The Sahel’s Judicial Revolt: Why Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger Are Leaving the ICC

In a move that signals a significant evolution in Africa’s engagement with global institutions, the Alliance of Sahel States (AES)—comprising Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger—announced their collective withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) on September 22, 2025. This decision represents more than a simple policy change; it marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing dialogue between national sovereignty and international oversight, with implications that extend far beyond the Sahel region. The withdrawal comes at a critical juncture for international justice mechanisms and raises important questions about the future of accountability in an increasingly multipolar world.

The tripartite withdrawal occurs against the backdrop of complex security challenges in the Sahel, where these nations are grappling with escalating jihadist violence, humanitarian crises, and political transitions. By distancing themselves from the world’s primary international justice institution, the AES states are making a substantive statement about their vision of sovereignty and their preferred approach to justice and accountability. This article examines the historical context, immediate implications, and potential long-term consequences of this significant development in international relations.

Africa’s Evolving Relationship with the ICC

To fully appreciate the significance of the AES decision, one must understand the complicated history between African nations and the ICC since the court’s establishment in 2002. Initially, the court enjoyed substantial African support, with 33 of the continent’s 54 nations ratifying the Rome Statute—making Africa the largest regional bloc among the ICC’s 123 member states. This early enthusiasm reflected a genuine commitment to international justice and accountability following periods of conflict and instability across the continent.

However, this relationship began to deteriorate as the court’s docket became increasingly focused on African cases. Of the court’s dozen full investigations, nine have involved African nations, creating a perception of bias that many African leaders have openly criticized. The situation reached a critical point when the court pursued cases against sitting African presidents, including Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, while being accused of insufficient action regarding violations by Western powers and their allies.

The AES withdrawal follows earlier African departures from the ICC framework, including Burundi in 2017, but represents the most coordinated challenge to the court’s authority to date. Unlike previous withdrawals, this move involves three strategically important West African nations acting in concert, suggesting a new phase in Africa’s engagement with international institutions. This collective action provides insight into how regional blocs may approach international justice mechanisms in the future.

Understanding the AES Position: Multiple Perspectives

The joint statement issued by the AES governments cites several reasons for their decision, primarily focusing on accusations of “neo-colonialist repression” and “selective justice.” These complaints reflect grievances that have been brewing across parts of the continent for years and deserve careful consideration from multiple angles.

From the AES perspective, the core issue revolves around what they see as the ICC’s disproportionate focus on Africa. While serious violations have occurred in conflicts worldwide, the court’s investigations have remained heavily concentrated on the African continent. This pattern has led to accusations that the court serves as an instrument for powerful nations to influence African affairs while avoiding scrutiny of their own actions or those of their allies. The AES statement specifically references this perceived imbalance as a fundamental reason for their withdrawal.

Security considerations also play a significant role in the decision. The Sahel region has become a global epicenter of jihadist violence, with conflicts in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger accounting for nearly half of all terrorism-related deaths worldwide in recent years. The AES governments, engaged in brutal conflicts against groups linked to Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, view ICC oversight as both a practical constraint and a sovereignty issue. Military operations in the region have drawn international scrutiny, with human rights organizations documenting abuses by various actors. The juntas appear to believe that operating without external judicial oversight is necessary for effective counterterrorism.

The withdrawal also fits within the broader context of the AES’s foreign policy reorientation. Since coming to power through coups between 2020-2023, these nations have systematically distanced themselves from former colonial power France and other Western partners. This decision completes their break from Western-dominated international institutions and aligns with their pivot toward alternative partnerships, particularly with Russia. The ICC exit can thus be understood as part of a comprehensive strategic shift rather than an isolated policy decision.

The Security Context: Balancing Justice and Counterterrorism

The security situation in the Sahel is crucial for understanding the ICC withdrawal decision. According to the United Nations, the central Sahel has experienced a dramatic increase in violence, with over 2,000 reported terrorist attacks in 2024 alone. Civilian populations face threats from multiple sources, including jihadist groups, ethnic militias, and sometimes state security forces.

Human rights organizations have documented serious violations by all parties to the conflicts. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported over 2,000 civilian deaths in security operations in the central Sahel between 2021-2023. The ICC had been monitoring these situations, and the threat of prosecution likely influenced the AES decision. By withdrawing from the court, the juntas have removed a significant accountability mechanism during ongoing counterinsurgency campaigns.

This development raises difficult questions about the balance between accountability and effective security operations. While accountability for violations is crucial, counterterrorism operations present unique challenges that standard judicial frameworks may not adequately address. The AES states appear to be seeking approaches they view as better suited to their specific security environment, though the effectiveness of these alternatives remains to be seen.

Regional Implications and International Response

The AES decision could have significant ripple effects across Africa, where dissatisfaction with the ICC is not limited to the Sahel region. Several African countries, including South Africa, have previously threatened withdrawal, and the AES’s coordinated action provides a potential template for collective action. The African Union has long advocated for alternative justice mechanisms, including the expansion of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights to include international crime jurisdiction. The AES move may accelerate these efforts, potentially leading to regional justice systems that operate alongside or instead of the ICC framework.

International responses to the withdrawal have varied. Western nations have generally expressed concern, emphasizing the importance of international accountability mechanisms. Human Rights Watch stated that the withdrawal “will jeopardize access to justice for victims of atrocity crimes” and removes a crucial judicial backstop when national systems are weakened. Other actors, including some non-Western nations, have shown more understanding of the AES position, reflecting broader debates about international justice and sovereignty.

Within West Africa, the withdrawal further deepens the divide between the AES states and their neighbors. Having already exited the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) earlier in 2025, the ICC departure solidifies their status as a distinct bloc operating outside established regional frameworks. This development complicates regional diplomacy and cooperation at a time when coordinated action is needed to address transnational threats.

The Proposed Alternative: A Sahelian Justice System

The AES states have not merely rejected international justice without proposing an alternative. They announced plans to establish a “Sahelian Criminal and Human Rights Court” (CPS-DH) that would operate according to what they term “indigenous mechanisms for the consolidation of peace and justice.” This proposed court represents an ambitious attempt to create a region-specific justice mechanism that reflects local traditions and priorities.

However, serious questions remain about the feasibility and credibility of this alternative. Establishing an effective international judicial body requires significant financial resources, legal expertise, and institutional infrastructure—all of which present challenges for nations facing economic difficulties and security crises. The combined GDP of the three AES nations is less than $50 billion, raising practical questions about their capacity to fund a credible judicial institution.

The independence of the proposed court is another concern. Military governments in all three countries have faced criticism for restricting civil society and media freedom, creating an environment that may challenge judicial independence. For the court to have legitimacy beyond the Sahel region, it would need recognition from the broader international community, which may be difficult given the current isolation of the AES states.

Despite these challenges, the proposal reflects a growing trend toward regional solutions to international problems. If successfully implemented, the court could provide a model for other regions seeking justice mechanisms that better reflect local contexts and priorities. However, success would require substantial international cooperation and technical assistance, even if the political direction remains regional.

Broader Implications for International Justice

The AES withdrawal represents a significant challenge to the existing international justice architecture. It reflects broader trends in global politics, including the erosion of multilateral institutions and the resurgence of sovereignty-based approaches to international relations. As similar sentiments exist in other parts of the world, the AES decision may inspire comparable actions by other states dissatisfied with current international arrangements.

The withdrawal also raises fundamental questions about the future of international justice. Can universal justice mechanisms accommodate diverse cultural and political contexts? How should international institutions balance accountability with respect for national sovereignty? What reforms might make international justice mechanisms more acceptable to a wider range of states? These questions require serious engagement from all stakeholders in the international system.

For the ICC specifically, the withdrawal represents both a challenge and an opportunity. The court must confront legitimate criticisms about its case selection and operations while maintaining its core mission of combating impunity. This may require reforms to improve transparency, enhance dialogue with member states, and ensure more equitable application of justice across regions and political contexts.

Navigating a Changing Landscape

The AES’s decision to withdraw from the ICC represents a significant moment in the evolution of international justice. While raising legitimate concerns about accountability, it also reflects substantive debates about sovereignty, cultural context, and the appropriate balance between international standards and regional approaches.

The ultimate impact of this decision will depend on several factors: the success of alternative justice mechanisms established by the AES states, the response of other African nations and international actors, and potential reforms within the ICC itself. What is clear is that the landscape of international justice is changing, and institutions must adapt to remain relevant and effective.

As the situation develops, all parties should seek dialogue and constructive engagement. The goal should be justice systems that effectively combat impunity while respecting the legitimate sovereignty concerns of states. Achieving this balance is crucial for building a sustainable framework for international justice that commands broad support across different regions and political systems.

The AES withdrawal reminds us that international institutions must continually demonstrate their value and fairness to maintain support. As the world becomes increasingly multipolar, flexibility, dialogue, and reform may be necessary to preserve essential mechanisms for accountability and justice. The coming years will reveal whether the international community can build a justice architecture that effectively serves all humanity while respecting legitimate diversity in approaches and perspectives.