Judge Francis Amum Ayoker - courtesy

South Sudan’s justice system must move beyond formal neutrality and confront gender bias if it is to deliver equal justice for women and girls, High Court Judge Francis Amum Ayoker has said.

Speaking in Juba on Saturday during the launch of his new book, A Gender Perspective on Legal Pluralism in South Sudan, Judge Amum called on judges and other justice actors to develop what he described as a “third eye”—an ability to recognize gender dynamics and inequalities when interpreting evidence and delivering justice.

“Judges must acquire a third eye,” Judge Amum said.

For years, South Sudan’s justice system has operated through a combination of customary, statutory, and religious legal traditions. But Judge Amum’s book questions whether these systems can deliver genuine justice unless gender equality becomes central to how laws are interpreted and applied.

The book examines how South Sudan’s plural legal system can be transformed to prevent discrimination and promote substantive equality. At the center of the publication is a question facing the country’s justice institutions: how can different legal systems coexist without reinforcing practices that disadvantage women and girls?

Judge Amum argues that judges must look beyond legal neutrality and recognize how gender dynamics can influence evidence, credibility, and access to justice. According to the judge, the “third eye” requires justice actors to identify gender inequalities in individual cases and apply equality principles when interpreting national laws alongside international legal obligations.

The book examines areas where women and girls may face discrimination, including human rights, property ownership, marriage, inheritance, and access to justice. It also considers the experiences of persons with disabilities, refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants.

South Sudan’s legal framework includes customary, statutory, and religious traditions. While these systems coexist, Judge Amum says their interaction can create tensions, particularly where customary practices conflict with statutory protections and human rights principles.

He identifies two major challenges: the expectation that judges remain neutral and the risk that neutrality can become gender blindness, as well as the tension between patriarchal customary practices and statutory human rights protections.

Judge Amum says the answer is not to reject customary law, but to ensure that all legal systems are applied in ways that promote equality and protect human dignity. The book proposes three key approaches: applying a gender perspective, adopting a purposive method of legal interpretation, and applying international law in national courts.

The book also challenges the idea that gender-based violence can be addressed by the justice sector alone. Judge Amum says survivors may require medical treatment, psychological support, safe accommodation, legal representation, protection orders, and economic assistance.

“Gender-based violence is a complex, multifaceted problem that cannot be effectively addressed by any single sector acting alone,” he said.

He calls for stronger cooperation among police, courts, hospitals, social workers, civil society organizations, and other institutions to provide a comprehensive response to survivors.

The approach reflects Judge Amum’s more than two decades of judicial experience. He also played a key role in the establishment of South Sudan’s GBV and Juvenile Court in 2020, which was created to provide specialized responses to gender-based violence and child-related cases.

A major argument in the book is that courts do more than resolve individual disputes. Their decisions can also influence public attitudes and challenge harmful social practices.

Judge Amum points to child marriage as an example, arguing that courts have a responsibility to explain why laws protect children from practices that may be accepted in some communities. He says a child below the age of 18 does not have the legal capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and that judicial reasoning can help communities understand the rationale behind such protections.

The same principle, he argues, applies to sentencing for gender-based violence. Consistent and meaningful sentences for perpetrators can send a wider message that such acts are serious violations.

“The message it is sending to the people is, don’t do this,” Judge Amum said.

The book concludes with a call for broad legal and institutional reforms in South Sudan. Among the areas identified are criminal law, family law, land law, sentencing guidelines, gender-fair language, legal aid, refugee law, child-friendly justice, policies concerning persons with disabilities, and judicial and legal education.

Judge Amum says sentencing guidelines are particularly important because similar offenses can attract different sentences in different parts of the country. He also calls for stronger legal education and capacity building for judges and other justice actors, warning that a lack of gender awareness can undermine efforts to protect survivors.

At the heart of the book is a distinction between treating everyone identically and achieving genuinely equal outcomes. Judge Amum argues that formal equality may require identical treatment, while substantive equality recognizes that people can face different circumstances and barriers.

“The outcome must be equal, not just treating people alike, but the result,” he said.

For Judge Amum, a gender-inclusive judiciary should identify and eliminate gender bias, stereotypes, and power imbalances while ensuring that justice responds to the realities faced by women, men, girls, and boys.

The launch of A Gender Perspective on Legal Pluralism in South Sudan therefore goes beyond the introduction of a new legal publication. It represents a call for South Sudan’s justice institutions to reconsider how laws are interpreted, how customary and statutory systems interact, and how courts can contribute to changing harmful social norms.

At its core, the book argues that justice cannot be truly inclusive unless gender equality becomes part of the way laws are interpreted, institutions operate, and judicial decisions are made.