SA Court Orders Bashir Not to Leave...

[Omollo]

• Tweet

JOHANNESBURG

A South African court on Sunday issued a temporary ban on Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir leaving the country after the International Criminal Court called for him to be arrested at a summit of African leaders in Johannesburg.

The court statement said that it was "compelling respondents to prevent President Omar Al-Bashir from the leaving the country until an order is made in this Court."

The hearing is set to take place later Sunday.

http://www.nation.co.ke/news/africa/South-Africa-Court-Omar-al-Bashir-ICC/-/1066/2751574/-/mhashiz/-/index.html

[RV Pundit]

Bashir actually went to RSA. Well nothing will happen to him. He'll be spirited out.

[Omollo]

He could be spirited out yes.... but again its not Kenya or Ethiopia. The South African institutions are fiercely independent and they work. When Mbeki tried to use them to box Zuma, they rebelled and later exposed him.

The next few hours will be crucial.

Bashir actually went to RSA. Well nothing will happen to him. He'll be spirited out.

[Omollo]

A South African court has issued an interim order preventing Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir from leaving the country.

It says Mr Bashir will have to stay until the court hears an application later on Sunday on whether he should be handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

Mr Bashir is in Johannesburg for an African Union (AU) summit.

He faces ICC war crimes and genocide charges over the Darfur conflict.

The ICC has called on South Africa to arrest him. However he was welcomed by South African officials when he arrived in Johannesburg on Sunday.

Treaty obligation
There are tensions between the ICC and the AU, with some on the continent accusing the court of unfairly targeting Africans.
The AU has previously urged the ICC to stop proceedings against sitting leaders.

The warrants against Mr Bashir, who denies the allegations, have severely restricted his overseas travel.
He has, however, visited friendly states in Africa and the Middle East.

The ICC has issued two arrest warrants against Mr Bashir. The court relies on member states to carry out arrests.
However correspondents have said the South African government - a signatory to the treaty establishing the ICC - is unlikely to move against the Sudanese leader.

The AU has previously refused to co-operate with the ICC, accusing it of bias against African leaders.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33125728

[Omollo]

A South African court has granted an interim order to prevent Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir  from leaving South Africa, where he is attending an African Union summit, until it hears an application calling for his arrest.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant in 2009, accusing Bashir of war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the conflict in Darfur. He denies the charges.

An application reportedly lodged by a human rights group was set to be heard in the Pretoria High Court at 3pm local time on Sunday to decide whether Bashir should be arrested.

The judge said the court will decide whether a South African government cabinet decision to host Bashir would trump the ICC arrest warrant.

Bashir boarded a flight on Saturday to Johannesburg to head Sudan's delegation at the summit which starts on Sunday, presidential sources and the state Sudan News Agency said.

Bashir dominates Sudan elections

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/sudan-bashir-travels-africa-icc-warrant-150614045917841.html

[Georgesoros]

Indeed he will be escorted by Zuma....
ICC kitu gani

Bashir actually went to RSA. Well nothing will happen to him. He'll be spirited out.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Politically South Africa is now fully African or Negroid as vooke would put it.  They will do what they do best.  Institutions are at best a nuisance to be tolerated.

[Omollo]

Politically South Africa is now fully African or Negroid as vooke would put it.  They will do what they do best.  Institutions are at best a nuisance to be tolerated.

I can't rule the institutions out so fast. Bashir made a blunder. He can leave immediately ahead of the court order being served on the Air-Controllers.

[RV Pundit]

Bashur long left. Personally there are many treaties that countries have signed that conflict. ICC is one of them. The respect of sovereignty of another nation is a treaty far more important than any other. It is the reason Bashir or anyone else can today attend UN meeting in New York without as much as whimper from DC.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Bashur long left. Personally there are many treaties that countries have signed that conflict. ICC is one of them. The respect of sovereignty of another nation is a treaty far more important than any other. It is the reason Bashir or anyone else can today attend UN meeting in New York without as much as whimper from DC.

Yes he might have already left.  Either way, the AU club simply cannot enforce such laws against fellow big men.  Still I think he would be promptly arrested, no questions asked, if he set foot in New York.  And they might not even hand him over to ICC.

[MOON Ki]

Bashur long left. Personally there are many treaties that countries have signed that conflict. ICC is one of them. The respect of sovereignty of another nation is a treaty far more important than any other. It is the reason Bashir or anyone else can today attend UN meeting in New York without as much as whimper from DC.

Yes he might have already left.  Either way, the AU club simply cannot enforce such laws against fellow big men. Still I think he would be promptly arrested, no questions asked, if he set foot in New York.  And they might not even hand him over to ICC.

Pundit's claim in red is a funny one.    As along as the ICC wants him, Bashir is one president who won't be seeing much of New York, even during the times when all his fellow national leaders are there.

As it is, this matter has already been put to the test.  In Sep 2013, Bashir applied for a visa to attend the UN General Assembly meeting.    Washington was not amused, but Bashir himself apparently was:

But Bashir at a press conference on Sunday night challenged the US to deny him entry or arrest him adding that his flight and lodging plans for New York have already been made.

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article48195

His ambassador in the US also emphasized his right to a visa:

http://www.sudanembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=943:-president-bashir-has-an-unquestionable-legal-right-to-a-visa-to-attend-the-un-general-assembly&catid=13:news-and-events&Itemid=207

And, sure enough he was right: under the UN headquarters agreement, it appears  he was entitled to a visa.  (He did not fit the "exceptions" that would have allowed the US to do otherwise.)

A few days after Bashir's public display of African Big-Man bravado, his Foreign Minister had this to say to the UN:

It is with deep regret that I inform you of the refusal of the authorities of the United States, the host government, to give an entry visa to President Bashir and his delegation

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/africa/2013/09/28/

So, why wasn't there a huge diplomatic flap over that? Wapi African Union or anybody to complain?     Well, his Foreign Minister took some liberties with the truth.   Bashir himself changed his mind in light of the "offer" he was given: Stay at home, or insist on travelling to the New York with the US government stating that it was "unable to  guarantee that he will not be arrested".

How's that for a whimper?

[RV Pundit]

Legally he is allowed to visit UN. Of course his case is a UNSC referral. So that is complicated. But point is very clear. There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan.  Which is why US had to explain or deny Bashir entry...not for example trick him and arrest in while in NY. That would set a very bad precedent.

Countries who intend to arrest Bashir should not invite Bashir.

Bashur long left. Personally there are many treaties that countries have signed that conflict. ICC is one of them. The respect of sovereignty of another nation is a treaty far more important than any other. It is the reason Bashir or anyone else can today attend UN meeting in New York without as much as whimper from DC.

Yes he might have already left.  Either way, the AU club simply cannot enforce such laws against fellow big men. Still I think he would be promptly arrested, no questions asked, if he set foot in New York.  And they might not even hand him over to ICC.

Pundit's claim in red is a funny one.    As along as the ICC wants him, Bashir is one president who won't be seeing much of New York, even during the times when all his fellow national leaders are there.

As it is, this matter has already been put to the test.  In Sep 2013, Bashir applied for a visa to attend the UN General Assembly meeting.    Washington was not amused, but Bashir himself apparently was:

But Bashir at a press conference on Sunday night challenged the US to deny him entry or arrest him adding that his flight and lodging plans for New York have already been made.

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article48195

His ambassador in the US also emphasized his right to a visa:

http://www.sudanembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=943:-president-bashir-has-an-unquestionable-legal-right-to-a-visa-to-attend-the-un-general-assembly&catid=13:news-and-events&Itemid=207

And, sure enough he was right: under the UN headquarters agreement, it appears  he was entitled to a visa.  (He did not fit the "exceptions" that would have allowed the US to do otherwise.)

A few days after Bashir's public display of African Big-Man bravado, his Foreign Minister had this to say to the UN:

It is with deep regret that I inform you of the refusal of the authorities of the United States, the host government, to give an entry visa to President Bashir and his delegation

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/africa/2013/09/28/

So, why wasn't there a huge diplomatic flap over that? Wapi African Union or anybody to complain?     Well, his Foreign Minister took some liberties with the truth.   Bashir himself changed his mind in light of the "offer" he was given: Stay at home, or insist on travelling to the New York with the US government stating that it was "unable to  guarantee that he will not be arrested".

How's that for a whimper?

[RV Pundit]

Spirited out via military airport
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33135562

[MOON Ki]

Legally he is allowed to visit UN. Of course his case is a UNSC referral. So that is complicated. But point is very clear. There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan. 

Which treaties did you have in mind?

Which is why US had to explain or deny Bashir entry...

As far as  recall, the US did neither.

Countries who intend to arrest Bashir should not invite Bashir.

It is not that simple.     In the UN General Assembly case, his invitation would have come from the UN Secretary-General; nothing to do with the US.   In other cases, a country might not have a choice.   For example, when Denmark hosted the UN Climate Change conference in 2009, it was obliged to invite all national leaders.   So Bashir was invited.   He was also told that he would get arrested if he showed up.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Spirited out via military airport
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33135562

If that is true, and I think it is, that is one more nail in the credibility of South Africa's institutions.  The institutions function only when the Boss is okay with it.

[RV Pundit]

AU treaty for once. Treaties are dime a dozen. Deciding which one is bigger than one...AU treaty versus ICC treaty....versus even East Africa treaty...really depend on the country's interest. If Bashir came to kenya...Kenya will use the AU treaty to welcome him. Of course some countries have zero interest with Sudan or Bashir..and will promptly arrest him..like Denmark..mmmh..but why tell Bashir before hand. Why not invite him and then arrest him.

ICC treaty as long as it's voluntary can be switched on and off. Like South Africa just did.

Legally he is allowed to visit UN. Of course his case is a UNSC referral. So that is complicated. But point is very clear. There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan. 

Which treaties did you have in mind?

Which is why US had to explain or deny Bashir entry...

As far as  recall, the US did neither.

Countries who intend to arrest Bashir should not invite Bashir.

It is not that simple.     In the UN General Assembly case, his invitation would have come from the UN Secretary-General; nothing to do with the US.   In other cases, a country might not have a choice.   For example, when Denmark hosted the UN Climate Change conference in 2009, it was obliged to invite all national leaders.   So Bashir was invited.   He was also told that he would get arrested if he showed up.

[MOON Ki]

AU treaty for once. Treaties are dime a dozen. Deciding which one is bigger than one...AU treaty versus ICC treaty....versus even East Africa treaty...really depend on the country's interest. If Bashir came to kenya...Kenya will use the AU treaty to welcome him. Of course some countries have zero interest with Sudan or Bashir..and will promptly arrest him..like Denmark..mmmh..but why tell Bashir before hand. Why not invite him and then arrest him.

ICC treaty as long as it's voluntary can be switched on and off. Like South Africa just did.

I was specifically interested in this part:

"There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan."

[RV Pundit]

Of course. Arresting  Bashir is declaration of war. Bashir is president of Sudan and the Chief of Staff (Commander in Chief). My bet is you'll violate so many treaties in the process. Given your have plenty of time...you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in. For starters Bashir enjoys diplomatic immunity against any proceedings.

"There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan."

[MOON Ki]

Of course. Arrest Bashir is declaration of war. Bashir is president of Sudan and the Chief of Staff. My bet is you'll violate so many treaties in the process. Given your have plenty of time...you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in.

Please feel free to step in.   I'm keen to know more, but I can't find what you have in mind.

[RV Pundit]

Start by defining
1) What is a treaty.
2) What is declaration of war.
3) When can war be declared.

Please feel free to step in.   I'm keen to know more, but I can't find what you have in mind.