The United Nations' top court on Friday ordered Israel to do everything possible to avoid death, destruction and any act of genocide in its military offensive in Gaza, but stopped short of ordering a ceasefire.
South Africa alleged that Israel's campaign in Gaza amounted to genocide in the case and had asked the court to order Israel to stop the operation.
In the early decision, made by a panel of 17 judges, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered six so-called provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza. Those measures were approved by an overwhelming majority of the judges. An Israeli judge voted in favor of two of the six.
But Ugandan judge Julia Sebuntinde was the only one to vote against all of them.
Here's what we know about her and why she voted the way she did:
First African woman to serve on the ICJ
Born in February 1956, Sebutinde is a Ugandan judge serving her second term at the ICJ.
She has been a judge of the court since March 2021. She is the first African woman to serve on the international court.
According to the Institute for African Women in Law, Sebutinde comes from a modest family and was born during a period when Uganda was actively fighting for independence from the British colonial office.
Sebutinde attended Lake Victoria Primary School in Entebbe, Uganda. After finishing primary school, she went to Gayaza Institute. He later obtained his degree from Makerere University and graduated in law in 1977, at the age of 21.
Later, as part of his education in 1990, at the age of 34, he went to Scotland where he obtained a master's degree in law with distinction from the University of Edinburgh. In 2009, the same university honored her with a doctorate in law, recognizing her contributions to legal and judicial service.
Before being elected to the ICJ, Sebutinde was a judge of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. She was appointed to that position in 2007.
The case of Sierra Leone: Charles Taylor for war crimes
Throughout her professional career, Sebutinde has been no stranger to controversies.
In February 2011, Sebutinde was one of three judges presiding over the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor for war crimes committed in Sierra Leone.
During that time, the Special Court found Taylor guilty of 11 charges, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, murder, rape and use of child soldiers, resulting in a 50-year prison sentence.
On February 8, London lawyer Courtenay Griffiths, who represented Taylor, abandoned the proceedings after judges refused to accept a written summary of the former Liberian president's defense at the end of his trial.
On February 28, a disciplinary hearing to censure Griffiths was adjourned indefinitely because Sebutinde refused to be present and withdrew “on principle.” This decision came after his earlier disagreement with the order requiring Griffiths to apologize or face disciplinary action.
Palestine ICJ case
In 2024, Sebutinde made headlines again, 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 people of Palestine is essentially and historically political.”
“It is not a legal controversy susceptible to judicial solution by the Court,” he added.
It also said South Africa failed to demonstrate that the acts allegedly committed by Israel were “committed with the necessary genocidal intent and that, as a result, they may fall within the scope of the Genocide Convention.”
Experts argued that Sebutinde did not conduct a thorough assessment of the situation.
“I think what the dissenting opinion gets wrong is that genocide is not a political dispute, it is a legal issue. “Both 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, an assistant professor at the University of the Fraser Valley who specializes in genocide, told Al Jazeera. in human rights.
“You can't just say that this is something for history, this is something for politics. Of course, history and politics play a role,” she added.
Uganda's ambassador to the United Nations also expressed a different opinion.
“Judge Sebutinde's ruling 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. He previously voted against Uganda's case over the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda's support for the plight of the Palestinian people has been expressed…
— Adonia Ayebare (@adoniaayebare) January 26, 2024
