It was left to the unlikely figure of the small business development minister, Lindiwe Zulu, to explain to parliament why the executive had broken the law by allowing Sudan's Omar al-Bashir to escape a judicial order that he be prevented from exiting this country, and another that he be arrested. It was a speech dripping with sarcasm, condescension, hubris and sulky aggression as one might expect from a small-business minister suddenly, blissfully, freed from the conservative ideological straitjacket of business-speak.Zulu's argument was essentially that justice took second place to politics, best encapsulated by this sentence: "Africa's newest state, the Republic of South Sudan, would not be in existence today had the parties placed the issue of justice above all others."She qualified this with: "This does not mean that there is no role for justice for victims of conflicts. It means that recognising the complexities inherent in conflict resolution, it is best to address the question of justice in the context of a political settlement."Justice should be placed in context, subordinated to politics and therefore, politicians - those who wield power.The main thrust of her argument was that Africa - presumed to be a homogeneous entity that wholeheartedly agreed with her - required a special political nous, a special dispensation, a special understanding, one to which only she and others who attend late-night AU committees were privy. Commentary by others wasill-informed and, worse, empty parroting of what Western powers thought.When the Speaker called time on her, she shouted out one final sentence, to the effect that there was no way that South Africa would allow the prosecution of a sitting head of state. Very telling, that.Zulu's "politics before justice" construction was built on what has come to be consensus since Bashir made his escape from Waterkloof Air Force base, his passport stamped by Home Affairs and his shoes polished by state security.The consensus, repeated by everyone from ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe to the EFF's Floyd Shivambu, is that the International Criminal Court has an anti-African bias, that it is a tool of Western powers.Is the ICC really an instrument of Western domination? Look a little closer and you will see a very different picture.The ICC was established in the late 1990s as a direct successor to two international criminal tribunals that had investigated abuses in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The genocidal Bosnian-Serb Radovan Karadzic was tried and found guilty under this system, as were genocidaires who fomented mass killing in Rwanda.Rather than do things piecemeal, 123 countries signed up for a permanent court, the ICC.The largest bloc of countries consists of 34 African states, followed by 27 Latin American and Caribbean states. There are 19 from the Asia-Pacific region and 18 from eastern Europe. A further 25 come from western Europe and elsewhere. There can be no question that the member states are overwhelmingly from the developing world.Which is why the president of the bureau of the assembly of states is Sidiki Kaba, the justice minister of Senegal. And why the ICC's secretariat is headed by Renan Villacis, of Ecuador.If there is a Western conspiracy afoot, the UK, Japan and Germany must be very persuasive, because they are greatly outnumbered on the decision-making ICC bureau of member states by the developing world.In the event that the Western agenda somehow got past Kaba and the bureau, it would have to win the support of the ICC's chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, who comes from Gambia.The view that Africa would somehow be offended if South Africa arrested Bashir is simply wrong. Yes, the old Africa of dictators, of presidents who rule by genocide, of military despots would be offended. But the new Africa, which seeks human rights, justice and freedom from the likes of Bashir would celebrate. It is this new Africa that has reported case after case for prosecution before the court. And it is this emerging new Africa that is sorely disappointed by the collapse of South Africa's human rights culture.It's all tiresomely simple, really. Zulu's bluster conceals an awful truth: the South African government would like to take its place among Africa's old despots, not among its new democrats...