ACCRA, Ghana — Two Ghanaian citizens have formally petitioned the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate xenophobic attacks against foreign nationals in South Africa, arguing that the widespread and systematic violence may constitute crimes against humanity. The unprecedented move highlights growing tensions over the safety of African migrants and raises critical questions about the adequacy of regional responses to anti-immigrant violence.
The petition, submitted to the ICC last week, was filed by a former Ghanaian government spokesperson on governance and security alongside a counterterrorism and security analyst. The filing accuses the South African government of failing to prevent or punish the crimes, which have targeted Ghanaians and other African nationals during a recent surge of anti-immigrant protests across the country.
In response, South Africa’s foreign affairs ministry has dismissed the legal action as opportunistic. A ministry spokesperson asserted that South Africa possesses a robust domestic legal framework fully capable of handling internal disputes and human rights concerns without the need for international oversight.
Professor Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, a professor of international law at the University of Ghana, outlined the legal foundation of the petition from Accra. He explained that the petition relies on Article 7 of the Rome Statute, which grants the ICC jurisdiction over crimes against humanity.
“The act should have been widespread or systematic and it should lead to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population,” Professor Appiagyei-Atua noted. He added that there is a distinct possibility that such crimes were committed by South African state forces or citizens and subsequently endorsed by the state, creating a valid basis for the matter to be raised before the ICC.
When addressing why the petitioners bypassed diplomatic or regional mechanisms like the African Union, Professor Appiagyei-Atua pointed to a perceived lack of decisive action from the Ghanaian government. While Ghana has assisted in repatriating a large number of its citizens, it has not directly confronted the South African government regarding its international obligations to protect African nationals. This diplomatic gap, he suggested, prompted private citizens to take independent legal action on behalf of the victims.
Regarding the ICC’s potential response, Professor Appiagyei-Atua clarified that the matter will first be reviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor. If sufficient evidence of crimes against humanity is found, the prosecutor can initiate investigations *proprio motu* (on their own accord). The process is evidence-driven, meaning the case will only be closed if the investigation fails to uncover adequate proof.
Should the ICC decline to proceed, alternative legal avenues remain available to the petitioners and affected victims. These include approaching the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights or the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, where individuals can engage more directly in the court process. However, Professor Appiagyei-Atua conjectured that the petitioners may have intentionally bypassed these regional bodies due to a lack of trust in African institutions to effectively address the issue, given the Ghanaian government’s hesitant stance on bringing formal action against South Africa.
