COMMUNITY

On the margins of the 80th Ordinary Session of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Arusha, GQUAL, together with the African Court Coalition and the Arusha Initiative, convened a timely discussion: Front and Center: African Women in International Justice.

The conversation centered on a structural question: Who gets to shape international and regional justice institutions – and under what conditions?

This is not only a question of equality and representation. It is a question of legitimacy.

Justice Without African Women Is Flawed

Anita Alfred Kyaruzi, Gender and Human Rights Special Adviser for the African Court Coalition, reminded participants that justice without women is incomplete — and international justice without African women is fundamentally flawed.

Yet GQUAL’s latest Ranking, shows that among the international justice positions monitored by the campaign, Africa has the lowest representation of women at 36%. That percentage declines further when examining positions that require State nominations.

In other words: African States, like many others, tend to nominate more men than women.

Our 2025 data shows a persistent 20% gap in women’s representation between positions filled through State nomination and those that are not. Nomination systems operate as gatekeepers. Foreign policy priorities, informal diplomatic networks, political trade-offs, and opaque national procedures shape who is even put forward.

Merit does not operate in a vacuum — it operates within political systems that often reproduce existing hierarchies

Barriers to Entry — and Barriers Within

Speakers reflected on the layered obstacles women face: entrenched male networks, limited information on vacancies, resource constraints, stereotypes about leadership, and structural exclusion. But – as speakers highlighted- access is only part of the story.

Horejah Bala-Gaye, Special Assistant to the Registrar, UN IRMCT, highlighted that international justice spaces often privilege Global North pathways, dominant languages, and established diplomatic networks. African women may encounter cultural and racial bias, and institutional environments that were not designed with them in mind. Even once appointed, women may be confined to perceived “soft” areas of law, while politically sensitive portfolios remain male-dominated.

She emphasized that justice is not neutral when representation is absent. Institutions adjudicating the rights of diverse populations must reflect that diversity to maintain public trust and normative authority.

Drawing from her experience in international criminal courts, she highlighted how women judges have played a critical role in recognizing and developing jurisprudence on gender-based crimes that were previously overlooked or minimized. Yet she was equally clear: gender parity does not equal gender competence. Gender competence must be demanded from all judges and experts — men and women alike. Being a woman does not automatically guarantee gender-sensitive jurisprudence.

Representation strengthens institutions – but it must be accompanied by structural and substantive transformation.

Transparency, Awareness, and Institutional Design

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was opacity of appointment processes.

Limited dissemination of vacancies, unclear nomination procedures, absence of public criteria, lack of consideration for gender parity, and weak accountability mechanisms restrict access and favor insider networks – often male dominated.

Speakers emphasized that awareness is also critical. Esther Muigai-Mnaro, Program Manager, Office of the CEO, at PALU, highlighted how legal education across parts of the continent often prioritizes knowledge of the UN system, while the African human rights system — its procedures, bodies, and opportunities — remains less understood. This knowledge gap limits the pool of potential candidates.

Professor Frans Viljoen, Centre for Human Rights of University of Pretoria, recalled the 2019 UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee report on gender balance in UN bodies, which identified the absence of transparent nomination procedures, parity considerations, clear criteria, and effective vetting as key structural barriers, and offers critical recommendations and solutions.

Ikechukwu Uzoma, Senior Staff Attorney RFK Human Rights and Member of the Arusha Initiative emphasized that opacity undermines not only diversity but legitimacy itself. He pointed to the Arusha Initiative as an example of civil society responding constructively.

He explained that the Arusha Initiative advocates for a transparent, participatory, and merit-based process for nominating and selecting members of African human rights mechanisms. Established in 2023, the Initiative is a coalition of over 35 organizations and over 600 individuals across the continent. The Initiative takes action to spread awareness on upcoming vacancies, the importance and existence of African Human Rights mechanisms, and the power of rights-holders to exert influence on elected officials to select the most qualified individuals.

Complementing this effort, GQUAL and the Arusha Initiative launched the African System Toolkit Module which explains how appointments to the different bodies work, and what rules and criteria applies.

Speakers also reflected on the importance of critical actors in amplifying information and providing professional support for women’s careers in the law and justice sectors, including in international justice.

Neneh MC Cham, President of the Gambia Bar Association, highlighted the importance of Bar Associations and Female Lawyers Associations for this goal, and shared how her institution helped ensure that the Gambia nominated a female candidate in the most recent election cycle in the African System.

Institutionalizing Parity

Speakers reflected not only on progress but also on the importance of preventing backsliding. There was strong agreement that parity cannot depend on goodwill or temporary political momentum. It must be institutionalized.

The African human rights system stands out as a unique best practice in international justice because parity is embedded in its apportionment rules. Gender balance is not aspirational — it is structured.

When parity is institutionalized within normative frameworks, representation becomes more sustainable and less dependent on political goodwill. This is a lesson with global relevance.

From Regional Justice to Global Leadership

The conversation in Arusha also connected to a broader global moment. In 2026, the United Nations will appoint a new Secretary-General — a position that, in 80 years, has never been held by a woman, as Professor Linda Mhando, Legal Scholar in Gender and Tech Policy, noted, this reflects opaque negotiations, geopolitical bargaining, and informal veto dynamics.

The lessons from the African system — structured parity, geographic balance, clearer procedural rules — extend beyond regional courts. Gender equality in leadership and the inclusion of Global South perspectives are not symbolic demands. They are strategic imperatives that shape institutional priorities and credibility.

At a time of growing skepticism toward multilateral institutions, legitimacy cannot be assumed. It must be built through inclusive, transparent, and merit-based processes based on equality.

Fair Systems, Not Special Treatment

A clear conclusion emerged: As Anita Alfred Kyaruzi underscored, African women do not require special treatment. They require fair systems.

Fair systems mean:

•Transparent nomination procedures
•Merit-based criteria applied consistently
•Institutionalized parity and geographic balance
•Accessible information and outreach
•Accountability mechanisms

 

As Alejandra Vicente, Member of the GQUAL Secretariat, emphasized when presenting the Campaign, gender parity is an international obligation and cannot depend on individual goodwill. It must be embedded in institutional architecture. The Arusha discussion reaffirmed that representation is not about numbers alone. It is about legitimacy, accountability, and the credibility of justice institutions themselves.

When parity is institutionalized, representation becomes sustainable. And when institutions reflect the peoples they serve, justice becomes stronger — and more legitimate.