South Africa backtracks on pulling out of International Criminal Court after Putin warrant

South Africa’s president has backtracked on a claim that his party wanted to withdraw from the International Criminal Court, ahead of a planned visit to the country by Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin, who was indicted last month for war crimes in Ukraine.

Cyril Ramaphosa had “regrettably . . . erroneously affirmed” in comments he made at a press conference on Tuesday that the governing African National Congress was planning to leave the court, his office said.

The Hague-based court issued a warrant for Putin’s arrest over the deportation of children in occupied areas of Ukraine, throwing into disarray South Africa’s plans to hold a summit with the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and other Brics nations in August. As an ICC member, Pretoria would be obliged to detain Putin on arrival.

Ramaphosa had claimed earlier that the ANC had decided “it is prudent that South Africa should pull out of the ICC because of the manner in which the ICC has been seen to be dealing with these types of problems”.

But his office later on Tuesday said that “the presidency wishes to clarify that South Africa remains a signatory [to the court] and will continue to campaign for equal and consistent application of international law”.

Ramaphosa’s error will cause intense diplomatic embarrassment for South Africa at a time when the Putin indictment has exposed tensions over the country’s position on the war in Ukraine and its deepening ties to Russia.

Ramaphosa has cordial relations with Putin, and members of his government have said Russia should not be directly condemned over the invasion, while also questioning western support for Kyiv. South Africa held joint naval exercises with Russia over this year’s anniversary of the invasion.

Withdrawal from the ICC would not in any case have altered the dilemma facing Ramaphosa’s government if Putin does attend the Brics summit in August while under indictment. It would take many months to leave the court even if the move were approved at home, analysts have said.

The ANC only recently cancelled earlier plans to withdraw from the ICC court after South Africa ignored an ICC warrant to arrest Omar al-Bashir, the former president of Sudan, in 2015.

As it backtracked on Tuesday, the South African presidency said that the party had “reflected on the potential withdrawal from the ICC as an option that would arise as a measure of last resort” in the absence of reforms to the court.

South Africa was among the first nations to ratify the court’s founding Rome statute in 2000, obliging it to assist with ICC prosecutions. Some in the ANC, however, believe that the ICC has been biased against developing nations in its investigations.

The Bashir episode badly damaged the post-apartheid democracy’s reputation as a backer of international law and multilateral institutions. But it also established a precedent in South Africa’s own law for ICC warrants to be followed after courts assailed the state’s failure to make an arrest.

It is still unclear whether Putin will attend the summit in Johannesburg in person. The matter “is still under consideration and discussion” in light of the ICC warrant, Ramaphosa said.

Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson, said this week that a decision on Putin’s attendance would be made closer to the date. He did not respond to a request for comment.

“It is absolutely a dilemma for the South African government,” said Priyal Singh, a senior researcher at South Africa’s Institute of Security Studies, suggesting that a diplomatic solution could yet be found, such as Putin sending a minister instead or attending online.

Ramaphosa’s government could alternatively seek to argue over the legal basis of the ICC warrant if Putin were confirmed as attending the summit, said Gerhard Kemp, professor of international and transnational criminal justice at Derby university in the UK.

“That would be the honourable route, rather than to try to ignore the warrant,” Kemp said. “It is not only about Putin. It would be a test of South Africa’s own legal system and the authority of the courts.”