover the latter two categories, suggesting he should not enjoy immunity.
Donen emphasized that the politics of international law are more complex than the law itself. He pointed out that while US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Blair led the 2003 invasion of Iraq in violation of the UN charter, they were not issued ICC warrants for their actions. He stressed that no one has attempted to arrest and try them for waging an aggressive war similar to the actions of the Nazi High Command for which they were hanged. In particular, Blair’s attorney general warned him in a confidential memo that he could face arrest if he ordered the invasion.
