The presidency of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute recently expressed significant apprehension regarding the stated intention of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This move, they believe, risks undermining global efforts to combat impunity.
In an official statement, ASP President Päivi Kaukoranta voiced regret over this development, emphasizing that the departure of these three West African nations could severely jeopardize international cooperation in criminal justice. She underscored the ICC’s vital role as a cornerstone of the global justice system and urged the countries to reconsider their decision, maintain their adherence to the Rome Statute, and continue their engagement within the Assembly’s proceedings.
The presidency further highlighted that member states possess established avenues to articulate their concerns directly within the Assembly, advocating for a path of constructive dialogue. They also issued a reminder that any withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not absolve a state of its obligations incurred during its period as a party to the treaty.
This firm stance comes in the wake of Niger’s formal notification of withdrawal. The ICC confirmed its receipt, on June 18, 2026, of the notification forwarded to the United Nations Secretary-General, who serves as the depositary for the Rome Statute. As per the treaty’s provisions, Niger’s withdrawal will officially become effective on June 18, 2027.
Back in September 2025, leaders of the Confédération des États du Sahel (AES), comprising Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, first declared their collective intent to depart from the ICC. A joint communiqué, endorsed by Malian transitional president General Assimi Goïta, then serving as the acting president of the AES, accused the Court of failing to effectively prosecute perpetrators of the gravest crimes, decrying what they termed “selective justice.” The AES further asserted that the ICC has transformed into a “neocolonial instrument of repression,” criticizing its perceived inaction regarding certain atrocities while, in their view, disproportionately targeting actors outside “the circle of beneficiaries of institutionalized international impunity.”
