The Presidency of the Assembly of States Parties (AEP) to the Rome Statute voiced its apprehension on Wednesday regarding the stated intention of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This move, it believes, could significantly undermine global efforts to combat impunity and uphold justice.
In an official statement, AEP President Päivi Kaukoranta expressed regret over this initiative, emphasizing that the departure of these three West African nations risks jeopardizing international cooperation in criminal justice matters. She reiterated the ICC’s foundational role within the global justice system, urging the trio of countries to maintain their adherence to the Rome Statute and continue their engagement in the Assembly’s vital work.
The Presidency further highlighted that member states possess established mechanisms to articulate their concerns within the Assembly, actively encouraging a path of dialogue and constructive engagement. It also clarified that any withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not absolve a state of obligations incurred during the period it was a party to the treaty.
This stance emerges following the formal notification of Niger’s withdrawal. The ICC confirmed receipt of this notification on June 18, 2026, which was transmitted to the United Nations Secretary-General, the designated depositary of the Rome Statute. As per the provisions of the treaty, this withdrawal is slated to become effective on June 18, 2027.
In September 2025, leaders from the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), comprising Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, initially declared their collective decision to depart from the ICC. A joint communique, endorsed by the transitional President of Mali, General Assimi Goïta, who was then the acting chair of the AES, leveled accusations against the Court. They asserted its inability to effectively prosecute perpetrators of the most egregious crimes, decrying what they termed “selective justice.” Furthermore, the AES characterized the ICC as an “instrument of neocolonial repression,” criticizing its perceived silence on certain offenses while, in their view, disproportionately targeting actors outside what they described as “the circle of beneficiaries of institutionalized international impunity.”
