CIVICUS discusses the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent verdict on a case from the Central African Republic (CAR) with Fulbert Ngodji, Central Africa analyst at the International Crisis Group, an independent organisation that provides expert analysis to help prevent and resolve deadly conflicts.

On 24 July, the ICC sentenced two leaders from the Anti-Balaka militia to 15 and 12 years in prison for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed between September 2013 and February 2014. This verdict, following a four-year trial, marks an important milestone in the fight against impunity. However, questions remain about selective justice and next steps to support victims and strengthen peace.

What’s the relevance of this verdict?

The verdict handed down on 24 July marks a turning point in the fight against impunity in the CAR. By convicting Patrice-Édouard Ngaïssona and Alfred Yékatom of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the ICC has reaffirmed that no one is above the law. Their sentences, of 12 and 15 years, send a clear message: those responsible for atrocities committed during the conflict in 2013 and 2014 will be held personally accountable.

Ngaïssona and Yékatom were both leading figures in the Anti-Balaka movement, generally interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as a predominantly Christian mobilisation in response to violence that followed the 2013 takeover by the Séléka, a rebel coalition from the north-east of the country that recruited mainly from Muslim populations. What began as a self-defence initiative quickly turned into widespread violence targeting Muslim civilians. Yékatom, nicknamed ‘Rambo’, led armed operations in the capital, Bangui, while Ngaïssona coordinated the movement’s political and organisational structure. The verdict recognises their direct responsibility and command responsibility for these crimes, marking one of the most important moments in terms of accountability since the beginning of the conflict.

Beyond the individual sentences, this decision has a broader significance. It restores dignity to the survivors and transforms the memory of violence into a foundation for rebuilding institutions. The case, which followed the CAR’s self-referral to the ICC in 2014, has become one of the most emblematic trials due to its use of digital evidence and symbolic importance for post-conflict justice. For a country still plagued by identity and social divisions, this decision represents both punishment and hope for breaking a cycle of revenge and fear that has marked its recent history.

How has civil society contributed to justice efforts?

Civil society has played a crucial role in bridging the gap between international justice and realities on the ground. Local civil society organisations (CSOs), including victims’ associations, were the first to document crimes, collect testimonies and accompany survivors through often complex and intimidating legal proceedings. Without their work, many of the stories and experiences of the affected communities would never have been heard in The Hague. Their presence helped make the process more inclusive and gave victims the feeling that justice was not being done for them, but with them.

These organisations built trust between communities and the judicial system. After years of unpunished violence, many people in the CAR doubted an international court could achieve results. CSOs and local leaders helped explain the ICC’s role, its procedures and limitations. By translating legal developments into local languages and using community radio stations, they made the process understandable and countered disinformation.

CSOs also provided direct support to victims, including counselling. legal assistance and protection to those who testified. Their efforts gave survivors the confidence to speak out and ensured their voices remained central to proceedings.

How will the ICC’s decision affect justice efforts in the CAR?

The ICC’s verdict lends new weight to justice efforts at the national level because it proves impunity is not inevitable, as even senior officials can be held accountable. This strengthens the credibility of the Special Criminal Court (SCC), a hybrid court composed of national and international judges, established and based in Bangui to try serious crimes committed since 2003.

But the ICC’s decision also highlights the limitations of the national system. The SCC still faces serious challenges, including lack of resources, long delays and political pressures that can slow down or block its work. It needs stronger support from donors and the state.

If the momentum created by the ICC’s decision is used to strengthen local courts, improve the security of judges and victims and speed up investigations, it could help build lasting confidence in the national justice system. Otherwise, it will remain a symbolic moment rather than a real turning point for justice in the CAR.

Why do some question the fairness of international justice efforts?

The ICC verdict has reignited a sensitive debate in the CAR about selective justice. Many feel that the court has focused primarily on Anti-Balaka leaders, while Séléka coalition commanders, who have also committed serious crimes, remain largely untouched. This perception fuels the idea that the justice system is targeting one community over another. In a country still divided by political and religious cleavages, such perceptions can easily reopen old wounds.

It is true that two senior Séléka officials, Nourredine Adam and Mahamat Saïd Abdel Kani, are also subject to international proceedings. But one of the trials is ongoing and the other suspect is still on the run. For many people, these slow and incomplete proceedings reinforce the sense of imbalance amplified by the political reality of the CAR, where several former Séléka members hold positions in the government and maintain close ties to the presidency. With an election approaching in December and public debate intensifying around the responsibility of the main contenders in the 2013 crisis, this perception is taking on a broader political dimension.

To address these concerns, judicial systems, both national and international, must demonstrate consistency. They must communicate clearly on ongoing cases, speed up proceedings and protect them from political interference. Above all, they must demonstrate that justice applies to all, regardless of affiliation or status.

What are the next steps to support victims and strengthen peace?

The next steps must focus on the victims and communities who continue to live with the consequences of past violence. Justice delivered in The Hague will only matter if it brings about real change on the ground. This means providing support to survivors through psychosocial assistance, access to healthcare and community reconstruction projects in areas destroyed during the conflict.

Reparations must go beyond financial compensation. They must include collective rehabilitation, education and memory preservation so communities can heal and remember without reopening old divisions. A judicial process that invests in local reconciliation and mental health can help reduce the risk of revenge and break the cycle of violence that has marked the CAR for over a decade.

Communication remains essential. People in remote areas need to understand what the verdict means and how it fits into the broader process of rebuilding justice in the CAR This requires ongoing communication in local languages and using reliable channels such as community radio stations and local associations. Only by anchoring justice in community realities and involving local voices can the CAR move towards genuine peace and reconciliation.