The Vice President of the International Court of Justice is accused of bias towards the occupation and faces sharp criticism.

The Ugandan judge Julia Sebutinde, Vice President of the International Court of Justice, has sparked widespread controversy following her recent statements in which she claimed that "divine providence relies on her to defend Israel and its government." These remarks were made during an event at a church in the Ugandan capital Kampala, causing shock among international law experts.

Sebutinde, who was the only judge to oppose the interim measures against Israeli occupation in January 2024, has reiterated her pro-occupation stance even after the court, by a majority of 15 judges, deemed the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories "illegal." These positions have drawn criticism even from within Uganda.

The report indicated that the judge is accused of relying on unreliable sources for her opinions, as a study conducted by a Palestinian researcher showed that 32% of her opposing legal opinion is "copied" from pro-Israel articles. This raises doubts about her integrity as a judge.

Legal experts criticized Sebutinde's statements, with Michael Baker describing them as "utterly unwise," pointing out that a judge's position alongside a specific party undermines the principle of neutrality. Meanwhile, Sergey Vasilyev added that such positions create an inevitable impression of bias.

Juliet McIntyre, a law lecturer, considered that Sebutinde's statements may violate the text of the oath she took, which could lead to her recusal from related cases if her integrity is challenged. These remarks raise questions about her future in the court.

Although the International Court of Justice rarely forces a judge to recuse themselves, experts like Kenneth Roth believe that the judge has lost her neutral stance, raising doubts about her ability to adjudicate cases related to Israel.

Some analysts believe that the court may choose to ignore the matter to avoid accusations of politicization, even though this could harm its reputation as an independent judicial body. This issue represents a difficult test for the court's credibility amid increasing criticism directed at it.