Durban - The BRICS summit is to go ahead in South Africa, with ongoing discussions over the participation of Russian President Vladimir Putin expected to be finalised this week.
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s interministerial committee (IMC), led by Deputy President Paul Mashatile, is expected to meet today to consider the state’s options after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant of arrest for the Russian leader.
Last Thursday, International Relations and Co-operation Minister Naledi Pandor, speaking after a meeting of BRICS foreign ministers, insisted the summit would be held in Johannesburg.
Yesterday, Professor Anil Sooklal, South Africa’s Ambassador-at-Large for Asia and BRICS said Pandor was at pains during the meeting with foreign ministers last week to point out that the August 22-24 summit would take place in the country.
The summit was originally scheduled to take place in Durban, but due to the magnitude of the event and the expected numbers of foreign delegates, it has been moved to the Sandton Convention Centre.
“All the BRICS leaders have accepted the invite, president Ramaphosa has extended an invite to all African heads of state and to the political heads of the global south bodies (Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Pacific Islands, and Asia).
“This will be one of the largest gatherings post-Covid, with at least 1 000 delegates expected for the BRICS business council gathering, 67 leaders for the summit and a huge media contingent.”
Sooklal said Mashatile would look at Putin’s visit, which is under consideration.
“This is a summit that is critical as it will look at the challenges facing the global community, including economic and social challenges.
“It will also be an opportunity to discuss the major power contestation taking place around the Russia Ukraine conflict,” said Sooklal.
“The strong message is that the global south needs to work together to amplify the voices on the current geopolitical architecture to look at the impact of Covid-19, conflict, investment flows and climate change.
“A key issue will be the reversal of the 2023 agenda goals which are taking place because of Covid-19 and global conflict.”
Last week the DA launched an application in the Gauteng High Court requesting a declaration that if Putin arrives in the country, the government must detain and surrender him to the ICC.
The Department of International Relations and Co-operation has gazetted a declaration that the summit is a protected event, and that diplomatic immunity will be provided to attendees.
André Thomashausen, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Unisa, said the DA’s court proposition was based on the precedent set by the South African Supreme Court of Appeal’s reasoning in its judgment against former Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir in 2016.
“Simply put, the Supreme Court ruled that the Implementation Act and South Africa’s individual rights fixation, trump any rights of Heads of State to immunity.
“The decision is wrong. It placed a questionable interpretation of an Act of Parliament, over the paramount constitutional duty to uphold and apply the rules of customary international law in South Africa, art 232 read together with art. 39(1)(b), by trying to attribute powers to the ICC over and above those granted in the Rome Statute or claimed by the ICC itself.
“The ICC has in its own practice never denied the immunity of Heads of State. In regard to Heads of States that are not signatories of the Rome Statute, the ICC claims an invalidation of their immunity only in so far as a warrant of arrest was requested by the UN Security Council, effectively meaning with the consent of its 5 veto member states (China, United States, France, the UK, Russia).
“The logic behind this stance is as simple as it is compelling. The 5 veto member states of the Security Council are the 5 nuclear arms nations in the world and no heads of state in the w orld can be arrested against their will, unless these five-veto powers agree.”
Thomashausen said the DA application, either wilfully or ignorantly ignores the own stance of the ICC on immunity of Heads of States that are not members of the ICC, by stating in respect of the requirement of a UN Security Council resolution that “the basis for the ICC jurisdiction is entirely irrelevant”.