Once again, the African Union has not failed to disappoint. All roads led to Addis Ababa this past week, for the AU’s January Summit of Heads of State and Government.

For ordinary South Sudanese, what was awaited was — finally! — the release of the Commission of Inquiry’s report to the Peace and Security Council. The chair of the CoI, former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, was at hand to present its report to the PSC.

All indications were that the report had, in the end, been faithful to its mandate to investigate international crimes and human rights abuses committed by all parties to the renewed conflict. That it had named names. That it had been unflinching in its recommendation of individual criminal responsibility.

Surprise, surprise. At the very point when the PSC’s members were to receive the report, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn tabled a motion to defer its presentation until the achievement of peace. His motion was promptly seconded by Presidents Jacob Zuma and Yoweri Museveni of South Africa and Uganda. And that was that. Copies of the report remained in boxes around the room.

Ordinary South Sudanese — many of whom shared their horrific experiences of the conflict with the CoI — deserve an explanation.

A coalition of about 20 or so South Sudanese civil society organisations had been present on the sidelines, circulating a petition to the PSC demanding the public release of the CoI’s report. Even one of the parties to the conflict — the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Movement/Army in Opposition — had demanded this.

Despite the fact that some of its commanders are, no doubt, among the named. Undermining the Ethiopian prime minister’s claim that deferral of its presentation was in the interest of peace.

Neither Igad nor the AU — let alone any other external actor — seem to have the appetite to enforce any threatened measures against any of the parties. No arms embargo, no sanctions of any kind, no nothing. Why then was the CoI’s report been held hostage to the mediation? There are three possible explanations.

First, that Igad and the AU want to hold onto the report for possible leverage with parties to the conflict. In the unlikely event their impatience with them finally ends their odd reluctance to use any of the sticks at their disposal.

Second, that Igad and the AU somehow believe the argument about sequencing — peace first, justice later — which doesn’t make sense. If accountability is not accepted at the start, when everybody’s legitimacy is up in the air and the exercise of leverage is possible, obviously it won’t be accepted later, when elites are entrenched.

Third, that Igad and the AU actually don’t believe in the need for accountability at all. Except as an immediate threat to parties to the conflict to get them to the table. Following which, all that’s important is the process of elite pacting.

What our highest levels of leadership are telling us is that criminal justice is only for the impoverished. Kill one man or woman, as an individual, without political motivation or support, and that’s a go-to-jail card. Kill many, many men and women, with political motivation and support, and that’s a go-to-government card.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is Amnesty International’s regional director for East Africa