The United States’ escalating campaign against the International Criminal Court has received a mixed response across Africa, exposing longstanding divisions over whether the Hague-based institution has unfairly concentrated its prosecutions on the continent.
Senegal strongly objected after Washington imposed sanctions on ICC President Tomoko Akane, a Japanese judge, and Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer in the court’s Office of the Prosecutor.
The measures block any assets the two officials hold under US jurisdiction, restrict their access to the American financial system and generally prohibit US citizens and companies from conducting transactions with them.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Akane and Seye of participating in attempts to investigate, arrest or prosecute officials from countries that have not accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction.
The ICC condemned the sanctions as an attack on judicial independence and warned that threatening legal officials for carrying out their duties placed the wider international legal order at risk.
Senegal defends international justice
Senegal’s Foreign Ministry expressed “deep concern” over the measures and declared its solidarity with Seye, according to the Senegalese newspaper Le Quotidien.
Dakar also reaffirmed its commitment to multilateralism, international law and the independence of international judicial institutions.
The dispute carries particular significance for Senegal. In February 1999, it became the first country to ratify the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC.
Seye is also Senegal’s official candidate in the December 2026 election for six new ICC judges. His candidacy is among eight submitted by African states, alongside nominees from the Democratic Republic of Congo, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda.
The large field could strengthen Africa’s representation on the court when one-third of its 18-member judicial bench is replaced.
Africa already represents the ICC’s largest regional bloc, with 33 African countries among the states that have ratified the Rome Statute. That presence has given the continent considerable influence within an institution intended to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
Washington intensifies pressure
The United States signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but never ratified it and withdrew its signature in 2002. No American citizen has been tried by the ICC.
Washington nevertheless accuses the court of exceeding its authority by pursuing officials from countries—including the United States and Israel—that have not accepted its jurisdiction.
The latest measures form part of a broader US campaign against the court. Nine of the ICC’s 18 judges, both deputy prosecutors, a former chief prosecutor and another prosecution official have now been subjected to American sanctions.
Although several African governments remain committed to the court, Washington’s objections have found some resonance on a continent where accusations of selective justice have persisted for years.
Accusations of an anti-African bias
Critics argue that the ICC initially focused overwhelmingly on African conflicts while appearing reluctant or unable to hold powerful Western governments and their allies accountable.
Some African leaders have portrayed the court as an instrument of foreign interference that uses international criminal law to undermine national sovereignty.
Supporters of the ICC counter that several of its African investigations were opened at the request of the governments concerned. Others—including the investigations into Darfur and Libya—were referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council.
The court also operates under the principle of complementarity, meaning it is intended to intervene only when national authorities are unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute serious international crimes.
Despite those arguments, several African governments have moved to sever their ties with the institution.
Burundi became the first country to formally withdraw in 2017, accusing the ICC of disproportionately targeting Africans.
Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, the three members of the Alliance of Sahel States, announced in September 2025 that they would leave the court, denouncing what they described as “selective justice” and an instrument of neo-colonial repression.
The three governments later submitted formal notifications of withdrawal to the United Nations. Under the Rome Statute, their departures take effect one year after notification and do not erase obligations or investigations relating to the period in which they remained members.
Chad followed in July 2026, accusing the ICC of ineffectiveness and bias against African countries. Washington welcomed N’Djamena’s decision, reinforcing concerns that the United States is encouraging African governments to weaken the institution.
A divided continent
The contrasting reactions from Senegal and Chad illustrate the lack of a unified African position.
For critics, the court’s early concentration on Africa established a perception of selective prosecution that it has never fully overcome. For supporters, African governments helped create the ICC, remain its largest regional membership group and have repeatedly turned to it when domestic courts could not deliver justice.
ICC officials reject the claim that the institution is inherently biased against Africa, stressing that many cases originated through requests from African states themselves.
The controversy therefore extends beyond whether the court has prosecuted a disproportionate number of Africans. It also concerns whether international justice can function consistently when powerful non-member states can reject its authority, punish its officials and pressure less powerful countries to withdraw.
As African candidates prepare to contest December’s judicial elections, the continent finds itself in a paradoxical position: it remains the ICC’s strongest regional constituency while also providing some of its most vocal critics.