CLEAN : DA challenges South Africa's withdrawal from ICC

The video discusses the South African government's decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) without public notice, raising concerns about the decision's legality and constitutionality. It highlights the interplay between Parliament and the executive, questioning whether the decision undermines human rights protections. The video argues that the withdrawal removes a crucial layer of protection for prosecuting human rights abuses, urging the court to strike down the decision as irrational and unconstitutional, and to refer it back to Parliament for a more considered approach.

What was the main issue with the government's announcement regarding the ICC withdrawal?

• It was a decision made by the judiciary.

• It was made without public notice.

• It was supported by all political parties.

• It was announced after a public referendum.

What role does Parliament play in the decision to withdraw from the ICC?

• Parliament can override the judiciary.

• Parliament can only suggest changes.

• Parliament must approve the decision.

• Parliament has no role in the decision.

What is a potential consequence of the government's withdrawal from the ICC?

• Enhanced national security.

• Improved diplomatic relations.

• Loss of protection for human rights.

• Increased international trade.

Why is the decision to withdraw from the ICC being challenged legally?

• It is considered unconstitutional and irrational.

• It was supported by international law.

• It was made following proper procedures.

• It was a unanimous decision by all branches of government.

What is the desired outcome of the legal challenge against the ICC withdrawal?

• To increase the power of the executive branch.

• To refer the decision back to Parliament.

• To establish a new international court.

• To confirm the withdrawal as valid.