When Justice Turns Up To Court With Only Half The Brief

The new Global Justice 50/50 report carries the weight of a subpoena. It directly challenges institutions that claim to uphold the rule of law and equality. Who runs your justice systems? Who do they serve? These questions should make leaders in the global South take notice. This is especially true for those whose budgets and reforms still follow the direction set by lenders and funders in the global North.

This report is the first thorough review of gender equality and power across 171 organisations in the law and justice field. These include courts, large law firms, intergovernmental bodies, NGOs, professional associations, commissions, and funders. Instead of repeating common phrases about "women's empowerment," it looks at who actually holds decision-making roles. It checks where important rules are set, budgets are decided, and careers are made or blocked. The findings show that, even though justice systems often talk about inclusion, they still uphold the same hierarchies they claim to want to change.

Consider the numbers. About half the organisations claim to support gender equality, but many lack real policies. Polished website statements often mask inaction. Courts, commissions, and boards especially lack formal gender equality policies, favouring those who avoid scrutiny. When leaders rely on unwritten "values" over rules, accountability vanishes.

At first glance, it seems positive that women make up 43% of more than 5,000 top positions in the sample. This suggests that equality is close. But a closer look shows that old power structures still exist. Courts and large law firms, in particular, are far less equal than the overall numbers suggest. The most troubling fact: fewer than 1% of the 302 highest positions in these organisations are held by women from low-income countries. This means that, even in global justice discussions, women from poorer countries are often included as participants rather than leaders.

For countries in the global South that depend on development aid, this report should be more than a gender audit. It offers a mirror for examining their own justice systems. These nations have long heard about the value of 'good governance' from organisations that do not always apply these values to themselves. When groups like courts, donors, and international NGOs insist on gender equality as a condition for aid but fail to demonstrate it in their own leadership, the result is a troubling double standard. This gap undermines confidence in all reform initiatives and weakens trust in trainings focused on rights, inclusion, or justice.

The power imbalance is significant. Fewer than one in five organisations reviewed make an effort to understand who benefits from their systems and who is left out. They rarely use detailed data to check this. Without knowing which groups are excluded, claims of being neutral are misleading. This is carelessness, not fairness. For countries that depend on aid, this difference matters a lot. Many justice reforms are planned, funded, and reviewed by these organisations. When institutions set goals for success but do not reflect on or measure their own societies and weaknesses, the result is not a real partnership. Instead, it is simply projecting their own views.

The report’s strongest message is its demand for honesty and real data. It does not simply ask institutions to hire more women or make public statements. Instead, it calls for published policies, detailed workforce and leadership data, and a commitment to continuous improvement. For governments in the global South, this approach is valuable. It allows them to ask donors, UN agencies, and international NGOs to meet the same standards. Governments should require justice programs to share clear data on who holds power and who benefits, and then act on that information.

Universities in the global South, especially law schools, should also take note. These schools are not just places to earn degrees; they are pathways into the judiciary, bar, regulatory bodies, and teams that write laws and negotiate with lenders. The report says: 'Many still treat gender and equity as electives rather than structural concerns.' High standards require clear, public policies on hiring, promotion, harassment, parental leave, and leadership selection. Law schools should also track how students move into faculty and leadership roles, broken down by gender and socioeconomic background. It is not enough to celebrate a diverse incoming class if many drop out.

Legal professionals in the global South are active agents, not bystanders. Many hold senior positions on the boards of international NGOs, arbitration panels, law reform commissions, and the global networks analysed in the report. These leaders have the power to ask precise questions: Does this court, funder, or association publish data on leadership and pay gaps? Has it set timelines for achieving equality in top roles? Does it monitor which communities are underserved by its actions? If leaders reply only with vague references to 'values' rather than specifics, that is a warning sign.

Everyone should learn from the report’s method. Global Justice 50/50 demonstrates the power of using public information to uncover the truth. Legal professionals in the South must replicate this approach, scrutinising their own bar councils, supreme courts, appointments bodies, and rights institutions. Local leadership and transparency can foster trust and drive more lasting reforms than passive donor-funded sessions ever will.

Now, as attacks on women’s rights and gender justice intensify, it is critical for institutions to move beyond words. Justice cannot afford to remain blind. The Global Justice 50/50 report equips all actors with the tools to see clearly and act. Governments, universities, and legal professionals must no longer ask whether to challenge donors and partners; they must recognise that demanding accountability is essential.

Sunoor Verma is the Honorary President of The Himalayan Dialogues and a specialist in global leadership and crisis communication. He writes in a personal capacity and his views are independent of his institutional affiliations. Details at www.sunoor.net.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.