I don't think it's simply a matter of where the ICC has been investigating. It's also partially a matter of where they
haven't been investigating.
One "specialist in Middle East affairs" has written a piece on how
the ICC is a problem because it doesn't investigate certain influential countries - like the U.S. for their invasion of Iraq. (To be fair, the ICC
can't investigate them, because the U.S. has not signed on to the ICC. But that's kind of his point; he sees it as a case of one law for the rich and influential and another, stricter law for the...
less influential). So, arguments can be made that it's the right thing to do.
But there are also
arguments that can be made in favour of staying in the ICC. Yes, nine of the ten investigations undertaken by the ICC are in Africa; but six of those nine were referred by African governments themselves. It's not as simple as saying that the ICC is biased against Africa; apparently:
Quote:
And aside from that, El Abdallah points out, “there have been no referrals by the UN Security Council or by state parties [of the court] outside Africa,” except for one from Palestine last year.
(As the fellow in favour of withdrawing from the ICC points out, this may be partially because of overuse of veto powers preventing UN resolutions to investigate certain countries).
Like it or not, though, the ICC has performed a role, and
there doesn't appear to be any reasonable replacement handy.
--------------
But aside from the matter of whether or not withdrawing is the right action to take, there is also the question of whether or not said withdrawal was done correctly.
The opposition party says no, it should have gone through Parliament first. Mind you, the ANC has a strong majority in Parliament, so it's likely that getting it through Parliament won't be hard (though the DA is definitely the sort to hound them on any i's left undotted or t's left uncrossed). The ANC's claim is that they are quite in the right to do the withdrawing on their own account; but making changes to the relevant Act will be a matter for Parliament to deal with, and is on their agenda (or will be soon).
It seems that the ANC's main problem with the ICC goes back to Omar Al Bashir (Sudanese President) who came onto South African soil for a summit, and then left without being arrested, despite an ICC warrant out against him. There's apparently conflicting legislation on the matter; the ICC bill said he should be arrested, while another bill said that, as a visiting head of state on official business, he had a very strong diplomatic immunity. The ANC has chosen the side of said diplomatic immunity, claiming that it's hard to broker a peace between warring states when you can't invite the heads of both states into your country for talks on neutral ground without arresting one or both of them; and this is why they want to leave the ICC. (I'm not sure I agree with their reasons, but I have to say they present much better reasons for this decision than they have for some of their previous decisions).