When Julia Sebutinde, vice-president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), stepped onto the pulpit of Kampala’s Watoto Church on 10 August 2025, she was not cloaked in the robes of judicial restraint but in the fervor of prophecy.
“The Lord is counting on me to stand on the side of Israel,” she told her congregation. “The signs are being shown in the Middle East. We are in the end times.”
The remarks stunned observers. Here was the vice-president of the world’s highest court, a jurist entrusted with weighing evidence of genocide, declaring openly that her allegiance lay with Israel because God demanded it.
It was the kind of sermon one might expect from a televangelist in Texas or a YouTube prophet with a PayPal link—not from a judge at The Hague. The ICJ is meant to embody the cool detachment of law. Instead, Sebutinde offered the fervor of Revelation.
The implications were immediate and explosive. For Israel, Sebutinde’s sermon was manna from heaven, a soundbite to be weaponized by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. For the ICJ, it was dynamite—and not in a good way.
A Record of Extreme Bias
Sebutinde’s sermon did not emerge from nowhere. It was entirely consistent with her record on the bench, where she has acted as Israel’s lone defender.
In January 2024, when the ICJ found it “plausible” that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and ordered six emergency measures, Sebutinde dissented from them all—the only judge of 17 to do so.
In March and May 2024, when the court reaffirmed and strengthened those measures, she dissented again.
In July 2024, when the ICJ declared Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestine unlawful, Sebutinde once again stood alone, voting against the 14-1 consensus.
To outside observers, the consistency was baffling. Why would a Ugandan judge so reliably align with Israel? With her sermon, the answer became clear. These were not neutral legal dissents—they were theological dissents.
Plagiarism and Propaganda
If Sebutinde’s bias was already apparent, it became scandalous with revelations in February 2025. An anonymous Palestinian researcher, writing in Norman Finkelstein’s book Gaza’s Gravediggers, found that 32 percent of Sebutinde’s July 2024 dissent was plagiarized.
Passages were lifted from pro-Israel lawyers, Douglas Feith, Wikipedia, BBC News, and even a Christian Zionist lecture by David Brog. Rather than rigorous judicial reasoning, Sebutinde’s dissent read like a patchwork of advocacy material.
Sebutinde refused to comment. The ICJ took no action.
For critics, this represented not just intellectual laziness but a gross betrayal of judicial duty: prostituting the authority of the court to shield Israel from genocide charges.
Norman Finkelstein’s Indictment of The Hague
The Sebutinde scandal fits neatly into the analysis of Norman Finkelstein, the Jewish-American political scientist and longtime critic of Israel.
In I Accuse! (2020) and Gaza’s Gravediggers (2025), Finkelstein argues that The Hague—the ICC and ICJ alike—has been systematically corrupted whenever Israel is accused.
Fatou Bensouda and the ICC
His first target was Fatou Bensouda, the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor during the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident. Israeli commandos stormed a humanitarian flotilla to Gaza in international waters, killing ten activists. The Comoros Islands referred the case to the ICC, but Bensouda repeatedly declined to investigate.
Finkelstein accused her of “defiling her office,” whitewashing Israeli conduct, and parroting its alibi of self-defense. He argued that by refusing to prosecute, she gave Israel impunity and emboldened further crimes.
Julia Sebutinde and the ICJ
Five years later, Finkelstein turned to Sebutinde. Her dissents, he argued, were legally indefensible and riddled with plagiarism. By recycling pro-Israel talking points, she “prostituted the authority of the ICJ” to protect Israel from genocide charges.
For Finkelstein, Sebutinde and Bensouda are two sides of the same coin: powerful jurists betraying their mandates to shield Israel, eroding the credibility of international justice itself.
Faith Over Law
Sebutinde has now confirmed that her votes were not rooted in law but in faith.
She recounted how, on the morning of her ICJ vice-presidential election, she hesitated, fearful of criticism. Then she heard God rebuke her: “You are a coward. Wake up.”
She interprets her elevation as divine mission. “I am humbled that God has allowed me to be part of the last days,” she told her congregation.
These are not the words of a jurist. They are the words of a prophet. And in confusing her pulpit with her bench, Sebutinde has blurred the line between theology and law.
Watoto Church and Christian Zionism
Her sermon also revealed her deep ties to Watoto Church, an evangelical congregation in Kampala with strong links to Christian Zionism.
Founded by Canadian missionaries Gary and Marilyn Skinner, Watoto is steeped in the prosperity gospel and American evangelical traditions. It has cultivated direct ties with Israel through the Fellowship of Israel Related Ministries (FIRM).
In October 2023, Watoto launched a fundraising drive for “work in Israel,” calling it an opportunity to “participate in the extension of God’s kingdom.” Its pastors have preached sermons like Israel the Greatest Sign, framing the modern state as proof of prophecy.
Back in 2014, Sebutinde herself told a Watoto gathering: “I have the chance to practice justice at the world level because of the values I pick from Watoto Church. I am proud of Watoto.”
Her sermon this August was thus no aberration. It was Watoto theology transposed onto the bench of the ICJ.
The Explosive Implications
The fallout has been swift. Iran denounced her remarks as “a shocking breach of ethics.” Uganda distanced itself once again, with UN ambassador Adonia Ayebare stressing that Sebutinde’s views do not reflect the state’s position.
Commentators across the world warned that her words had handed Netanyahu “the soundbite of his dreams” while simultaneously weakening the institution she serves. One prominent observer went further, calling her “a dangerous clown”—a damning assessment of a senior judge sitting in judgment on allegations of genocide.
Legal scholars warn that her conduct undermines the ICJ’s very foundations. Article 2 of the ICJ Statute requires judges to act “impartially and conscientiously.” Judges swear an oath to that effect before taking office.
By publicly aligning with one party in an ongoing genocide case, Sebutinde has not just tainted her own impartiality. She has jeopardized the impartiality of the court itself.
For South Africa, which brought the case, her remarks are devastating. For Palestinians, who see the ICJ as one of the few arenas where their suffering is acknowledged, they confirm the fear that even international justice is compromised by ideology.
A Gift to Netanyahu
For Israel, however, Sebutinde is a gift. Her dissents allow Netanyahu to argue that the genocide case is contested, not settled. Her sermon provides a propaganda weapon: even the ICJ’s vice-president stands with Israel.
This fits neatly into Israel’s broader strategy of delegitimizing international legal institutions. Whenever rulings go against it, Israel casts them as political or biased. Sebutinde’s words make that task easier.
By weakening the court, she strengthens Israel’s hand.
The Case for Disqualification: Article 17 of the ICJ Statute
The ICJ’s Statute does not leave the problem of judicial bias entirely unaddressed. Article 17 explicitly provides that:
“If, for some special reason, a member of the Court considers that he should not take part in the decision of a particular case, he shall so inform the President of the Court.”
This covers voluntary recusal, where a judge steps aside. But it also provides for disqualification, allowing parties to a dispute to object to a judge’s participation. The decision on such objections rests not with the judge in question, but with the rest of the Court.
In principle, South Africa—or any other party to the genocide proceedings—could invoke Article 17 to demand Sebutinde’s exclusion. Her sermon, framed in terms of divine command to defend Israel, would provide stark evidence of bias.
Precedents for Disqualification
Though extremely rare, there have been precedents:
- Nicaragua v. United States (1984–1986): The US objected to the participation of Judge Sir Robert Jennings, citing prior academic writings sympathetic to Nicaragua. The objection was rejected, but it established the procedure.
- Hungary v. Slovakia (Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, 1997): Hungary sought the disqualification of Judge Oda for alleged bias, but the Court dismissed the claim.
- Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia v. Serbia, 1993–2007): Challenges to judges were discussed but not formally pursued, highlighting the reluctance of states to risk alienating the bench.
In practice, the bar for disqualification has been set extraordinarily high. The ICJ has traditionally insisted that prior academic opinions, political statements, or even government service do not in themselves prove bias.
Why Sebutinde’s Case Is Different
Yet Sebutinde’s situation is unprecedented. She has not merely expressed a political opinion in an academic setting or prior role—she has proclaimed, from a pulpit, that God commands her to defend one side in an active genocide case.
Her statements directly contradict the oath she swore to exercise her powers “impartially and conscientiously.” They reveal that her votes are grounded not in legal reasoning but in religious conviction.
Legal experts argue this surpasses the threshold set by past cases. If a judge cannot separate divine mandate from judicial duty, impartiality is not merely in doubt—it is absent.
Options Beyond Disqualification
If the Court were to go further, Article 18 of the Statute provides a “nuclear option”:
“No member of the Court can be dismissed unless, in the unanimous opinion of the other members, he has ceased to fulfill the required conditions.”
No ICJ judge has ever been removed under this clause. But if Sebutinde’s conduct does not qualify as ceasing to fulfill the conditions of impartiality and conscientiousness, it is difficult to imagine what would.
A Systemic Rot in International Justice
Sebutinde is not alone. She is part of a larger pattern in which Israel has escaped accountability.
The ICJ’s 2004 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s separation wall illegal was ignored. The ICC dragged its feet on Palestine for a decade. Western states, led by the US, apply enormous pressure to shield Israel from scrutiny.
As Finkelstein argues, Sebutinde and Bensouda are not personal aberrations but symptoms of systemic corruption. The courts bend under political weight, betraying their mandate to uphold law without fear or favor.
The Stakes for Gaza—and for Law Itself
The ICJ has no army, no police, no enforcement. Its authority lies entirely in its credibility. If judges openly align with prophecy, that credibility collapses.
For Palestinians, Sebutinde’s bias is not just a personal failing but a betrayal of one of the few institutions where their suffering might be recognized. For the global South, it confirms long-held suspicions of double standards in international law.
For Israel, it provides cover to delay accountability, consolidate control, and entrench facts on the ground while proceedings drag on.
For the ICJ, it risks reducing the court to ashes.
The Hague on Trial
Julia Sebutinde’s sermon crystallizes the crisis. In declaring that God commands her to stand with Israel, she has subordinated law to theology. In plagiarizing pro-Israel propaganda, she has subordinated reasoning to ideology.
She is, simultaneously, a threat to the ICJ’s integrity and a gift to Israel’s propaganda machine.
Unless she recuses herself—or is disqualified—the ICJ’s genocide case against Israel will remain fatally tainted. And if the court cannot enforce impartiality among its own judges, why should any state trust it as the guardian of international law?
The ICJ was meant to be the conscience of humanity. But if prophecy replaces law on its bench, The Hague may be remembered not as the guardian of justice—but as an institution undone by one judge’s conviction that the end times demanded she sided with Israel.
