Ugandan judge who backed Israel in genocide case said set to become ICJ chief
Julia Sebutinde, court’s current vice president, is expected to succeed Nawaf Salam after he is appointed Lebanon’s PM; Sebutinde was sole dissenting vote on every ICJ measure
Justice Julia Sebutinde of Uganda is set to be appointed president of the International Court of Justice, according to media reports, after Lebanese President Joseph Aoun earlier this week summoned Nawaf Salam to designate him prime minister.
An ICJ statement released on Tuesday announcing Salam’s resignation did not mention Sebutinde, but as the court’s current vice president, she is expected to be promoted to the top spot.
Justice Salam began his role as ICJ president in February 2024 and has served as a judge on the court since 2018.
In his first speech as premier earlier in the week, Salam, referring to Israel, whose cases he until recently oversaw, said he would work to “impose the complete withdrawal of the enemy from the last occupied inch of our land.”
Sebutinde, on the other hand, was the only judge on the 17-member ICJ panel to vote against all six measures adopted by the court last year in a ruling ordering Israel to take action to prevent potential acts of genocide as it fought Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip.
She was also one of only two judges to oppose the court’s assertion that Palestinians’ claims of war crimes in Gaza may fall under the scope of the Genocide Convention. The other was Israeli Justice Aharon Barak. (Contrary to some reports at the time, the court did not rule it was plausible that genocide was taking place.)
PRESS RELEASE: HE Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the International Court of Justice, has resigned as Member of the Court with effect from today, 14 January 2025.https://t.co/WHVvzgbscM pic.twitter.com/UcOG6U0aP4
— CIJ_ICJ (@CIJ_ICJ) January 14, 2025
Judge Sebutinde, in her dissent, argued that “South Africa has not demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the acts allegedly committed by Israel and of which the Applicant complains, were committed with the necessary genocidal intent, and that as a result, they are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention.”
She added that “the Applicant has not demonstrated that the rights it asserts and for which it seeks protection through the indication of provisional measures are plausible under the Genocide Convention.”
Sebutinde said the failure of states to reach a political solution to conflicts “may sometimes lead them to resort to a pretextual invocation of treaties like the Genocide Convention, in a desperate bid to force a case into the context of such a treaty, in order to foster its judicial settlement… In my view, the present case falls in this category.”
She said a careful review of Israel’s war policy “demonstrates the absence of a genocidal intent,” though she stressed that Israel is bound by international law in its conduct of the war.
“Unfortunately, the scale of suffering and death experienced in Gaza is exacerbated not by genocidal intent, but rather by several factors, including the tactics of the Hamas organization itself which often entails its forces embedding amongst the civilian population and installations, rendering them vulnerable to legitimate military attack,” she said.
As for statements of some Israeli officials throughout the war who used inflammatory language, or made comments seen as minimizing the need to protect civilians, Sebutinde argued that taken in context, “the vast majority of the statements referred to the destruction of Hamas and not the Palestinian people as such”; that “certain renegade statements by officials who are not charged with prosecuting Israel’s military operations were subsequently highly criticized by the Israeli government itself”; and that “more importantly, the official war policy of the Israeli government, as presented to the court, contains no indicators of a genocidal intent.”
After Sebutinde’s dissenting votes made headlines, the Ugandan government issued as statement distancing itself from her, saying: “The position taken by Judge Sebutinde is her own individual and independent opinion and does not in any way reflect the position of the government of the Republic of Uganda.”
Last January, the ICJ’s 17-member panel voted 15-2 that there was “plausibility” to South Africa’s claims that Palestinians require protection under the Genocide Convention. In May 2024, the court ordered Israel to halt any military operations in the southern Gazan city of Rafah that would risk the destruction of the civilian population sheltering there.
Israel has vehemently denied allegations that it is carrying out a genocide in Gaza, in the war that began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas led a devastating cross-border assault, killing some 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages.
As Israel insists none of its actions target civilians and that it takes numerous steps to protect them, the court’s Rafah order did not lead to a change of policy by Jerusalem.
The hearings last year were only the opening salvo in the case, which is expected to go on for years.
South Africa, who filed the ICJ case, submitted a 750-page document to the court in October of “evidence” of the alleged genocide. As per court procedures, South Africa’s submission will not be made public.
Israel has until July 2025 to file its response.
