What are the triggers for the jurisdiction of the African Court? Is it possible that they might conflict with those of the ICC?

The jurisdiction of the African Court, which complements that of the National Courts and the Courts of the Regional Economic Communities, is triggered when in case of commission of international crimes, the concerned State is unwilling or unable to carry out the investigation or prosecution; or when it has investigated the crimes, the decision not to prosecute is resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State to prosecute. Under article 46H of the Malabo Protocol, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:

1. The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable to carry out the investigation or prosecution;(emphasis added)
2. The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State to prosecute; (emphasis added)

One of the key ways in which the admissibility provisions in article 46H of the Malabo Protocol differ from article 17 of the Rome Statute is that they do not explicitly require the African Court to determine whether an ongoing or prior investigation is, or was, genuine.  For example, the Malabo Protocol provides that a case is inadmissible where it “is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable to carry out the investigation or prosecution,” whereas the same provision in the Rome Statute provides that a case is inadmissible where it “is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution.” Despite this slight difference in wording, it is highly likely that the African Court will interpret the admissibility provisions in a manner identical to the way the ICC has.  That is because both statutes include identical definitions of what constitutes unwillingness or inability to investigate or prosecute, meaning that even without the term “genuinely,” the African Court will apply the same definitions of unwilling or unable as the ICC has done.