Incompatibility of the Principle of Complementarity and Sharia for the Accountability of the Perpetrators of the International Crimes in Sudan’s Darfur
Kuel Maluil Jok

This study seeks legal mechanisms on how the alleged individual commissioners of the crimes of genocide crimes against humanity and war crimes against the Fur, Zaghawa and Massaliet ethnic groups in Darfur of Sudan can be accountable to the ICC, after the removal of Al Bashir in April 2019, and remaining without international criminal charges except the domestic ones of Money Laundry and Terrorism in Sudan. Since 2009, the African Union has been resisting the arrest and surrender of Al Bashir to the International Criminal Court (ICC). At present, there is no consensual decision among the Sudanese nationals in power on how to address the arrest warrant issued by the ICC against Al Bashir and other Sudanese nationals. Some reject their accountability and other propose adoption of the principle of complementarity in national judiciaries. The latter suggestion generates conflict of laws, since Sudan is not a Party State to the ICC and its Criminal Act, 1991 with provisions of its Constitution are derived from the Sharia (Islamic Law). The study suggests that Sudan adopts either dualistic or monistic system in its judiciaries as alternative legal mechanism for the accountability of Al Bashir and other Sudanese fugitives from justice at the ICC, in The Hague.

Full Text: PDF     DOI: 10.15640/jlcj.v8n2a2