The Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Specific Crimes and the Complementarity Principle of the Rome Statute under South Africa’s Legal System

The Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Specific Crimes and the Complementarity Principle of the Rome Statute under South Africa’s Legal System

Paul S. Masumbe

Issue: Vol. 6 No.12 Article 41 pp.3472 – 3481
DOI: https://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.202561241 | Published online 28th November, 2025
© 2025 The Author(s). This is an open access article under the CCBY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

61 Downloads

DOWNLOAD PDF

ABSTRACT

Universal Jurisdiction (UJ) is one of the most effective judicial mechanisms used by the courts to combat and prevent the proliferation of some international crimes that have shocked humankind. One common means of exercise UJ, is through international treaties signed by civilised nations of the world. Accordingly, the Rome Statute is a treaty providing devices for the prosecution of crimes under Article 5 by both member states and non-member states through UJ. Consequently, all ratifying states the Statute, besides obligations to cooperate with the Court, are also expected to exercise UJ in their domestic legal system as required by the Statute. This article, therefore, sought to determine whether individuals indicted for the crime of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity may be prosecuted in South Africa (SA) and, if so, can the courts in SA also exercise UJ for those individuals whose states are not members of the Rome Statute? This article examined the exercise of UJ under the Rome Statute and domestically in South Africa through the Implementation Act using a qualitative research method. It argues that through the principle of complementarity and under the Implementation Act, the SA legal system has been authorised to exercise UJ for those crimes under the Statute as implemented by courts in SA in the Al Bashir case.

Keywords: Universal Jurisdiction, Rome Statute, Implementation Act, principle of Complementarity, Al Bashir Case

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Legislation

Democratic Alliance v. Minister of International Relation and Co-operation and others (Council for the Advancement of South African Constitution as Intervening Party) [2017] 2 All SA 123 (GP) [77].

Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium, I.C.J 14 February 2002 (N0.121), [58].

Prosecutor v. Milosevic, Case No.IT-99-37 (24 May 1999).

Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5 on the Activation of the jurisdiction of the Court over the crime of aggression adopted on 14 December 2017.

The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v The Southern African Litigation Centre (867/15) [2016] ZASCA 17 (15 March 2016).

Others Articles

Arab News. “Jordan Loses ICC Appeal over Failure to Arrest Bashir,” 2025. www.arabnews.com.

Dube, Angelo. Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of International Crimes: Theory and Practice in Africa. Galda Verlag, 2016.

Ekori, Aghem Hanson. “The ICC’s Appeals Chamber Judgments in the Jordan Case Regarding Al Bashir and Ntaganda Case: Victories for the Fights against Impunity and Immunity for Serious Crimes.” Polit Journal Scientific Journal of Politics 1, no. 4 (2021): 150–56.

Gaeta, Paola. “Does President Al Bashir Enjoy Immunity from Arrest?” Journal of International Criminal Justice 7, no. 2 (2009): 315–32.

Hobbs, Patricia. “Contemporary Challenges in Relation to the Prosecution of Senior State Officials before the International Criminal Court.”International Criminal Law Review 15,no.1 (2015):76–100.

Kayitana, E. “Universal Jurisdiction of South Africa Criminal Court and Immunities of Foreign State Officials.” Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 18, no. 7 (2015): 2560–2603.

O’Keefe, Roger. “Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 2, no. 3 (2004): 735–60.

Plessis, Max Du. “South Africa’s Implementation of the ICC Statute: An African Example.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 5, no. 2 (2007): 460–79.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court circulated as document A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998 and came into force on 1 July 2002 (Rome Statute). Accessed March 20, 2025.

Schwartz, Rebecca. “South Africa Litigation Centre v. Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development: Balancing Conflicting Obligations-Prosecuting Al-Bashir in South Africa.” Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 24 (2015): 407.

South-West Africa Cases. “Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa); Second Phase.” International Court of Justice (ICJ), July 18, 1966. https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icj/1966/en/90239.

Stahn, Carsten. “The ICC, Pre-Existing Jurisdictional Treaty Regimes, and the Limits of the Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Doctrine-A Reply to Michael Newton.” Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 49 (2016): 443.

ABOUT AUTHOR(S)

Professor Paul S. Masumbe (LLD) is Associate Professor & Head of School of Law, Walter Sisulu University. He is external examiner for masters and doctoral degrees in law at various universities, reviewer and editorial board member of local and internal journals. His research interests include International Criminal Law, Human Rights Law, Labour Law with emphasis on dismissal, and selected areas of Private Law.

TO CITE ARTICLE

Masumbe, Paul S. “ The Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Specific Crimes and the Complementarity Principle of the Rome Statute under South Africa’s Legal System,” E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 6, no. 12 (2025): 3472 – 3481, https://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.202561241.