By Simpson Global Media News Desk
The International Criminal Court on Wednesday convicted former Central African Republic rebel commander Mahamat Said Abdel Kani of four counts of crimes against humanity stemming from the detention and mistreatment of people held in the capital, Bangui, during the country’s 2013 political and armed crisis.
Judges of Trial Chamber VI found Said guilty of imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, torture, other inhumane acts and persecution. The court, however, acquitted him of three separate war-crimes charges after concluding that the prosecution had not established the required existence of an armed conflict during the relevant period.
The judgment, delivered at the ICC’s headquarters in The Hague, brings one of the court’s longest-running Central African Republic cases to a major judicial stage more than a decade after the alleged crimes and nearly five years after Said was transferred into ICC custody.
A separate sentencing hearing will determine the punishment to be imposed. The ICC has not yet announced the date of that hearing.
A Verdict More Than a Decade in the Making
The case against Said relates to events in Bangui in 2013, when the Central African Republic was undergoing a profound political and security crisis.
Said was a senior figure in the predominantly Muslim Seleka coalition, an alliance of armed groups that seized control of Bangui in March 2013 and ousted President François Bozizé.
The takeover followed years of instability and armed conflict in the Central African Republic. The Seleka advance led to the collapse of Bozizé’s government and was followed by violence involving multiple armed groups and communities.
As the political situation deteriorated, opposing anti-Balaka militias emerged and launched attacks against Seleka forces and civilians perceived to be associated with them.
The resulting violence affected communities across the country and generated allegations of killings, displacement, persecution, torture and other abuses.
The ICC’s second investigation into the Central African Republic was opened in September 2014 following a referral by the Central African authorities earlier that year. The investigation examined alleged crimes committed from 2012 onward, including conduct attributed to different parties to the conflict.
Said’s individual case focused principally on conduct at the Central Office for the Repression of Banditry, known by its French acronym OCRB, in Bangui.
According to the ICC’s case information, the alleged crimes examined at trial took place between April 12 and August 30, 2013, and involved detainees perceived as supporters of the former president.
What the Judges Found
The Trial Chamber found that Said was responsible for crimes against humanity involving people held at the detention facility.
Presiding Judge Miatta Maria Samba described evidence concerning the treatment of detainees during the reading of the judgment.
Witnesses had testified about severe conditions inside the facility, including cramped detention spaces, inadequate sanitation and physical mistreatment.
The court found Said guilty on four crimes-against-humanity counts: imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, torture, other inhumane acts and persecution.
The conviction means that the judges concluded the prosecution had proved the relevant elements of those crimes to the criminal standard required by the court.
The judgment did not, however, result in convictions on every charge brought against Said.
He was acquitted of three war-crimes charges — torture, cruel treatment and outrages upon personal dignity — because of the Chamber’s legal assessment of whether an armed conflict existed during the period relevant to those charges.
That distinction is important because crimes against humanity and war crimes are separate categories under international criminal law.
War crimes require a connection to an armed conflict and are governed by the applicable rules of international humanitarian law.
Crimes against humanity, by contrast, concern specified acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with the legal requirements determined under the Rome Statute.
The Chamber’s decision therefore did not amount to a finding that every allegation against Said had been established. It was a judgment on the specific charges and evidence presented during the trial.
The Detention Facility at the Centre of the Case
Much of the evidence concerned the OCRB facility in Bangui.
The prosecution case was that detainees considered to be supporters of Bozizé were held there and subjected to serious mistreatment.
The ICC said the evidence considered by the Chamber included accounts of beatings and torture and of detainees being held in degrading conditions.
According to the judgment reporting, some witnesses described cramped cells and conditions lacking adequate sanitation.
Other evidence concerned methods of physical abuse used against detainees.
The court assessed that evidence over the course of a trial that lasted several years, with witnesses, documentary material and other evidence considered by the judges.
The proceedings were not a summary determination. They involved extensive examination of the prosecution case, defence evidence and legal arguments before the judges reached their conclusions.
Said denied the charges throughout the proceedings.
His defence had the opportunity to challenge the prosecution evidence, question witnesses and present its own case.
The ICC’s case records show that the trial opened on September 26, 2022, after pre-trial proceedings had partially confirmed the charges in December 2021.
The defence presentation and closing stages subsequently extended over several years before the Chamber scheduled judgment for September 23, 2026.
Why the War-Crimes Acquittals Matter
One of the most legally significant elements of Wednesday’s decision was the Chamber’s treatment of the war-crimes charges.
The judges found Said guilty of crimes against humanity but acquitted him of the three war-crimes counts.
The reason was tied to the legal question of whether the armed conflict required for war-crimes jurisdiction continued during the period in which the relevant acts were committed.
The majority concluded that the armed conflict had ended after the Seleka takeover of Bangui and the overthrow of Bozizé, meaning the prosecution had not established the necessary conflict context for the war-crimes charges.
Human Rights Watch said the majority considered the March 2013 ouster of Bozizé to have ended the conflict between Seleka and the Central African armed forces that had begun in 2012.
That finding did not eliminate the crimes-against-humanity convictions because those charges are legally distinct.
The distinction demonstrates why international criminal trials can produce mixed verdicts.
A defendant can be convicted on one category of offence while being acquitted on another, even where the underlying factual events overlap.
The court must establish every legal element of every individual charge.
In Said’s case, the judges found that the evidence and legal framework supported four crimes-against-humanity convictions but did not satisfy the requirements for the three war-crimes charges.
The First ICC Conviction of a Seleka Member
The verdict has another significance within the ICC’s Central African Republic proceedings.
Said is the first former Seleka member to be convicted by the International Criminal Court.
The court has previously convicted members of the opposing anti-Balaka movement.
In July 2025, ICC judges convicted Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona of a number of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Bangui and western areas of the Central African Republic between September 2013 and at least February 2014.
Yekatom was sentenced to 15 years in prison and Ngaïssona to 12 years.
Both men appealed their convictions, and the ICC’s Appeals Chamber has continued to handle matters arising from the case.
Said’s conviction therefore adds a Seleka-side judgment to the ICC’s judicial record on the Central African Republic.
The development is relevant to the broader principle that international criminal proceedings can examine alleged crimes attributed to different parties to a conflict rather than limiting accountability to one side.
Human Rights Watch noted that both Seleka and anti-Balaka forces have been implicated in serious abuses against civilians during the Central African Republic crisis.
The organisation described Wednesday’s judgment as the first ICC verdict against a high-level Seleka commander.
The Central African Republic’s Long Road to Accountability
The Central African Republic has experienced repeated political and armed crises since independence, with weak state institutions and competition among armed groups contributing to cycles of violence.
The 2013 crisis was one of the most severe episodes in the country's recent history.
Seleka forces seized Bangui and forced Bozizé from power.
The Seleka coalition was subsequently dissolved, while anti-Balaka forces expanded and carried out attacks against Seleka members and Muslim civilians.
The violence produced large-scale displacement and humanitarian needs.
French forces intervened in late 2013 as the security situation deteriorated, and a United Nations peacekeeping mission was later deployed.
The country subsequently pursued political negotiations and a peace process that culminated in a 2019 agreement.
The security situation has remained complicated, with armed groups continuing to operate in some parts of the country, although the overall political and security environment has been different from the height of the 2013 crisis.
The ICC proceedings form one part of a much wider effort to address crimes associated with the conflict.
National courts, international institutions, victims’ organisations and civil-society groups have all played roles in documenting alleged abuses and pursuing accountability.
From Investigation to Trial
The ICC’s investigation into the Central African Republic has developed over many years.
The first ICC investigation into the country concerned crimes allegedly committed during the 2002–2003 conflict.
A second investigation was opened in September 2014 to examine crimes allegedly committed from 2012 onward.
The court says that the second investigation phase was formally concluded in December 2022, although cases arising from the investigation have continued through the judicial process.
The Said case was one of those proceedings.
The chronology illustrates how international criminal cases can continue long after the violence itself has subsided.
Said was surrendered to the ICC on January 24, 2021.
His initial appearance took place later that month.
A confirmation-of-charges hearing was held in October 2021, and the pre-trial chamber partially confirmed the charges in December of that year.
The trial began in September 2022.
The defence and prosecution subsequently presented evidence before the Chamber moved to closing submissions and judgment.
The ICC scheduled the judgment for September 23, 2026, giving the parties and the public advance notice of the date.
The Role of Victims and Witnesses
International criminal cases depend heavily on testimony from victims and witnesses.
In the Said trial, witnesses provided accounts concerning the detention facility and the treatment of prisoners.
Such evidence can be especially important in cases involving crimes committed during political upheaval, when official records may be incomplete or unavailable.
The ICC has procedures intended to protect witnesses and victims participating in proceedings.
The court also has a Legal Representatives of Victims system through which victims can participate in proceedings in accordance with the Rome Statute and the court’s rules.
In the Said case, the Chamber considered testimony and other evidence before reaching its findings.
The judgment therefore represents the court’s assessment of the evidence admitted during the trial rather than a general determination concerning every allegation associated with the 2013 conflict.
That distinction remains important in reporting international criminal cases.
A conviction establishes criminal responsibility for the offences on which the court found the defendant guilty. It does not automatically establish every allegation made against that person or every allegation concerning the wider conflict.
Said’s Defence and the Presumption of Innocence
Said denied the allegations against him during the proceedings.
The ICC trial process requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The defendant is not required to prove innocence.
The court’s confirmation of charges in 2021 was not a conviction. At that stage, judges determined that there were sufficient grounds for the case to proceed to trial.
The final judgment in 2026 represents the Chamber’s assessment after the full trial process.
The mixed verdict — convictions on four crimes-against-humanity charges and acquittals on three war-crimes charges — further illustrates the difference between the pre-trial and trial stages.
The ICC's own records identify Said's charges as relating to imprisonment or severe deprivation of liberty, torture, other inhumane acts and persecution as crimes against humanity, alongside war-crimes allegations concerning torture, cruel treatment and outrages upon personal dignity.
Wednesday’s decision resolved those charges at the trial level, subject to the legal processes that may follow under the Rome Statute.
Sentencing Comes Next
The verdict does not end the case.
The ICC will hold a separate sentencing hearing.
At that stage, the court will consider the appropriate sentence for the crimes for which Said has been convicted.
The sentence could take into account factors specified under the Rome Statute and the ICC’s sentencing framework.
The court has not yet announced a final punishment.
The distinction between conviction and sentencing is standard in ICC proceedings.
Judges first determine whether the prosecution has proved the charges. If guilt is established, a subsequent phase addresses the sentence.
The court can impose imprisonment and may also consider other measures provided for under the Rome Statute.
The sentence will be announced after the relevant proceedings.
Until then, the confirmed fact is the conviction on four crimes against humanity and acquittal on three war-crimes charges.
The ICC and the Question of International Justice
The Said verdict comes at a significant time for the International Criminal Court.
The institution is facing political pressure from several directions, including criticism from the United States over cases and investigations involving American personnel and Israeli officials.
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has also been preparing broader sanctions against the ICC, according to Reuters, while Trump criticised the court during his September 22 address to the UN General Assembly.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC.
Those political disputes are separate from the Said case itself.
The Central African Republic situation originated from a referral by the country's own government, and the court has exercised jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed there under the applicable Rome Statute framework.
The verdict consequently illustrates the ICC’s continuing judicial work even as the institution faces broader debates over international jurisdiction, national sovereignty and the reach of international criminal law.
The court's mandate covers genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression under defined circumstances.
Its proceedings are intended to complement national justice systems rather than replace them.
The Rome Statute's complementarity principle means the ICC generally intervenes where national systems are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute the relevant crimes.
What the Verdict Means for the Central African Republic
For the Central African Republic, the judgment provides another formal judicial record concerning the violence of 2013.
The country has spent years trying to move beyond cycles of armed conflict.
The 2019 peace agreement helped establish a framework for reducing political violence, although insecurity has not disappeared.
The ICC's proceedings cannot by themselves resolve the country's political, social or security challenges.
They can, however, establish legal findings concerning individual responsibility for specific crimes.
That distinction is particularly relevant for countries emerging from conflict.
Accountability mechanisms may operate alongside peace negotiations, political reforms, security-sector reform, reparations programmes and reconciliation initiatives.
The balance between justice and reconciliation can be politically and socially difficult.
Different groups may have competing narratives about the causes of conflict and responsibility for violence.
International criminal judgments therefore tend to focus on specific individuals, specific conduct and specific legal standards rather than attempting to write a complete history of a conflict.
The Said judgment follows that model.
A Broader Message About Command Responsibility
The case also illustrates the importance of command positions in international criminal investigations.
The prosecution's case concerned Said's alleged role as a senior Seleka figure and his relationship to the detention facility.
At the pre-trial stage, judges found sufficient grounds to believe that he could be criminally responsible under provisions of the Rome Statute concerning direct co-perpetration and ordering or inducing crimes.
The final judgment then examined the evidence presented during the full trial.
The conviction is therefore an individual judgment.
It does not establish that every member of the Seleka movement committed crimes, nor does it attribute collective criminal responsibility to everyone associated with the group.
International criminal law generally focuses on the conduct and responsibility of particular individuals.
That is another reason why the legal findings in a judgment must be distinguished from broader political narratives about a conflict.
Justice After the Headlines
The 2013 Central African Republic crisis has largely disappeared from the daily international news cycle compared with more recent wars and humanitarian emergencies.
Yet the ICC proceedings demonstrate that international justice can continue long after the immediate political attention has shifted.
For victims, witnesses and affected communities, the passage of time does not necessarily erase the consequences of serious crimes.
Cases can take years because investigators must gather evidence, witnesses must be located and protected, defendants must receive legal representation, and judges must evaluate large bodies of evidence.
International criminal proceedings also involve appeals and other legal procedures that can extend the process beyond the initial verdict.
Said’s conviction therefore represents a major procedural milestone, but not the final stage of the entire judicial process.
The sentencing hearing remains ahead, and legal developments concerning the case can continue under the ICC's rules.
International Significance
The case also contributes to the ICC’s wider body of jurisprudence concerning crimes against humanity.
The court has prosecuted individuals from several countries since its establishment, but each case involves distinct facts and legal questions.
Said’s case adds judicial findings concerning detention, torture, persecution and other inhumane treatment during the political upheaval in the Central African Republic.
The acquittals on the war-crimes charges are equally significant because they demonstrate the court’s requirement that the legal elements of each offence be established independently.
The result is therefore not simply a conviction.
It is a mixed judgment that sets out which allegations the judges found proven and which they did not.
That distinction is central to the integrity of any criminal proceeding.
The Next Chapter
The immediate next step is sentencing.
After the sentencing process, the case will enter whatever further judicial stages are available under the Rome Statute.
Meanwhile, other Central African Republic cases remain part of the ICC's judicial record.
The proceedings involving Yekatom and Ngaïssona, who were convicted in 2025, continue to involve appellate and reparations-related processes.
The ICC's records show that the Appeals Chamber has continued issuing decisions in that case during 2026.
For the Central African Republic, these cases form part of a broader accountability process that spans national and international institutions.
The ultimate question is not only how many defendants are prosecuted, but whether the process contributes to a stronger culture of accountability and respect for civilian protection.
That outcome will depend on factors extending beyond the courtroom.
A Verdict Focused on Individual Responsibility
The September 23 judgment places the focus on one individual and on conduct the ICC judges found proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Mahamat Said Abdel Kani was convicted of four crimes against humanity associated with the detention and mistreatment of people at the OCRB facility in Bangui in 2013.
He was acquitted of three war-crimes charges because the Chamber found that the required armed-conflict element had not been established for the relevant period.
The court will now determine his sentence separately.
The case has taken more than a decade to reach judgment, moving from the violence of the Central African Republic's 2013 crisis through investigation, arrest, pre-trial proceedings and a multi-year trial in The Hague.
It has also become the first ICC conviction of a former Seleka member, adding another element to the court's judicial record on the Central African Republic conflict.
For international justice, the judgment illustrates both the reach and limits of the ICC: serious crimes can remain subject to judicial scrutiny years after they occur, but convictions depend on evidence satisfying the legal requirements of each individual charge.
The verdict now moves the Said case into its next phase, with sentencing still to come and the wider accountability process in the Central African Republic continuing.
Comments
Post a Comment