Dear President Iwasawa,

I write to you as the CEO of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee; a grassroots civil liberties pressure group formed in 2001 to encourage civil engagement within the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. We are an independent not-for-profit organisation who proactively campaign against anti-Muslim hatred.

I write to formally request the immediate recusal of Judge Julia Sebutinde Vice President of the ICJ from the bench in the aforementioned case, currently before the International Court of Justice. This challenge is made on the grounds of apparent bias, which poses a grave threat to the integrity of the proceedings and the principle of equality of the parties before the Court.

This request is made with the utmost respect for the Court, its esteemed judges, and its foundational role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. Our concerns are rooted in the fundamental right of every party to a dispute to be heard by an impartial and independent tribunal, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Statute of the Court and considered a cornerstone of international justice.

The basis for this request stems from demonstrated actions and statements by Judge Sebutinde that give rise to justifiable doubts as to her impartiality. These concerns are outlined below:

At a public lecture at the Watoto church in Kampala, Uganda on August 10th 2025 where Judge Sebutinde is a member, she spoke on her dissenting opinion on the South Africa vs Israel case.

According to the Ugandan newspaper the Daily Monitor on the 13th August 2025, she stated, “There are now about 30 countries against Israel… the Lord is counting on me to stand on the side of Israel. The whole world was against Israel, including my country.”  And went to express her support for Israel as follows:

“The Lord relies on me to stand with Israel… signs of the end times are appearing in the Middle East, and I want to be on the right side of history… I am convinced that time is running out, and I encourage you to follow developments in Israel. I feel humbled that God has allowed me to be part of the last days.”

Judge Sebutinde’s comments indicate she has personal Christian Zionist beliefs. Whilst strong religious convictions are not a barrier to obtaining a position as a judge at the ICJ, it is clear she cannot put her beliefs aside when exercising judgement. This is especially pertinent where these beliefs pertain to an end times prophesy that supports a genocide for the second coming of the Messiah. It is simply not possible, given her beliefs and advocacy for Israel for her to retain involvement as a judge in the aforementioned case.

A demonstrable pattern of rulings shows, that in the past two years Judge Sebutinde has never voted against the interests of Israel. In January 2024 the ICJ ruled it was plausible that Israel’s acts amounted to genocide and issued six provisional measures to prevent genocidal acts. Judge Sebutinde dissented against all provisional measures, the sole judge to do so. In May 2024 she opposed the court’s order to cease Israel’s offensive in Rafah.

These instances, individually and collectively, create an inescapable appearance of bias that undermines public confidence in the Court’s proceedings. The importance of impartiality is paramount to the ICJ as it relies solely on the appointed judges to make decisions, and therefore neutrality must remain paramount.

The Statute of the Court provides mechanisms to safeguard its integrity. Article 17 paragraph 2 addresses a judge’s advocacy for any parties as expressly forbidden.  Furthermore, Article 24 paragraph 1 of the Statute states that if, for some special reason, a member of the Court considers that he or she should not take part in the decision of a particular case, he or she shall so inform the President. It is our firm belief that the circumstances outlined above constitute such a “special reason.” Article 18 of the Statue provides that the judge concerned can be removed with the consent of the other Members of the Court if they do not recuse themselves.

We therefore respectfully urge:

That Judge Sebutinde be invited to recuse herself from all further participation in the case.

That, failing recusal, the matter be considered by the Court in accordance with Article 24 paragraph 2 of the Statute and if deemed necessary Article 18. I would request that you act to immediately remove Vice-President Sebutinde from participating further in proceedings in the South Africa v. Israel case.

I would be grateful for your acknowledgment of receipt by return, and I thank you in advance for your consideration of the contents of this letter.

Most respectfully yours

Ali Hassan
CEO
Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK