The International Criminal Court at its inception was touted to be the international community’s means of bringing the perpetrators of the world’s most heinous crimes- genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (and now also the crime of aggression) – to justice. Following the operation of earlier ad hoc tribunals set up by the United Nations (UN) Security Council in the aftermath of the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990, the international community, having witnessed the efficacy of international justice, set about establishing a permanent ‘world court’ from which no criminal, irrespective of political power or status could hide. Flash-forward to the present, however, and the dream of the ICC, for many, is woefully unrealised. The ICC has been tried repeatedly in the court of public opinion and has been found wanting. Discussions of its effectiveness, or lack thereof, in delivering justice to victims and being a deterrent for the commission of international crimes consistently reference its limited number of convictions, high cost and lack of an independent enforcement mechanism among its weaknesses. This article discusses the ICC’s ongoing case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, who was once hailed as the heir apparent of controversial Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. It discusses the legal arguments in favour and against the ICC apprehending and prosecuting Gaddafi, whose continued evasion – with the help of Libyan authorities – of the court has been described as a glaring display of its impotence. Specific focus is given to the complementarity principle as applied by the ICC in determining the admissibility of the case, and whether recent developments in Libya have effect on the Courts claim of admissibility.