The United Nations’ highest court on Friday ordered Israel to do everything in its power to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide during its military offensive in Gaza, but fell short of order a ceasefire.
South Africa said Israel’s campaign in Gaza amounted to genocide and asked the court to order Israel to end the operation.
In the expected decision, taken by a panel of 17 judges, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered six so-called provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza. These measures were approved by an overwhelming majority of judges. An Israeli judge voted in favor of two of the six.
But the Ugandan judge, Julia Sebuntinde, was the only one to vote against all these proposals.
Here’s what we know about her and why she voted the way she did:
First African woman to sit on the ICJ
Born in February 1956, Sebutinde is a Ugandan judge serving her second term at the ICJ.
She has been a judge at the Court since March 2021. She is the first African woman to sit on the International Court.
According to the Institute for African Women in Law, Sebutinde came from a modest family and she was born at a time when Uganda was actively fighting for independence from the British colonial office.
Sebutinde attended Lake Victoria Primary School in Entebbe, Uganda. After completing primary school, she went to Gayaza High School. She then continued her studies at Makerere University and graduated with a Bachelor of Laws in 1977, at the age of 21.
Later, as part of her studies in 1990, at the age of 34, she traveled to Scotland where she obtained a Master of Laws with distinction from the University of Edinburgh. In 2009, the same university awarded him a doctorate in law, recognizing his contribution to legal and judicial service.
Before being elected to the ICJ, Sebutinde was a judge at the Special Court for Sierra Leone. She was appointed to this position in 2007.
Sierra Leone case: Charles Taylor for war crimes
Throughout her professional career, Sebutinde has been no stranger to controversy.
In February 2011, Sebutinde was one of three presiding judges in the trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor for war crimes committed in Sierra Leone.
During this period, the Special Court found Taylor guilty of 11 counts, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, murder, rape and use of child soldiers, earning him a sentence of 50 years in prison.
On February 8, London lawyer Courtenay Griffiths, who represented Taylor, withdrew from the trial after judges refused to accept a written summary of the ex-Liberian president’s defense at the end of his trial.
On 28 February, a disciplinary hearing to censure Griffiths was adjourned sine die because Sebutinde had refused to attend, withdrawing “on principle”. The move follows his earlier dissent from the order requiring Griffiths to apologize or face disciplinary action.
ICJ case in Palestine
Fast forward to 2024, Sebutinde has once again made headlines, this time for being the only judge to vote against all measures requested by South Africa in its genocide case against Israel.
In a dissenting opinion, Sebutinde stated the following:
“In my respectful dissenting opinion, the dispute between the State of Israel and the Palestinian people is essentially and historically political. »
“This is not a legal dispute capable of being resolved judicially by the Court,” she added.
She also said that South Africa had failed to demonstrate that the acts allegedly committed by Israel were “with the necessary genocidal intent and are therefore likely to fall within the scope of application.” of the Genocide Convention.
Experts said Sebutinde failed to make a thorough assessment of the situation.
“I think where the dissenting opinion gets it wrong is that genocide is not a political dispute, it’s a legal issue. South Africa and Israel signed the Genocide Convention in 1948 and accept jurisdiction over violations of the Genocide Convention and failure to prevent genocide,” Mark Kersten, assistant professor at the University of the Fraser Valley specializing in human rights law.
“We can’t just say that it’s something that’s historical, it’s something that’s political. Of course, history and politics play a role,” he added.
Uganda’s ambassador to the United Nations also expressed a different opinion.
“Judge Sebutinde’s decision at the International Court of Justice does not represent the position of the Ugandan government on the situation in Palestine,” he said in a statement on Twitter.
Judge Sebutinde’s ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Ugandan government’s position on the situation in Palestine. She has already voted against the Ugandan cause of the DRC. Uganda’s support for the plight of the Palestinian people was expressed…
– Adonia Ayebare (@adoniaayebare) January 26, 2024
No Comment: two-stage landing in London due to storm Bert