Let me preface this column with a question addressed to the African Union: If Yahya Jammeh’s refusal to accept defeat precipitates violence in The Gambia, and the ICC indicts him, would that be further proof that the international court is an imperialist court that unfairly targets Africans?

The question is rhetorical. Its point is to show the cynical falsehood of the AU argument.

The situation unfolding in The Gambia is the story of how the continental body coddles tyrants, and how the tyrants precipitate violence. It is a story that, unfortunately, is recurrent in our post-colonial history. It has cost us millions of lives and untold suffering.

A few years ago we saw this in Burkina Faso, when longstanding dictator Blaise Compaore tried to impose himself on the people. We saw it in Burundi, when another power-hungry tyrant imposed himself on his country.

Mercifully, the situation in Burkina Faso was resolved quickly through the sheer determination of the people not to be cowed. In Burundi, several organisations, including the UN, have warned of possible genocide.

The relationship between Blasé Compaore and the AU pretty much explains why the AU is inherently incapable of resolving the question of violence in Africa, and why its protestation that Africa is capable of dealing with war crimes without the ICC does not make sense.

For all the years Compoare misruled the country, he remained a valued member of the AU. There had never been any move to pressurise him to democratise or hold him to account for various gross violations of human rights.

Moreover, since his departure, there has been no effort by the AU to investigate Compoare for possible war crimes, including the coldblooded murder of popular leader Thomas Sankara.

In plain terms, Compoare was a good friend of the AU. In Burundi, the AU made threats that were quickly abandoned. Pierre Nkurunziza knows his friends well. He keeps ignoring ultimatums, rubbishing all the feeble attempts to get him to compromise for the sake of peace.

The AU can argue that it would be naïve to expect it to send in troops to chase out dictators. That may be true, but surely the AU can use its vantage point to bring international diplomatic pressure as well as sanctions on its rogue members. But that is not what we see from the AU whether the situation is Burkina Faso or Burundi.

What we see is preoccupation with getting immunity for African presidents from ICC prosecution.

Alternatively, we see moral support for tyrants such as Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. That is the correct description of the act of legitimising their rule, by elevating them to AU chair.

For the 22 years that Yahya Jammeh has misruled and underdeveloped his country, the AU looked the other way. Jammeh is not just your average shortsighted, harebrained leader we see so much of in Africa. He is a buffoon in the style of Idi Amin. He claimed he could cure Aids. His actions and statements have no organising theme. He humiliates Africa.

An aside to intellectuals such as Wole Soyinka: Instead of preserving your personal dignity by tearing up your Green Card to protest a Donald Trump presidency, why not use your considerable international stature to mobilise the world against people like Jammeh who humiliate all of Africa on a daily basis?

Back to the AU and its friends. Is the body not aware of what in other regions would be a crippling contradiction at the heart of its make-up? That is, it is a body set up to advance the welfare of Africans but which is controlled by the interests of leaders who threaten that welfare. Surely, the AU can set some broad democratic guidelines to encourage member states towards a desired direction?

The racial solidarity that has been its central organising idea can no longer suffice. Africa has to have other ways of achieving solidarity. We have to define ourselves by ways that have more to do with values than race or historical experience. How about solidarity on the basis of respect for human rights? Or defining ourselves as lovers of equality?

The body that can take the lead in redefining what it means to be African, continues, by acts of commission or omission, to encourage the old stereotype of Africa as a place for buffoonery and genocide. And our intellectuals tearing up their Green Cards to protest elections in foreign lands is not helpful in this regard either.

Tee Ngugi is a Nairobi-based social and political commentator. E-mail: [email protected]