The Ansar Allah (Houthi) group has preempted its recent campaign of arrests—starting Thursday, September 19, and continuing its previous ongoing campaigns targeting United Nations employees, civil society members, and both national and international NGOs—by enacting controversial decisions that have sparked widespread debate. These decisions targeted the judiciary through proposed amendments to the Judicial Authority Law, followed by appointments to senior and high-level positions from outside the judiciary.
The proposed amendments approved by the Houthi-controlled parliament include provisions that grant the Houthi leader, Mahdi al-Mashat, referred to by the Houthis as the President of the Republic, who holds the position of President of the Supreme Political Council, the authority to appoint members to judicial positions from outside the existing judiciary for a period of three years from the date of the law's enactment, under the pretext of public interest. Further, these members can be selected from among professors of Sharia and law at Yemeni universities or from Islamic scholars known for their piety, competence, and ability to mediate disputes among people.
This is without prejudice to the lawyers’ right to defend themselves before court judges. The recent amendments further stipulate that lawyers who are found to have misled justice or obstructed legal proceedings through malicious defenses will be banned from practicing profession before the courts for a minimum of three years, a ban that will be applied across all courts.
“The Yemeni Bar Association believes that the recent amendments to the judiciary law undermine the proper legal path for anticipated reforms. Instead of enforcing existing laws and addressing the root causes of the current judicial flaws and deficiencies to find appropriate solutions, these amendments deviated significantly and took a different course, resulting in a legislative amendment that is constitutionally, legally, and practically flawed. The Association firmly rejects any actions or infringement on judicial independence, which it views as a cornerstone for protecting rights and freedoms.”
The Bar Association convened an emergency meeting last week to address the proposed amendments to Judicial Authority Law No. 1 of 1991. The Association expressed surprise at the government's submission of these amendments to the parliament, which reviewed them during its session on September 11, 2024. The government claims that these amendments are necessary to expedite reforms addressing the existing deficiencies and imbalances within the judiciary apparatus.
Amendments at a Critical Stage
Lawyers and legal experts assert that the proposed amendments reflect individual desires and agendas to subordinate the judiciary, transforming it from an independent authority into a body subordinate to the executive branch.
The Yemeni Bar Association emphasizes that the recently proposed amendments, described as catastrophic, were issued amidst celebrations of the Prophet's birthday. It views this as a legislative setback that reflects a serious intent to fracture national unity and deepen legislative separation on the ground. This timing, the association argues, tarnishes the sanctity of the occasion and aims to divide the national ranks, undermining the legislative cohesion of the country.
This comes at a time when there is no need for legal amendments during this critical phase, especially since the proposed changes are far removed from sound legislative reasoning —whether practical, scientific, or philosophical. Moreover, all justifications provided for these amendments are deemed even more problematic and arguably worse than the amendments themselves, as they are cloaked in the guise of judicial reform while being fundamentally disconnected from it.
Moreover, the Yemeni Bar Association emphasizes that the proposed amendments to the Judicial Authority Law constitute a blatant violation of the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence as enshrined in the Yemeni Constitution and in the constitutions of civilized nations. According to a statement issued by the association, reviewed by "Khuyut," the explanatory memorandum attached to the amendments goes directly so far as to undermine the sanctity of constitutional rulings by claiming that the constitutional ruling issued in Case No. (20/23) for the year 1434, during the session of the Constitutional Chamber on May 26, 2013, which deemed certain articles of the judiciary law unconstitutional, was merely a result of political disputes among former ruling partners at the time.
Targeting the Protector of Rights and Freedoms.
The Yemeni Bar Association believes that the recent amendments to the judiciary law undermine the proper legal path for anticipated reforms. Instead of enforcing existing laws and addressing the root causes of the current judicial flaws and deficiencies to find appropriate solutions, these amendments deviated significantly and took a different course, resulting in a legislative amendment that is constitutionally, legally, and practically flawed.
The association firmly rejects any infringement on judicial independence, which it views as a cornerstone of rights and freedoms. This is particularly evident in the proposed amendments that seek to replace the established qualifications for judicial appointments, and eliminate the requirement for a university degree and qualifications from the Judicial Institute for those ascending to the judiciary. Instead, these amendments introduce vague and elastic criteria allowing for the appointment of individuals and religious scholars with degrees in jurisprudence, based on their perceived piety and ability to mediate disputes among people, as stipulated in the amendment.
Likewise, many lawyers and legal experts have expressed strong opposition to the proposed amendments, viewing them as a direct assault on the legal profession. Article 122 (paragraph b) of the amended law grants court judges the authority to place lawyers on a list of those prohibited from practicing before them for a period of no less than three years, based on flimsy allegations—provisions were already addressed by Article 170 in the existing litigation laws. This move is seen as a major legislative and rights setback.
In this context, lawyer Abdulmajeed Sabra believes that these legal texts have nothing to do with justice or the proper administration of justice. Instead, their drafting and adoption serve political purposes, catering to the ideology pursued by the Houthi group, which is marked by a singular intellectual and ideological orientation. He argues that this will result in the appointment of judges from students of the Houthi-controlled Sharia Sciences Institute, whom the group has been preparing for some time, thereby effectively completing their absolute control over the judiciary.
Moreover, Sabra noted that other provisions in these amendments will target the entire entity of the Bar Association, as it is the only institution that still retains a degree of independence, albeit incomplete.
In summary, Sabra states that these amendments, once enacted, will likely be used to target judges and lawyers who are not loyal to the Houthi group, as is the case with the prosecution and the Specialized Criminal Court. Therefore, he emphasizes the necessity for both branches of justice—judges and lawyers—to unite strongly and utilize all available means to reverse these amendments.
Grave Constitutional Violations
The Houthi-controlled parliament, whose mandate has expired, passed the proposed amendments to the Judicial Authority Law without debate, as is customary. The move has drawn sharp criticism from legal professionals and scholars, who view the amendments, and the subsequent restructure of the Judicial Council based on them, as a grave mistake.
Similarly, the Yemen Women Judges Forum also rejected the recent amendments to the judiciary law, deeming them unconstitutional, while emphasizing the importance of correcting the judiciary's status in accordance with the constitution and existing laws. The forum holds accountable the leadership of the judiciary responsible for defending judicial independence and its achievements, as well as the Minister of Justice, who presented the proposal in his name. Additionally, it calls out the parliament for its historical responsibility and criticizes it for approving the amendments without adhering to the proper established procedures and the applicable constitutional provisions.
The Forum also expressed its astonishment and shock at the rapid preparation and approval of proposed amendments to the judiciary laws by the Houthi-controlled parliament. According to the forum, these amendments include serious violations of the Constitution of the Republic of Yemen and represent a blatant disregard for the constitutional ruling issued by the Constitutional Chamber on March 26, 2013.
This is reflected in the reinstatement of the executive authority's dominance over the judiciary by granting the Houthis, through the amendment, the power to appoint the leadership of the judiciary and its judges directly and without any established criteria. In addition to allowing for the appointment of judicial personnel from outside the existing judicial members or legal profession based solely on vague qualifications in Islamic jurisprudence, with no relevant legal background. This represents an unprecedented occurrence that has no parallel in the modern world.
Likewise, the amendments reinstate the Minister of Justice as a member of the Supreme Judicial Council, thereby allowing the executive branch to once again exert influence over the judges directly from within the council, which contradicts constitutional rulings. The amendments also include punitive provisions against lawyers, which conflict with the most basic principles of the right to defense. The Forum called on Yemeni judges for an emergency meeting to discuss these developments and to formulate a clear and unified position, including the option of convening a General Assembly meeting.
De Facto Decisions
Legal expert and lawyer Abdulaziz Al-Baghdadi shared his perspective on these amendments, placing full national, legal, and ethical responsibility on the de facto authorities, which have ruled Yemen for over thirteen years, responsible for the country's deteriorating legal and political situation. During this time, Yemen has lost much of its sovereignty, and its people have been deprived of a decent livelihood. Al-Baghdadi emphasized that these authorities bear complete responsibility for the regions under their control since they extended their influence and continues to govern these parts of the country. He pointed out that a de facto authority is meant to be temporary, typically lasting no more than a year; however, the current situation has persisted far beyond that timeframe. He emphasized that such authorities are responsible for protecting the existing legislative system and should engage in sincere dialogue with all other parties to end the ongoing division, preparing and arranging for independent parliamentary elections free from political manipulation by any political or executive authority.
Moreover, Al-Baghdadi stressed that only a legitimately elected Parliament alone, in full autonomy, has the authority to fully exercise legislative and supervisory powers derived from the ratified constitution, or to make any necessary amendments based on responsible and thorough analysis, guided by legitimate legal processes.
Since the de facto authorities are temporary, they must demonstrate a genuine sense of responsibility towards Yemen and its people by earnestly engaging in meaningful dialogue and preparing for free and transparent legislative and presidential elections. This would enable the exercise of constitutional and legal powers while upholding the principle of the rule of law, maintaining the separation of powers, and ensuring the peaceful transfer of power throughout Yemen.
Al-Baghdadi further stated, "It is self-evident that the parliament is primarily responsible for enacting any law, as it is the legislative authority. The current parliament is accountable for two reasons: first, for its acceptance and approving the passage of this law and previously passing what is known as the 'Law to Prevent Usurious Transactions' or any other laws or amendments. Secondly, its legitimacy expired over twenty years ago. Al-Baghdadi pointed out that one of the constitutional provisions implies that if circumstances prevent elections from occurring on time, the current council's term can be extended until the emergency situation is resolved, and this extension should not exceed six months or, at most, a year, as is the case in all countries. Therefore, since that time, the council's authority has effectively become that of a de facto authority, and it must take this into consideration and refrain from actions beyond its legal capacity."
As for the drafters of the recent amendments, Al-Baghdadi believes that it is clear that their goal is to fulfill desires and serve interests that show no concern for the principles of legitimacy and legality, or national unity, let alone public reaction to such an unprecedented legal amendment.
With regard to the judges, Al-Baghdadi, in a message published by the Yemeni Bar Association, stated that many judges have, over the decades, been corrupted and succumbed to narcissism, that undermines their moral and ethical responsibilities. He noted that they often view justice as something they can possess and control, failing to see their own mistakes while readily pointing out those of others. This behavior is particularly concerning when exhibited by judges, who should have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and the courage to pursue justice and freedom, regardless of the consequences. Al-Baghdadi emphasized that viewing the judiciary as a closed circle controlled by a lobby representing the interests of its members is a disastrous approach, and such amendments and laws are one of its harmful outcomes.
Nevertheless, this approach does not grant the de facto authorities or any political or ideological faction the right to inherit control over this closed circle of the judiciary, turning it into an even more isolated circle. Both paths, he cautioned, pose a serious threat to the state’s core structure.
As for the lawyers, Al-Baghdadi believes that, since the enactment of the Law of Advocacy, over the decades, lawyers have failed to elevate the work of the Bar Association to the level achieved by other associations that have asserted their presence in the legal and human rights spheres, or even at the national level. They have not upheld the standards that befit the legal profession as a scholarly and independent vocation. Lawyers are partners with judges in achieving justice, not mere assistants, as some may believe. There is a clear distinction between an assistant and a partner: an assistant could imply subordination to the judge, as if justice were solely tied to the judge's discretion alone. However, justice should be viewed as a collaborative endeavor, grounded in the principles of reason and dedicated to upholding the Constitution and the law—key elements that ensure judicial independence. Unfortunately, some judges and lawyers misunderstand this principle, and fail to grasp this essential aspect of justice and its requirements. Nonetheless, the efforts of the Bar Association in defending lawyers, no matter the scale of those efforts, should be appreciated, especially in standing in solidarity against the numerous violations they have faced. Among these violations is the threat posed by the recent amendment to the judiciary law, which undermines the standing of the legal profession in the eyes of those who truly value it.
“Every individual has the right to seek justice in the courts and present their claims, whether true or false. It is the judge's role to determine the validity of these claims. If we were to require that only truth be spoken, then the honest person would never need to appear before us, and there would be no cases to adjudicate. The judge's primary role is to distinguish between truth and falsehood, between the honest and the deceitful. Thus, any legislation that is driven by whims or biases goes against this legal system.”
Al-Baghdadi adds, "If the issue has stemmed from the mistake of hastily drafting laws—which I consistently emphasize is, at the very least, ill-advised—then; Is it wise to confront reactions to these rushed amendments with equally hasty statements and reactions? Wisdom requires that we seek a comprehensive and genuine solution, which includes the following:
Efforts to Oppose the Amendments
Meanwhile, lawyer Ismail Al-Madani pointed out what he described as serious flaws contained in the draft amendments to the Judicial Authority Law, particularly regarding the absolute power granted to judges at all levels to ban lawyers from practicing their profession for a period of three years.
Al-Madani emphasized that many lawyers, some with over 40 years of experience, are experts in both Sharia and law in legal practice. Moreover, as citizens, their right to work is protected by the constitution and the law. Depriving any citizen of that right must be subject to guarantees ensuring it is not arbitrarily infringed upon, except under specific circumstances and with safeguards against abuse. He emphasized that lawyers are no less important than their judicial counterparts, judges; in fact, some have chosen to leave judicial positions to pursue a free profession that aligns with their conscience. He questioned whether the drafters of the amendments truly considered their implications for justice, noting that no lawyer would dare challenge a judge's decision for fear of retaliation, who now hold the power to strip lawyers of their livelihood. This is especially alarming given that nearly 80% of primary court judges are known for corruption and poor performance.
The esteemed judge, Ahmed Al-Khabi, stated in this regard: "When I decide not to apply the provision concerning lawyers, it is not out of ignorance or arrogance, but rather from my commitment to the system and the law—the system that aligns with what has been established by the divine law of God and human laws: that every individual has the right to seek justice in the courts and present their claims, whether true or false. It is the judge's role to determine the validity of these claims. If we were to require that only truth be spoken, then the honest person would never need to appear before us, and there would be no cases to adjudicate. The judge's primary role is to distinguish between truth and falsehood, between the honest and the deceitful. Thus, any legislation that is driven by whims or biases goes against this legal system."
The Bar Association firmly reiterates its unequivocal rejection and clear stance regarding the proposed amendments to the Judiciary Authority Law. It calls upon all lawyers and members of the judiciary to unite in opposition to these amendments. Furthermore, the Association appeals to the Arab Lawyers Union and all civil society organizations to stand in solidarity with it in support of its position against these amendments.
