Kenya Challenges Trump’s ICC Sanctions, Demands Urgent Reforms to Address Court’s Shortcomings

Kenya has opposed the United States government’s decision to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguing that the court should address concerns about its performance through urgent reforms rather than punitive measures.

Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary Korir Sing’Oei made Kenya’s position clear on Saturday, October 10, 2026, hours after the administration of US President Donald Trump announced financial restrictions targeting the international tribunal.

Sing’Oei acknowledged that the ICC had faced legitimate criticism over its handling of cases, particularly concerns about whether it applies its mandate consistently.

“The ICC deserves serious criticism for failing to live up to the mandate and expectations for which it was established and for being selective in its focus,” the principal secretary said.

However, he maintained that sanctions were not the appropriate solution to the court’s shortcomings.

“What it needs is urgent reform. Not sanctions. Kenya will continue to work with State Parties to reform the court,” Sing’Oei added.

Kenya’s position signals support for efforts to improve the ICC’s credibility and effectiveness while opposing the use of financial pressure as a way of addressing disagreements with the institution.

The statement also indicates that Nairobi intends to work with other ICC member states to pursue changes within the court rather than rely on punitive action against it.

The Kenyan government’s response came after Washington announced sweeping measures against the ICC on Friday, October 9. The decision triggered criticism from several countries and international officials concerned about its implications for international criminal justice.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the sanctions, arguing that the court had exercised authority that Washington considers illegitimate over American citizens.

“Today, the Trump administration is sanctioning the ICC. This action should encourage our allies within the court to work for solutions to end this threat to US sovereignty forever,” Rubio said.

The measures include restrictions on financial transactions involving the court, potentially affecting its access to financial services and its ability to conduct operations.

The US administration also provided an initial six-month grace period for some measures, allowing time for negotiations aimed at addressing Washington’s objections.

The dispute centres partly on the ICC’s investigations into alleged crimes by US personnel in Afghanistan and legal proceedings involving Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The United States has challenged the court’s authority in matters involving Americans and Israeli officials, while the ICC operates under its founding treaty and exercises jurisdiction under the conditions established by its legal framework.

The sanctions have raised concerns about the ability of an international institution to carry out its work when a major global power uses financial restrictions to oppose its actions.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also criticised Washington’s decision, describing it as a serious blow to the international community’s collective pursuit of criminal justice.

The ICC plays a central role in prosecuting individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression where the court has jurisdiction.

Several countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands, also opposed the US move and called on Washington to reconsider its decision.

Kenya’s response places the country among those advocating changes to the court while rejecting sanctions as the preferred means of resolving concerns about its work.

Sing’Oei said Kenya would continue engaging other member states to push for reforms intended to improve the ICC’s performance and address criticism of its approach to investigations and prosecutions.

The debate now centres on whether concerns about the court’s conduct can be resolved through institutional reforms and diplomatic engagement, or whether the sanctions will deepen divisions between the United States and countries supporting the ICC’s work.

Werunga feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com