In the ongoing legal firestorm at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the spotlight falls on Judge Julia Sebutinde and her noteworthy divergence from the majority stance on Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.
Notably, Judge Sebutinde cast her dissenting vote against all six provisional measures proposed by the ICJ to safeguard Palestinians in Gaza, a move that has stirred controversy and prompted swift disassociation from her home country, Uganda.
The ICJ’s decision, delivered by a panel of 17 judges, compelled Israel to take all necessary steps to prevent death, destruction, and acts resembling genocide in its Gaza campaign. Despite this, the court refrained from issuing a direct order for a ceasefire, opting for these provisional measures instead.
South Africa, alleging genocide in Israel’s Gaza operation, had implored the ICJ to intervene and halt the military action. The majority of the judges endorsed the proposed provisional measures, with even an Israeli judge supporting two out of the six.
In this judicial tapestry, Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda emerges as the lone dissenter, casting her vote against all six measures. The Ugandan government swiftly distanced itself from Sebutinde’s stance, emphasizing that her position did not align with Uganda’s official stance on the matter.
Adonia Nayebare, Uganda’s permanent representative to the United Nations, articulated this divergence on X (formerly Twitter), declaring, “Justice Sebutinde’s ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine. She has previously voted against Uganda’s case on DRC. Uganda’s support for the plight of the Palestinian people has been expressed through Uganda’s voting pattern at the United Nations.”
Julia Sebutinde’s dissenting voice, echoing her previous dissent on Uganda’s case regarding the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), adds complexity to the narrative surrounding the ICJ’s deliberations on Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Here is what to know about Sebutinde, the trailblazing Ugandan judge:
First African Woman to Sit on ICJ
Julia Sebutinde, born in February 1954, is the first African woman to serve on the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Hailing from a humble background during Uganda’s fight for independence, she attended Lake Victoria Primary School and later pursued her bachelor of laws degree at Makerere University, graduating in 1977 at the age of 23.
In 1990, at 36, Sebutinde furthered her education in Scotland, earning a master of laws degree with distinction from the University of Edinburgh. Her remarkable contributions to legal and judicial service were recognized in 2009 when the same university awarded her an honorary doctorate of laws.
Before her tenure at the ICJ, Sebutinde served as a judge at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, appointed in 2007. Currently in her second term at the ICJ since March 2021, Julia Sebutinde’s journey is a testament to her dedication and achievements in the field of international law.
The Sebutinde Commission
In 1999, the President of Uganda, HE. Yoweri Museveni instituted a judicial Committee of Inquiry, famously known as the Sebutinde Commission. It was tasked with scrutinizing policing in Uganda. Chaired by Justice Julia Sebutinde, the commission was specifically mandated to probe corruption and mismanagement within the police force.
The findings and recommendations of the Justice Julia Sebutinde-led Commission of Inquiry into Police Corruption revealed significant issues that were deemed crucial for the professionalization and transformation of the force. However, two decades later, the lack of prompt action has hindered progress in implementing the recommended changes.
Sierra Leone Case: Charles Taylor Over War Crimes
Delving into Sierra Leone’s war crimes case involving Charles Taylor, Julia Sebutinde’s career has not been without controversy. In February 2011, she served as one of three presiding judges in the trial of the former Liberian President for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone.
The Special Court rendered a verdict, finding Taylor guilty on 11 counts, encompassing war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, murder, rape, and the use of child soldiers.
This verdict led to a 50-year prison sentence. Notably, on February 8, London barrister Courtenay Griffiths, representing Taylor, left the proceedings when judges rejected a written summary of the defense.
Subsequently, a disciplinary hearing to censure Griffiths on February 28 was indefinitely adjourned, as Sebutinde chose not to be present, citing principled reasons. This decision followed her earlier dissent from the order that required Griffiths to apologize or face disciplinary action.
South Africa’s Case: Israel Versus Palestine
In the recent 2024 ICJ case involving Palestine, Julia Sebutinde gained attention once again, being the sole judge opposing all measures sought by South Africa in its genocide case against Israel.
In her dissenting opinion, Sebutinde asserted that the Israel-Palestine dispute is fundamentally a political matter with historical roots, not suitable for judicial resolution.
Stating that the acts attributed to Israel lacked the necessary genocidal intent, Sebutinde contended that the conflict did not fall within the Genocide Convention’s scope.
“In my respectful dissenting opinion, the dispute between the State of Israel and the people of Palestine is essentially and historically a political one,” She stated.
“It is not a legal dispute susceptible to judicial settlement by the Court,” she added.
However, critics argued that she overlooked a comprehensive evaluation of the situation. Mark Kersten, an assistant professor specializing in human rights law, told Aljazeera English that genocide is a legal issue, not a political dispute, and both South Africa and Israel are bound by the Genocide Convention.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
