The Syrian judiciary has suffered an unprecedented collapse, losing its independence amid deep political and religious interference. During the years of war, some judges were dismissed or imprisoned for their positions, while court rulings today are often issued under the influence of armed groups or religious edicts rather than independent legal institutions. This has fueled a climate of legal disorder, arbitrary punishments, and eroded public trust in the justice system, despite attempts at reform following the fall of the former regime.
The collapse of state institutions and the breakdown of security have allowed religious figures to take control of legal proceedings. In many cases, verdicts are now based on religious fatwas rather than civil law, leading to the spread of vigilante justice and reinforcing cycles of tribal retaliation. Public confidence in the judiciary has plummeted, pushing communities toward self-policing and revenge-based conflict resolution.
Historically, Syria’s judiciary was a tool of the ruling regime, plagued by corruption and political interference, with decisions shaped by bribery and influence networks. While post-regime reforms were promised, the judiciary remains under political tutelage and suffers from a shortage of qualified personnel, a major obstacle to establishing transitional justice.
Read also: Between Identity and Reconciliation: Which Path Leads to Stability in Syria?
Building Blocks for Reform
Ghazi Faisal Hussein, a professor of international relations based in Jordan, told +963 that public trust in the judiciary during a political transition “does not come automatically, it must be earned through concrete steps,” starting with genuine political will to restructure the judiciary free from executive branch dominance.
He calls for dismantling the old judicial structures, holding judges accountable for past abuses and corruption, and creating a legal environment that guarantees judicial independence and shields it from security and political interference.
In his view, trust will only be restored through performance, transparency, and a clear commitment to serving justice, not political power.
So far, he notes, no major international organization has issued an updated assessment of the Syrian judiciary, as the transitional justice process has yet to formally begin. But when it does, he expects international bodies to stress the need for vetting current judges, securing legislative and institutional safeguards for judicial independence, providing technical and training support tied to real reforms, and warning against recycling the judiciary into a new instrument of repression under different leadership.
Hussein argues that Syria’s new constitution must explicitly guarantee judicial independence, criminalize political and security interference in court work, and create an independent transitional justice commission to review the records of judges and prosecutors. Those found complicit in political repression or collaboration with security agencies should face accountability.
He also emphasizes training new judges in international law and human rights, modernizing the Judicial Institute curriculum, and ensuring the neutrality of legal education. He advocates for an entirely independent Supreme Judicial Council, with civil society participation in monitoring trials, ensuring transparency, protecting the right to defense, and banning torture or coerced confessions.
Post-authoritarian Syria, Hussein warns, faces an existential choice: either the judiciary becomes a pillar of justice and democratic transition, or it is recycled as a new tool of repression under different names. He insists that full institutional independence, rigorous accountability for corrupt judges, and transparent, fair judicial performance are essential for rebuilding public trust.
For any transitional authority aiming to establish a democratic state rooted in the rule of law and human rights, he says, judicial reform is a decisive test.
Read also: Do Syrians Still Have the Luxury of Dreaming of a State of Law?
Government Interference as a Barrier
An international law expert, who requested anonymity, said the former Syrian regime cemented control over the judiciary by placing the Ministry of Justice, part of the executive branch, in charge of the Supreme Judicial Council.
The minister, appointed by the president, would also serve as acting head of the council to ensure loyalty, issuing periodic reassignments of judges. In this environment, judges often competed for the minister’s favor rather than adhering to judicial independence.
The expert stressed that separation of powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, is essential for reform, citing the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He noted that foreign investors consistently ask about the strength and independence of Syria’s judiciary before committing to projects, seeing a stable legal environment as key to economic recovery.
Today, the judiciary faces daunting challenges: shuttered courts, massive case backlogs, and continued interference from the executive branch. Without sweeping structural reform, the question remains: can Syria’s judiciary regain its independence, or will it remain an instrument of political control?
