The case for establishing an international anti-corruption court (IACCourt) has been mooted as a feasible solution to address the constraints of domestic systems. Such a court would fill the enforcement gap in the international framework.
The right to human dignity is core to a basic understanding of rights and obligations. It is enshrined in the Constitution as a foundational value and as a fundamental right. Chapter 1 of the Constitution specifies human dignity as a founding value of the democratic state, while Chapter 10 guarantees everyone the right to have their dignity respected and protected.
The right to dignity means every single one of us possesses an inherent quality that is intrinsic to our being, and there is an obligation on the state to enshrine and protect that right. Notably, the constitutional court has anchored some of its critical judgments that have defined South Africa’s post-apartheid democracy on an understanding of what the right to human dignity means. These cases have touched on a broad range of issues including the abolition of the death penalty, the characteristics of reproductive rights, sanctioning homophobic hate speech, and the right to family unity in immigration matters.
The notion of human dignity is both a fundamental rule of law principle and has broader implications related to ubuntu and restorative justice. Following the democratic transition the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was intended to usher in a new era of democratic accountability. Amnesty would be granted for those who came forward and spoke the truth, and prosecution and sanction would follow for those who refused to walk through the commission’s open doors. The TRC, largely, did not achieve its restorative ideals. Political cases were suppressed, reparations have not followed and wide-scale prosecutions did not take place.
Fast forward 20 years, the Zondo commission on state capture is plagued with the same risks in ensuring that the crimes of grand corruption, kleptocracy and state capture are punished. The commission has shown us the systemic failures in the state, where corrupt elites have enriched themselves at the expense of the people, creating widespread poverty and inequality. The Zondo commission, like the TRC, showed great promise of what a democratic society, based on principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law, could look like. This would include the right to human dignity. Too often, our history has had bitter endings as the ultimate victims of mass atrocities are our citizens who never receive justice, as was the case with the crime of apartheid, as well as looted state assets.
State capture was a crime against the dignity of the nation. Kleptocrats who abuse power to seek personal enrichment of themselves, their families and cronies can be viewed as akin to those who commit treason. Acts of self-interest are in direct contradiction with the interests of society.
Private unelected persons, such as the Guptas, the Watsons and others, in collusion with state actors, siphoned off billions of rand from the government in various nefarious deals. These schemes largely involved capturing public procurement, diverting profits from those contracts and, in many cases, laundering the money offshore. Now we have the historical record, the findings and the recommendations. Where are the prosecutions? How much money has been stolen, how much has been traced, and how much has been recovered?
It has been reported that the work of the Asset Forfeiture Unit and the Special Investigating Unit has recovered R11 billion for the state as of 2025. These funds were alleged illicit funds associated with state capture. This figure was recovered through a variety of actions, including cancelled contracts, freezing orders and acknowledgement of debt agreements. There have been some high-profile matters such as the ABB settlement for corruption at Eskom, described by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as punitive reparations for an amount of R2.5 billion. This has been paid into the Criminal Asset Recovery Fund fund.
Frustration remains that the criminal justice system in many countries is unable to deal with the weight and magnitude of high volume, multi-actor, multiple jurisdiction transactions. These are often linked to racketeering, money laundering, and corruption involving public officials, private persons, and organised crime. Dubai, for example, has become a notorious destination that harbours criminals such as the Guptas and provides a haven for stolen assets, complicating prosecution of crimes across borders.
Even with commissions of inquiry, findings and recommendations, cases are slow to be lodged within national systems. This may be characterised by the independence of the prosecution services and judiciary, but they are fundamentally constrained when it comes to delivering quick and effective justice. Over the years, troves of information have been leaked pointing to how certain kleptocratic networks function, but prosecutions and stolen asset recovery have been meagre.
In global systems, where no single jurisdiction can be relied upon to have the political will and modalities to go after kleptocrats and their stolen assets, we need alternative solutions. Presently, there is no international institution to hold kleptocrats accountable when the countries they rule are unwilling or unable to do so. The case for establishing an international anti-corruption court (IACCourt) has been mooted as a feasible solution to address the constraints of domestic systems. Such a court would fill the enforcement gap in the international framework.
Countries who ratify the IACCourt treaty will give the court jurisdiction to prosecute the core United Nations Convention against Corruption crimes — bribery, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, misappropriation and money laundering. Constituting a fair and effective forum for the prosecution and punishment of kleptocrats and their collaborators. It would also deter others tempted to emulate their example, and recover, repatriate, and repurpose ill-gotten gains for the victims of grand corruption. As these crimes are often transnational, both source and destination countries for the proceeds of crime and corruption will have potential interest in the case.
Corruption erodes human dignity by depriving citizens of vital services like healthcare, education, and justice, especially affecting vulnerable communities in Africa. The IACCourt will hold corrupt officials and corporations accountable, restoring dignity through global accountability. By targeting high-ranking offenders and establishing an impartial framework, the court can address corruption where national systems are compromised, promoting justice in weakened states.
The IACCourt would complement regional efforts, such as the African Union’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC), strengthening Africa’s commitment to good governance. By offering a platform to prosecute transnational corruption cases, the IACCourt can foster stronger, more transparent governance, helping restore dignity and prosperity across the continent.
Particularly through its asset recovery jurisdiction, the IACCourt will create a forum where stolen monies can be recovered and repatriated based on the demands of a particular case. Asset recovery is a critical strategy in the fight against corruption, but too often assets that are recovered, are then returned into a corrupt fiscus.
The recovery of stolen assets must be linked to a notion of repatriation that has restorative justice values and provides direct benefits to victims of corruption. Repatriation would mean returning the stolen assets to their rightful place, ensuring that they are used for the benefit of the people who were harmed by the corruption. The vision of an IACCourt is that the recovery of stolen assets will return our human dignity, assaulted by corruption, by ensuring recovered funds are repatriated in a transparent and directly accountable way to the direct benefit of communities.
As we commemorate the African Union’s Anti-Corruption Day, focusing on the theme of Promoting Human Dignity in the Fight against Corruption, the establishment of the IACCourt could significantly contribute to this vision. The IACCourt aligns with the call for accountability and justice. It offers a platform to prosecute high-ranking corrupt officials and recover stolen assets, ultimately restoring human dignity to the communities that have been deprived by corruption. By filling gaps in the current legal system, the IACCourt provides an opportunity for Africans to stand up for their rights and dignity, as we work together to combat corruption across the continent.
Karam Singh is the deputy director of Integrity Initiatives International, and Ruth Kolevsohn is the executive director of Good Governance Africa’s group governance programmes.