This treatise addresses the possible creation of an African criminal court for individual criminal responsibility for crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It does so by critically analysing the Statutes of Special Court of Sierra Leone, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in relation to the provisions addressing the principle of individual criminal responsibility, jurisdiction, amnesty and immunity. Another aim is to indicate the strength and weaknesses of the cited statutes in relation to the above provisions. Finally a further aim is to provide an analysis of the statutes, and any other international law applicable and determine whether Africa needs a separate criminal court. The principle conclusion is that statutes are facing challenges in relations to the provisions above. It is established that Africa does not have a regional criminal court and the African Union has attempted to extend jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights to criminal jurisdiction but the process has amounted to heavy criticism and unforeseen legal implications. It is eventually concluded that Africa may consider the creation of a separate criminal court for the future and such a court is currently not needed. Support should be given to the ICC.

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of International Relations in the Faculty of Humanities Department of International Relations, 2016 / A feud between the African Union (AU) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been dragging for a while now. The indictment of President Omar Hassan Ahmad alBashir of Sudan and President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy president William Ruto in Kenya altered the cosy relations between the two organisations. Firstly, the AU contends that the ICC cannot prosecute heads of states that have immunity under international law. Secondly, the ICC disturbs the ongoing peace processes with its investigations. The AU accused the ICC of selecting African states for prosecution; as a protracted form of imperialism by prevailing western powers. Withstanding, some of the AU member states that are party to the ICC have willingly signed up to its jurisdiction. Besides, the AU’s founding documents support the fight against grave atrocities. Nonetheless, the AU has failed dismally to live up to the principles it endorses- which tantamount to hypocrisy. The contradictory rhetoric of the AU towards the ICC is not exclusive to the AU, but to international organisations due to conflicting pressures in external environments. The paper explains this empirical phenomenon by applying Organised Hypocrisy (OH) to capture such contradictory behaviour prone to international organisations. / XL2018