THE HAGUE — Rodrigo Duterte’s chief legal counsel argued on Sunday that there is a “compelling” reason to dismiss the International Criminal Court (ICC) case against the former Philippine president before it proceeds to trial.
Speaking in an interview with AFP in The Hague, lawyer Nicholas Kaufman expressed hope that the case could be stopped at the pre-trial stage by challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
He contended that the Philippines had officially withdrawn from the ICC long before an investigation into Duterte’s alleged crimes was authorized.
Duterte, 80, is accused of committing crimes against humanity in connection with his controversial “war on drugs,” which resulted in the deaths of thousands of individuals, mostly from impoverished communities, with many killed despite a lack of evidence linking them to illegal drug activities.
British-Israeli lawyer Kaufman, 56, emphasized, “Coming back to the jurisdictional point, obviously you don’t need to be the dean of a law faculty to realize that that’s going to be a huge issue at pre-trial.”
“I think that the jurisdictional argument is compelling as defense counsel. I believe that it should succeed and I would be hugely disappointed if it doesn’t succeed,” he added.
“We hope to persuade the judges pre-trial that it (the court) cannot exercise its jurisdiction over the case. There won’t be a confirmation-of-charges hearing if the judges rule in our favor.”
The confirmation of charges hearing—where both the prosecution and defense will present their initial arguments—is scheduled for September 23.
A central issue in the case is jurisdiction, as the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019. However, the court has maintained that it retains authority over the case since the alleged offenses were committed while the country was still a member.
“As the alleged conduct has taken place between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019 on the territory of the Philippines, it falls within the Court’s jurisdiction,” the ICC stated.
The court’s chief prosecutor has described Duterte’s actions as “part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population” in the Philippines.
For the families of those killed in the drug war, the ICC case represents a long-awaited opportunity for justice.
‘Kidnapping’
Another key argument for the defense revolves around Duterte’s March 11 arrest and his swift transfer to The Hague.
“I view it as a kidnapping, nothing more or less. It’s an extrajudicial rendition. He was given no due process, just slung over to The Hague,” Kaufman told AFP.
“This was in complete contravention of Philippines law.”
Duterte’s sudden detention came amid an escalating rift between two of the most powerful political families in the Philippines.
Initially aligned in the 2022 elections—where Ferdinand Marcos Jr. won the presidency and Sara Duterte, the former president’s daughter, secured the vice presidency—the Marcos and Duterte factions have since seen relations deteriorate.
Sara Duterte has since faced impeachment on various charges, including an alleged plot to assassinate the president.
Rodrigo Duterte, according to Kaufman, “should have been brought before a judge before he was thrown onto a plane and dumped in The Hague. That didn’t happen. As I’ve said already, this is a political hit job.”
“The politics in that country basically ended up in a situation where they needed to get him out of the picture. The incumbent government did not want him in the picture anymore.”
‘Not easy for anyone’
Kaufman said he has been meeting virtually every day with Duterte at the ICC detention center in Scheveningen, a coastal suburb of The Hague.
Adjusting to prison life has been challenging, he noted. “That’s not easy for anyone,” Kaufman said, though he described Duterte as being in “good spirits.”
Kaufman, who has previously represented high-profile clients such as former Congolese rebel leader Jean-Pierre Bemba and Aisha Kadhafi, daughter of Libya’s late dictator, voiced concerns that the ICC might be unwilling to drop Duterte’s case.
“My only fear is that this court is starved of cases at the present moment and might be loath to let a case like that go, to slip through its hands.”
