En 
Ar 
On December 15, 2024, President of the Supreme Judicial Council, Mohsen Yahya Talib Abu Bakr, issued Decision No. (97) of 2024, which prohibits members of the judiciary from publishing or commenting on public affairs and political and social events across websites and social media platforms.
Following this, on December 16, Secretary-General of the Supreme Judicial Council, Ali Taaboush Awad, communicated the details of this decision to the President of the Judicial Inspection Authority.
In response, Women Journalists Without Chains has called for the annulment of this decision, arguing that it violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression, a vital principle in civil society. The organization stressed that the decision represents a serious retreat from national and international gains that have enshrined freedom of expression and judicial independence. This decline not only weakens Yemen's reputation before the international community but also raises doubts about its commitment to human rights.
Women Journalists Without Chains warns that expanding such restrictions under the pretext of work ethics or professional conduct undermines judges' rights to free speech and threatens their independence. The decision is viewed as an attack on the essence of justice and an authoritarian step that contradicts constitutional and legal principles, exposing the judicial system to further collapse and political pressure. They emphasized that this unprecedented trend is a stain on the judiciary, an attack on the essence of justice, and cannot be accepted or tolerated.
WJWC further asserted that the decision violates the articles of the Yemeni Constitution and universally guaranteed rights of judges. They referenced the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985) and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), both of which affirm judges' rights to freedom of expression and community participation, considering their judicial duties.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulate that everyone, including judges, has the right to freedom of expression, which may not be restricted. Moreover, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (1998) emphasizes that any restrictions imposed on judges must not conflict with their fundamental rights, including the expression of opinion.
Women Journalists Without Chains also highlighted that this resolution reflects an authoritarian tendency that undermines the foundations of an independent and impartial judiciary. It opens the door to deeper corruption and greater domination of the judiciary, especially at a time when the Judicial Council is neglecting its responsibilities towards improving the living conditions of judges, providing medical insurance, ensuring their promotions, and addressing structural imbalances within the judicial system.
Additionally, the Yemeni Judges Club, a trade union body, condemned Decision No. (97) of 2024, stating that it arbitrarily affects judges' freedom to express their opinions and violates Article 42 of the Yemeni Constitution, which guarantees freedom of thought and opinion. The club emphasized that the decision represents a serious retreat from national and international obligations, including the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. It aims to silence judges to evade responsibilities related to improving their living and health conditions and addressing imbalances within the judiciary.
The Judges Club described the decision as a reflection of an authoritarian central administration seeking to impose unjustified restrictions on judges, which threatens the independence of the judiciary and opens the door to corruption. The statement urged judges to adhere to their constitutional rights and called on political leadership to cancel the decision and confront corruption. It also appealed to local and international organizations to intervene to protect the independence of the judiciary and the rights of judges, affirming that judges will remain free and subject only to the law.
Accordingly, the decision is viewed as a violation of these international standards, which aim to maintain a balance between the rights of judges and the independence of the judiciary, without gagging or violating constitutional and legal rights. The organization warns that this unprecedented trend is a stain on the judiciary, an attack on the essence of justice, and cannot be accepted or tolerated.
Women Journalists Without Chains calls on the official authorities in Yemen to revoke Decision No. (97) of 2024 issued by the Supreme Judicial Council. This decision undermines judges' rights to freely express their opinions and violates constitutional and international principles. The organization also urges a review of laws that restrict judges' freedom to express and critique, ensuring alignment with international standards for judicial independence.
It is essential to protect the judiciary from political interference, allowing judges to perform their duties independently. Those responsible for any threats or pressures against judges should be held accountable, and independent investigations must be initiated. Additionally, improving the living and professional conditions of judges, including health insurance and promotion opportunities, is vital for maintaining their effectiveness and impartiality.
The organization emphasizes the need to guarantee judges' rights to express themselves in accordance with constitutional and international standards. Promoting open dialogue between judges and relevant stakeholders is crucial for judicial reform, as is strengthening collaboration with local and international organizations to uphold judicial independence and protect judges' rights.
WJWC also appeals to the international community to pressure Yemeni authorities to annul the decision. Providing technical and financial support to judicial bodies is necessary to enhance judicial independence. Monitoring violations against judges and establishing protection mechanisms are critical steps, along with increasing support for organizations that advocate for judges' rights and independence.
