Kenya’s current sparring match with the International Criminal Court (ICC) has raised such a hue and cry with supporters of the court accusing the Uhuru Kenyatta administration of condoning impunity.
The furore has been kept alive in the media and social networks by a cocktail of human rights groups, political vultures as well as every Tom, Dick and Harry who pretend to be the defenders of the downtrodden.
The merits and demerits of international justice have been debated for long. Those clamouring for international justice seem to develop an amnesic condition when faced with the task of cleaning their own backyards that is crammed with thousands, if not tens of thousands, of human rights criminals.
There are no two sets of justice; as President Paul Kagame said during the launch of the Judicial Year, “The principles of justice are universal. Every nation, rich or poor, has the ability to dispense justice”.
So, what has happened to the universal interpretation of justice? Is there one for the haves and another watered-down version of the have-nots?
The very countries that are sounding off loudest have been shielding Rwandan Genocide suspects for over two decades. They are the very people benefiting from the services of trafficked human beings in their industries and enroll criminals in their Foreign Regions to fight their dirty wars.
As long as the self-made custodians of international justice do not first put their houses in order, get rid of their protégées responsible for mass murder, they will be preaching in an empty stadium.