4. The Authors submit that since 2009 when President AI Bashir was indicted by the ICC
and international warrants for his arrest Issued and forwarded to the Nigerian government,
the said President AI Bashir has entered the territory of Nigeria twice, in 2009 and in 2013.
On both occasions , the Nigerian government had obligation under the Rome Statute to
arrest and surrender him to the ICC. At the same time, the Nigerian government was
faced with various resolutions of the African Union referred to in paragraph 3 above,
demanding that it refrained from cooperating with the ICC in that respect. They aver that
as civil society organizations working to tackle impunity, including demanding the arrest
and surrender of persons indicted by the ICC. they demanded the Nigeria government to
arrest and surrender President AI Bashlr on both occasions , noting that in his 2013 visit,
one of them sought a court order from the domestjc court to compel the government to
fulfill its treaty obligation in this regard but the case was not heard before President AIBashir left the territory of Nigeria.
11.
Issues for determination by the Court
5. The Authors request the Court to give its opinion on the following issues:
i.
Whether the Treaty obligation of an African state party to the Rome Statute
of the ICC to cooperate with the Court is superior to the obligation of that
state to comply with AU resolution calling for non-cooperation of its
members with the ICC?
ii.
If the answer to question (I) above is in the affirmative , whether all African State
Parties to the ICC have overriding legal obligation above all other legal or
diplomatic obligation arising from resolutions or decisions of the African Union
to arrest and surrender President Omar AI Bashir any time he enters into the
territory of any of the African State Parties to the ICC?.
4