Predictably, the 13th heads of intelligence and security services in Africa (CISSA) conference in Kigali ended its weeklong deliberations by publicly calling for immunity for their bosses against prosecution.

In a communiqué released the week before, they called for “[a] moratorium on all pending arrest warrants and prosecutions filed against African leaders…” and accused the International Criminal Court of “… acting as a proxy for… Western countries to orchestrate their regime change agenda in Africa… and persecuting…African leaders.”

This call echoes one made by the African Union in 2013 and the accusations against ICC replicate those made by a number of African presidents in the past.

Since what Africa’s spymasters want serves the ends of their bosses, the message in the communiqué isn’t surprising.

What would be surprising would be if these officials had disagreed with their paymasters; this would not only make them jobless but would also point to, for the first time on the continent, a major disagreement among the holders of real power in Africa.

Nonetheless, it’s still instructive that the message came from spy chiefs individuals who, by the nature of their jobs, aren’t known to publicly express their views or tell us what should or shouldn’t be done on this or that policy whether national or foreign.

That officials paid to discreetly gather and provide information to a select few policymakers particularly to the head of state – to decide to publicly voice their perception of the ICC points to the seriousness with which African leaders take the “threat” posed by this court to their fortunes.

Empirically, this fear isn’t unfounded and first became evident when Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir became the first sitting president to be indicted in 2009 and Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta became the first serving head of state to appear before the ICC in October 2014, following his indictment in 2012.

Until then, Africa’s heads of state were immune from any form of prosecution and, some have said, were above the law.

Beyond personal fear, there are some who say the ICC and the manner the principle of international jurisdiction is pursued constitute a threat to the continent in more ways than one.

First, as President Paul Kagame noted at the opening of the aforementioned security meeting, the principle’s application is “…a form of ‘lawfare’ where international law is abused to keep Africa in a subordinate position…”

Others have also posited that it is possible that the principle of international jurisdiction is used as a tool by powerful nations to determine who can or can’t be a leader in this or that nation; a factor that can usurp the citizen’s power and their right to freely decide who can or can’t govern them.

Others argue that a truly independent and sovereign nation can’t afford to let its leaders or citizens be tried by foreigners; doing so would constitute surrender to subjugation.

Regardless of the probable danger, however, it isn’t surprising that international jurisdiction can be used as a tool by powerful nations to achieve political objectives; that’s realpolitik despite the morality behind international justice.

For me, what’s important is to ask how Africa got here and what can be done to attain sustainable security.

First, African leaders have been immune since Independence. That their immunity is threatened today is a symptom of a bigger problem called impunity.

Second, that immunity of our leaders didn’t make the continent safer but served impunity, explaining why the continent remains home to some of the worst crimes known to humans in recent years, including genocide and rape as a weapon of war.

Third, in most cases, these crimes are perpetuated by leaders or their lieutenants. From the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 to Sierra Leone to Darfur to the Central African Republic, it’s impossible to view leaders as victims rather than perpetrators.

If you don’t hold them accountable for these crimes, whom will you hold accountable and how will you end impunity?

Fourth, until the ICC came, heads of state on the continent had no check on their powers, literally, and institutions like the police, and the judiciary advanced their power rather than checking it.

That’s partly explain why more African nations (34 out of 54) are signatories to the Rome Statute that created the ICC than nations from other continent courts in much of Africa have largely served to maintain the power of the man in office rather than constraining him.

It could then be said that in endorsing ICC, it seems, Africa’s leaders expected it to be a court that would act only as a check on their opponents as home courts had done for years; now that it’s going for them, it must be fought.

Thus put, the best way for Africa’s rulers to preserve their immunity is by ending impunity. To do this requires ensuring individual security; respecting the sanctity of life and rule of law as well as punishing crime regardless of the status of the criminal.

Christopher Kayumba is a senior lecturer at the School of Journalism and Communications, University of Rwanda, Kigali. E-mail:[email protected]; twitter account: @Ckayumba