There are many Pan-Africanists who believe that the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) suffered a still-birth when conservative leaders thwarted the attempt by more radical leaders to create a more functional union and inserted the now notorious principle of respect for the sovereignty and non interference in the internal affairs of member states. With that the OAU soon became a mere talk-shop where leaders gathered to talk but are hamstrung by the principle of non-interference to prevent the various wars and conflicts that engulfed most African states shortly after independence. The OAU was transformed into a ‘dictators club’ from the 1970s when military regimes, one party and Authoritarian regimes took over power in most African states. Then, the dictators only look out for themselves and will do nothing to irritate one of their own even if doing nothing will lead to the death of hundreds of thousands. The organisation failed to show leadership or even a desire to stand by the African people in times of crisis. The priority always is the position and or interest of the leaders and not those of the people. Thus, the OAU always looked on helplessly and was unable to prevent or intervene to stop any conflict in Africa – from the Congo DR crisis, the Nigerian, Somali, Angolan Liberian and Sierra Leonean Civil Wars to the endless wars in Burundi and the Rwandan genocide. The lack of leadership shown by the OAU opened the doors for outsiders, particularly the West, to intervene in many of such conflicts.
By the late 1990s and early 2000s the organisation was so thoroughly discredited that no one took it seriously or paid attention to it. What was more, it was considered so anachronistic since its founding principles revolved around struggle against colonialism and narrow concerns with national sovereignty – principles no longer important or relevant in the present world.
However, following the successes recorded by the European Union and its steady march towards unification, the OAU too decided to reform and to become African Union in 2002. Its aim changed to that of promoting economic and political integration among its members, which will in turn enhance growth, eliminate poverty and bring Africa into the global economy. To underscore their seriousness, a select group of African leaders went further to found the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) and the Peer Review Mechanism (PRM) to enable African countries asses the development works of one another. Quite significantly also, they outlawed all unconstitutional takeovers of government.
But old habits die hard. Like its predecessor, the AU has been unable to shift focus from defending discredited rulers to looking out for the best interest of the African people. Besides being a mere ‘talking shop’ and toothless bulldog like its predecessor, the AU is turning into a very reactive and anti-people organisation which opposes every move and effort to hold recalcitrant leaders to account.
For the first time since 2002, the International Criminal Court at The Hague convicted Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former Congo DR warlord – head of the Movement for the Liberation of the Congo—and a former vice-president of the same country of crimes against humanity, of rape and pillage in relation to the conflict in the Central African Republic between October 26, 2002 and March 15, 2003. It was actually the very first time that the court is convicting anyone for “command responsibility”. Mr Bemba was the leader of a 1500 strong militia in Congo DR that was sent across the border to the CAR to carry out killings of hundreds of civilians.
Expectedly, many African and international human rights campaigners hailed the verdict. But the AU and most African governments were conspicuously silent. This is understandable. The AU has been at the forefront of countries accusing the court of bias against African leaders. It has severally called for African states to boycott or pull out from the court. This is because, as the AU claims, all those the court has found guilty thus far have been Africans.
However, the AU conveniently forgot that most of the cases involving Africans have been reported, investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated largely by Africans who are frustrated by the failure of the AU to prevent such abuses in the first place or hold leaders accountable for their actions. Six of those cases were brought to the court by African governments. In the case of Bemba, it was the CAR that referred his case to the court in 2004. That of the post-election violence in Kenya was referred to it by the mediator in the crisis – Kofi Annan – an African and former Secretary General of the UN. In any case, the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda is from Gambia while the senior trial lawyer, Jean-Jacques Badibanga is from the DRC. A number of the judges who sit on the cases are Africans.
Such is the loss of credibility of the AU that its members and Africans now frequently bypass it and refer cases to other credible international institutions in search of justice and succour. Like the OAU before it, the AU has been hijacked again by sit-tight rulers whose only concern is to perpetrate themselves in office at all cost and against the will of their people.
For the Pan Africanists who advocated for and fought for the formation of an African Union in the mould of the European Union, and for the millions of Africans who hoped the AU will be more responsive to their needs, it is another deferred hope.
Christopher Akor
