International court not perfect but can we do without it?

As long as you're in power, they can't touch you. If you've done something terrible, stay in power for as long as possible.

That's how some African leaders will interpret the AU's call to the International Criminal Court (ICC) not to prosecute serving heads of state.

The ICC's plans to put Kenya's freshly elected president, Uhuru Kenyatta, and his deputy, William Ruto, on trial sparked the AU's move. But the seeds were sown long before this weekend's meeting in Addis Ababa. Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, has been on the ICC's prosecution wish list for years.

The AU has 54 member states. Ten of them are ruled by presidents who have been in power since before democracy came to South Africa. Five have been at it for longer than 30 years.

The "Club of 10" has a patchy human rights record, to say the least.

We acknowledge the validity of the AU's arguments that states are sovereign, that the ICC targets African leaders disproportionately, and that double standards are applied.

But surely there is no denying that atrocities have been committed on our continent for many decades and that lifelong presidencies are part of the problem.

Ironically, the ICC was at first most popular in Africa, with 34 states signing up at the start.

But elsewhere it had a serious legitimacy crisis. China, India and Indonesia have not signed the Rome Statute that brought the court into existence. Both the US and Israel have signed the treaty but not ratified it. They choose to play by different rules.

Yes, it looks hypocritical. But Africa needs to be wary of over-reacting - as it looked like it was considering doing in asking member states to quit the ICC in a gesture of solidarity.

Staging a theatrical walkout and promising to prosecute war criminals in Africa would be a dangerous path to take. For one thing, if Africans failed to carry out their promise they would be self-serving hypocrites themselves.