In a violation of judicial neutrality at the International Court of Justice, a leaked audio recording has revealed a legal scandal involving the Minister of Justice of the Port Sudan Government, Maowiya Othman, who sought advice from Jordanian Judge Awn Al-Khasawneh of the International Court of Justice.
In the lengthy recording, which lasts over 13 minutes, the Sudanese minister asks the Jordanian judge to represent the Port Sudan Government in a case it had filed. He is surprised to learn that this was not possible because Al-Khasawneh is still temporarily serving as a judge in a case, asking him to explain this to the “concerned parties.”
The circulated recording also reveals a back-and-forth of several previous meetings between the two parties, which confirms that the violation of judicial neutrality occurred multiple times, through repeated requests for “legal advice” from one side in a dispute.
The Statute of the International Court of Justice strictly regulates violations of judicial neutrality and takes preventive measures that strongly emphasize ensuring strict compliance with neutrality standards, through improving procedural safeguards and training the Court’s staff.
The Statute of the International Court of Justice prohibits any member of the court from being an agent, advisor, or attorney in any case.
Article 17 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice has taken judicial neutrality violations very seriously since 2017, following a series of corruption scandals. Strict new rules were implemented, along with flexible guidelines and ethical codes that broadened the scope of this old rule.
Since 2018, arbitration has been explicitly prohibited for judges, including temporary judges, which applies directly to the case between the Port Sudan Government and the Jordanian judge, considering it a “clear violation” of judicial neutrality.
Experts believe that the International Court of Justice must enforce all of its strict rules to maintain its complete neutrality and strengthen its role as a key legal authority in resolving international disputes. This is because offering legal advice to one party in an ongoing dispute undermines the Court’s neutrality and risks violating its neutral stance.
Such actions and “violations” can also undermine confidence in the integrity of the Court and its legitimacy as an impartial adjudicator, leading to procedural consequences. Affected countries can challenge the neutrality of the Court or request the recusal of the involved parties, thus undermining the validity of the case.
Experts also emphasize the need for increased monitoring and accountability within the International Court of Justice, as it must enhance mechanisms to ensure that no party gains an undeserved advantage, maintaining its integrity and independence. Preventive measures should be taken, such as ensuring strict compliance with neutrality standards through improved procedural safeguards and the training of the Court’s staff.
The Port Sudan Government had previously demonstrated “ignorance” in legal proceedings, especially in its recent case against the UAE, which experts described as “lacking legal and procedural foundations,” with the case file facing structural issues in evidence and jurisdiction.
The Port Sudan Government’s approach to the Jordanian judge highlights ongoing “confusion” in its legal position and either a lack of awareness or deliberate breach of established rules in international litigation.