Reforming and rebuilding Syria’s judicial system after the fall of the Assad regime remains one of the most complex and critical challenges facing the new Syrian state. The judiciary is one of the three fundamental branches of government, alongside the executive and legislative branches, and its structure is closely linked with other sensitive institutions and issues like transitional justice, accountability for abuses, and enforcing the rule of law.
Violations and Corruption
One of the biggest obstacles to restoring the judiciary’s authority is the legacy of the previous regime, which placed many judges loyal or close to the regime throughout the system. Many of these judges are accused of having taken part in violations during the years of conflict by issuing rulings based on political goals aligned with the regime’s agenda.
Reports have indicated that the Ministry of Justice prioritized appeasing security agencies over ensuring proper judicial functioning. Additionally, systemic corruption and economic crisis during the war years have deeply affected institutions, making judicial reform a difficult task requiring substantial effort and overcoming major challenges.
Judges Referred for Investigation
In mid-June, Syrian President Ahmad Al-Sharaa issued a presidential decree referring 20 judges to the Supreme Judicial Council for trial due to alleged legal violations found in the 2025 Judicial Inspection Department report number 72. This was done based on the provisions of the Judicial Authority Law (Legislative Decree No. 98 of 1961) and the Basic Employees Law.
Read also: Pursuing War Criminals in Syria: The Road to Justice After the Regime’s FallBy
Among those referred was Judge Kinda, daughter of the former Assistant Secretary of the Baath Party, Muhammad Said Bakhitan. The 20 judges under investigation worked mainly in civil and criminal courts, not in terrorism or military courts, and face accusations of corruption, bribery, and legal violations during their tenure under the former regime.
On the same day, President Al-Sharaa issued another decree dismissing 67 judges, with entitlements settled per existing laws. These judges previously served in now-abolished terrorism courts. Before that, the Ministry of Justice had suspended 10 judges based on a Supreme Judicial Council decision.
Conversely, at the start of June, the president also issued a decree annulling previous dismissals for some judges who had resigned, reinstating 63 judges dismissed between 2017 and 2019 to resume work within a month. The Ministry of Justice explained this included only judges who defected from the former regime and regarded the move as an important step toward judicial reform, restoring trust in judicial institutions and reinforcing justice.
Attempts at Reform
These actions are seen as efforts to reform the judiciary amid confirmed reports of widespread corruption. However, critics argue these measures lack thorough and transparent investigations and adequate time to verify if some judges issued politically motivated rulings or engaged in corruption. Building a plan to reconstruct this key institution remains essential for building a stable state.
Anas Dallo, a Syrian lawyer and executive director of the “Families for Truth and Justice” organization based in Turkey, told +963 that it is impossible to definitively know how the judiciary will be managed after the regime’s fall, but discussions focus on comprehensive reform, restructuring, and determining judges’ fates based on professional and legal grounds, with transitional justice in mind.
He stressed that the judiciary remains divided and politicized, having lost public trust due to years of security appointments and interference by conflict parties, turning it into a tool of repression. Building a stable state requires radical judicial reform.
Dallo emphasized that dealing with current judges should involve a transparent, objective vetting process by an independent, non-political body to distinguish between those directly involved in unjust rulings or corruption and competent judges who maintained professional independence. Rebuilding the judiciary on solid foundations with requalification programs is necessary to reinforce impartiality and independence.
Required Measures
Diyala Shhada, an international criminal law expert based in Beirut, stated that judicial reform is integral to transitional justice in post-conflict countries. This cannot be achieved by dismissing all judges from the previous regime. Instead, it should start with revising laws governing judicial service and admission criteria to the Judicial Institute.
She said judges tied to the former regime who engaged in corruption or issued politically motivated rulings must be legally removed, subject to disciplinary councils and trials, while being given rights to defend themselves. Corrupt judges could be reassigned to non-judicial advisory roles, and their replacements must be appointed based on justice and integrity, not mere loyalty to the new authority.
Reports by the new Ministry of Justice revealed severe human rights violations under the previous regime’s judiciary, including sidelining judges who refused to follow politically driven orders and corruption within the lawyers’ syndicate, which was dominated by the Baath Party and security branches with rigged elections.
Many judges from the old regime still serve in the Ministry of Justice and courts, but their numbers have declined recently, especially those connected to terrorism courts or appointed by party and parliamentary affiliations. At the same time, some defected judges or those who worked in opposition-controlled areas have been reinstated.
Dallo warns that completely dismissing the judiciary as some demand, citing their role in a dark chapter of Syria’s history, would have disastrous consequences given the absence of ready alternatives. It would collapse the judicial system amid a shortage of judges, weak court infrastructure, and difficulty training new judges.
He recommends a transparent vetting system based on objective standards, with varying levels of accountability, from criminal prosecution to administrative dismissal, depending on the extent of involvement, alongside rehabilitation programs for judges not proven corrupt.
It is worth noting that President Al-Sharaa approved a constitutional declaration in March stating that the judiciary is independent and judges are subject only to law, distinguishing ordinary courts from administrative and military courts. The Supreme Judicial Council oversees ordinary and military courts, while the State Council supervises administrative courts.
