Recent political developments in Chad reveal a trend toward reorganizing the tools for addressing accountability by combining measures at the international level with others domestically.
A study issued by the Pharos Center for Consulting and Strategic Studies examines N’Djamena’s decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court, alongside the issuance of a presidential pardon for opposition leader Succès Masra, as two interconnected paths in managing political and legal pressures both domestically and externally.
Chad announced in July 2026 its withdrawal from the Rome Statute, criticizing what it described as the International Criminal Court’s performance toward African countries. However, the decision does not result in an immediate withdrawal from the Court’s jurisdiction, as Chad remains legally bound by it for one year, in accordance with Article 127 of the Rome Statute, in addition to continuing to fulfill its obligations regarding investigations and proceedings that began before the withdrawal takes effect. This transitional period highlights the difference between the political decision and its actual legal effects.
On the domestic front, a presidential pardon was issued for Succès Masra, who had been serving a 20-year prison sentence, amid economic and social pressures facing the country. Despite his release, the judicial ruling against him was not annulled, as the conviction and its legal effects remained in force, limiting the possibility of his return to political competition in the future.
According to the study, this measure reflects an attempt to achieve a degree of de-escalation with the opposition, while at the same time maintaining legal tools that could be used for political pressure, making the pardon a means of managing tensions without bringing the case to a definitive conclusion.
The study argues that these moves come in a context in which Chad is facing increasing economic and social challenges, including declining performance in the oil sector, rising food prices, and growing numbers of Sudanese refugees, in addition to pressures related to international aid and financing. In this context, the pardon granted to Masra, according to the study, represents an attempt to recalibrate relations with the opposition and reduce the likelihood of escalating political tensions.
The study uses the concept of “recycling accountability” to describe this approach, explaining that the authorities do not completely abolish accountability, but rather transfer it to a framework in which they can control its conditions and timing.
This is reflected in the combination of withdrawal from the International Criminal Court as a step that strengthens sovereign legitimacy, and the pardon of the opposition leader as a tool for political rapprochement and de-escalation, while retaining legal deterrent mechanisms at the same time.
The study concludes that the Chadian model reflects a tendency among hybrid regimes to treat accountability as a process that can be postponed or subjected to specific conditions, giving the authorities greater room for maneuver compared with options involving full punishment or final exoneration.
At the same time, the study points out that this approach remains fraught with future risks, as cases that have been postponed or left unresolved may return to the forefront as political circumstances and balances of power change. Thus, this strategy may allow the regime to manage crises and contain their repercussions in the short term, without necessarily meaning that the underlying causes of tension have been definitively addressed.
Discover more from المنتدى الدولى للصحافة والإعلام GFJM
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
