Scandal Involving a Judge’s Interference in the ICJ to Assist Sudan’s Delegation Emerges
0
0
A leaked audio recording has revealed a legal scandal involving Sudan’s Minister of Justice in the Port Sudan government, Maawiya Osman, who sought advice from a judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Jordanian Judge Awn Al-Khasawneh. This request is considered a violation of judicial neutrality at the ICJ.
The Sudanese minister had asked the Jordanian judge to work with him on a case filed by the Port Sudan government. However, he was surprised to learn that this was not possible because Al-Khasawneh was still serving as a temporary judge on a case. The minister requested the judge to explain this to the “relevant parties,” according to the 13-minute long audio recording.
The recording also reveals a back-and-forth over several previous meetings between the two parties, further confirming that the violation of judicial neutrality occurred multiple times through requests for several “legal consultations” from one party in the dispute.
It is well known that the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) addresses cases of violations of judicial neutrality, and the court takes preventive measures to ensure strict compliance with neutrality standards. These measures include improving procedural safeguards and providing training for ICJ staff.
The ICJ Statute prohibits any member of the court from acting as an agent, advisor, or lawyer in any case. According to Article 17 of the ICJ Statute, breaches of judicial neutrality are taken very seriously, particularly since 2017, when a series of corruption scandals led to the introduction of strict new rules and flexible guidelines and ethical codes that expanded the scope of the previous regulations.
Arbitration is specifically prohibited for judges, including temporary judges, which directly applies to the situation between the Port Sudan government and the Jordanian judge, as it constitutes a clear breach of judicial neutrality.
Experts argue that the ICJ must enforce all its strict rules to maintain its full neutrality and strengthen its role as a key legal authority in resolving international disputes. Providing legal advice to one party in an ongoing dispute undermines the neutrality of the court and risks violating its impartial stance.
Such actions and “breaches” could undermine trust in the integrity and legitimacy of the court as an unbiased adjudicator. This has procedural consequences, as affected states can challenge the court’s neutrality or request the disqualification of the parties involved, which could undermine the validity of the case.
Experts also emphasize the need for increased oversight and accountability within the ICJ, stressing the importance of strengthening mechanisms to ensure no party gains an undue advantage, while maintaining its integrity and independence. Preventive measures should include ensuring strict compliance with neutrality standards by improving procedural safeguards and training ICJ staff.
The Port Sudan government has previously displayed “ignorance” of legal procedures, particularly in its recent case against the UAE, which experts have described as “lacking legal and procedural foundations,” with structural issues in proof and jurisdiction.
The Port Sudan government’s appeal to the Jordanian judge highlights ongoing “confusion” in its legal position and its lack of awareness or intentional violation of established rules in international litigation.
About The Author
