A leaked audio recording revealed a legal scandal committed by the Sudanese Minister of Justice in the Port Sudan government, Maawiya Osman, when he sought advice from Jordanian judge at the International Court of Justice, Awn Al-Khasawneh. This is considered a clear violation of judicial impartiality at the International Court of Justice.
The Sudanese minister asked the Jordanian judge to represent the Port Sudan government in a case. However, he was surprised to learn that this was not possible because Al-Khasawneh was still a temporary judge in another case, asking him to explain this to the “concerned parties,” according to the 13-minute recording.
The leaked recording, which lasts about 13 minutes, also revealed a back-and-forth discussion about previous meetings between the two parties. This confirms that the violation of judicial impartiality occurred more than once, with the Sudanese minister seeking several “legal consultations” from one party in a dispute.
The statute of the International Court of Justice is strict regarding violations of judicial impartiality. It takes preventive measures to ensure strict adherence to impartiality standards by enhancing procedural guarantees and training the court’s staff. The statute of the court prohibits any member of the court from being an agent, counsel, or attorney in any case.
Article 17 of the International Court of Justice’s statute states that violations of judicial impartiality are taken very seriously. Since 2017, following a series of corruption scandals, new strict rules were established, along with flexible guidelines and codes of ethics, broadening the scope of this old provision.
Arbitration is specifically prohibited for judges, including temporary judges, which clearly applies to the situation between the Port Sudan government and the Jordanian judge as an “obvious breach” of judicial impartiality.
Experts argue that the International Court of Justice must apply all of its strict rules to preserve its complete neutrality to strengthen its role as the primary legal authority for resolving international disputes. Providing legal advice to one party in an ongoing dispute undermines the court’s neutrality and risks violating its impartial stance.
Such actions and “violations” can undermine the court’s integrity and legitimacy as an impartial adjudicator, leading to procedural consequences. Affected states could challenge or request the recusal of the involved parties, undermining the validity of the case.
Experts also emphasize the need for enhanced oversight and accountability at the International Court of Justice. The court must strengthen mechanisms to ensure no party gains an undeserved advantage and maintain its integrity and independence, with preventive measures like ensuring strict compliance with neutrality standards through enhanced procedural guarantees and staff training.
The Port Sudan government has previously shown “ignorance” of litigation procedures, particularly in its recent case against the UAE, which experts described as “lacking legal and procedural foundations” and facing structural issues in evidence and jurisdiction.
According to observers, the Port Sudan government’s resort to the Jordanian judge confirms the continued “confusion” in its legal position and either its lack of knowledge or deliberate violation of established rules in international litigation.