No African leadership prize in 2013 as African leaders fight for impunity

There is little coincidence that the respected Mo Ibrahim Foundation once again did not declare a winner for African leadership during its 2013 Ibrahim Index of African Governance presentation on Monday, despite the 'gains' in governance and development the Foundation has praised.

The award is only considered for FORMER heads of state, and to win, they must fulfill the following criteria: be a democratically elected former African Head of State or Government who has left office in the previous three years; have served her/his constitutionally mandated term; and have demonstrated excellence in office, helping to lift people out of poverty and paving the way for sustainable and equitable prosperity.

But for the FOURTH time since the prize was established in 2007, and for the second consecutive year, the award in 2013 has no recipient.

The non-award has coincided with the proposal raised at an African Union (AU) summit over the weekend that sitting heads of state be immune from prosecution at the International Criminal Court. The proposal was raised at a meeting specifically called to look at Africa's relationship with the court, with pressure building for African member nations to withdraw.

The two may not be in any way linked, and as many commentators have said, there has been significant progress in terms of governance figures in Africa that suggest not all is doom and gloom (read the 2013 Mo Ibrahim Index here).

But it is a coincidence too glaring to overlook. On one hand you have another empty award, which can be read as yet another sign of the void of decent leadership in Africa. On the other hand you have a proposal so shocking, that the integrity of the continent has again been brought into question.

 

Daniel Bekele (pictured) the Executive Director of the Africa Division of Human Rights Watch, was among the many to criticise the African leaders. He said, in a Dispatches report on the HRW wesbsite that the "depressing truth" about the AU meeting in Addis Ababa "is that the main issue on the agenda was how to protect a handful of Africa’s most powerful people."

"AU leaders concluded that instead of addressing any of the urgent human rights disasters that threaten Africans, displacing millions and forcing tens of thousands to flee abroad, the most urgent issue was to unite their voices to obstruct the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has become the last, best hope for many of those Africans who have been victims of  atrocities implicating some of these very same leaders," Bekele said.

He added that despite the AU "paying lip service to ending impunity, the central proposal out of Addis was that sitting heads of state or anybody acting or entitled to act in such a capacity should have immunity from prosecution. That means Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir should be not be required to appear for trial for genocide and crimes against humanity, or Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta for crimes against humanity. (Let’s not forget that Bashir is currently the only head of state aside from Syria’s Bashar al-Assad who is implicated in bombing his own people on a daily basis.)"

Meanwhile, Peter Fabricius, the foreign editor of Independent Newspapers in South Africa, has questioned in the Au proposal was a 'red herring'. He wrote in an opinion piece that "the AU summit did not decide that African states should withdraw from the ICC. Many commentators welcomed this decision as a victory for Africa’s fight against impunity."

"But was it such a great victory? Or was the threat of total withdrawal always just a red herring? Did it distract our attention from what the AU leaders actually decided in the end – that all other Africans should remain subject to ICC prosecution – while granting themselves impunity?" Fabricius questioned.

The precedent being set in Africa right now is a seriously disturbing one, but is there still hope as the Mo Ibrahim Foundation believes. What are your views? Let me know.