Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger Announce Withdrawal from ICC

Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have announced their withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, accusing it of neo-colonial bias and pledging to create local justice systems, a move critics say deepens their international isolation.

Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have jointly declared their intention to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), denouncing the tribunal as an “instrument of neo-colonialist repression” that disproportionately targets weaker nations while failing to hold powerful states accountable.

The three Sahelian countries, all governed by military juntas and aligned closely with Russia, said the decision was part of a broader effort to reclaim sovereignty in matters of justice and governance. In a joint statement, the governments accused the ICC of pursuing selective prosecutions that undermine its credibility and perpetuate global inequality.

According to international legal provisions, the withdrawal will formally take effect one year after the United Nations receives official notification. Until then, the countries remain bound by the court’s jurisdiction.

The governments of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have pledged to establish “indigenous mechanisms for the consolidation of peace and justice” as an alternative to international oversight. Officials argued that locally driven frameworks are better suited to address the security and governance crises afflicting the Sahel, where jihadist insurgencies continue to destabilise vast regions.

This move follows a series of coordinated withdrawals from regional blocs such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), reflecting the trio’s growing rejection of external political and institutional influence. Their decisions have fuelled concerns about deeper isolation from the international community.

Observers warn that abandoning the ICC further weakens avenues for accountability in countries already marked by armed conflict, human rights violations and fragile governance. Critics argue that the withdrawal sets a precedent that may embolden other states to evade international scrutiny.

Human rights organisations also expressed alarm, stressing that the ICC remains one of the few institutions capable of investigating crimes committed in regions where local systems are either compromised or incapable of delivering impartial justice.

The joint exit underscores a critical fault line in international law: the tension between national sovereignty and global accountability. As the Sahelian governments retreat from multilateral frameworks, questions remain over whether justice can be upheld in the absence of external oversight.