ICJ Judge Julia Sebutinde cast her vote against the emergency measures requested by South Africa against Israel concerning its actions in Gaza.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an order instructing Israel to do everything possible to prevent death, destruction, and potential acts of genocide in its military offensive in Gaza. However, it fell short of mandating a ceasefire, following a case where South Africa claimed that Israel’s campaign amounted to genocide.
In this significant decision, the ICJ, consisting of a panel of 17 judges, directed six provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza, with an overwhelming majority of judges approving these measures. An Israeli judge voted in favor of two of the six, while Uganda’s Judge Julia Sebutinde was the sole judge opposing all of them.
Here are key details about Julia Sebutinde and the reasons behind her dissent:
First African Woman on the ICJ:
Born in February 1954, Julia Sebutinde is a Ugandan judge currently serving her second term at the ICJ.
Since March 2021, she has been a judge at the ICJ, making her the first African woman to sit on the international court.
Raised in a modest family during Uganda’s fight for independence from the British Colonial office, Sebutinde pursued her education at Lake Victoria Primary School, Gayaza High School, and Makerere University.
Educational Achievements:
In 1990, at the age of 36, Sebutinde pursued a master of laws degree with distinction from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
In 2009, the same university honored her with a doctorate of laws for her contributions to legal and judicial service.
Previous Role in Sierra Leone’s Special Court:
Before joining the ICJ, Sebutinde served as a judge of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, appointed to the position in 2007.
•She played a crucial role in the trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor for war crimes committed in Sierra Leone.
ICJ Case in Palestine – Dissenting Opinion:
In 2024, Sebutinde gained attention for being the only judge to vote against all measures sought by South Africa in its genocide case against Israel.
In her dissenting opinion, she viewed the dispute between Israel and Palestine as primarily a political one, not suitable for judicial settlement.
Sebutinde argued that South Africa didn’t demonstrate that Israel’s alleged acts had the necessary genocidal intent, questioning whether they fell within the scope of the Genocide Convention.
• Criticism of Dissent:
Some experts argued that Sebutinde failed to conduct a thorough assessment of the situation, emphasizing that genocide is a legal matter, not just a political dispute.
• Mark Kersten, an assistant professor focusing on human rights law, criticized the dissenting opinion, stating that genocide is a legal issue covered by the Genocide Convention, which both South Africa and Israel signed.
• Uganda’s Position:
The ambassador of Uganda to the United Nations clarified that Justice Sebutinde’s ruling at the ICJ did not represent the official position of the Government of Uganda on the situation in Palestine.
Julia Sebutinde’s dissenting vote in the ICJ’s decision regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza has sparked debates over the legal aspects of the dispute and the role of the court in such matters
