Syria’s fragile calm was rattled again this week after the national Ministry of Justice announced it has referred six Suwayda-based judges to the Inspection Department for formal investigation, accusing them of abusing their positions to build an alternative power structure in the Druze-majority province.
According to the official communiqué, the ministry contends that Judges Muhannad Abu Faur, Ayman Harfoush, Mufid Amasha, Issam Araoui, Shadi Murshid, and Mu’taz Sayegh violated Articles 78-83 of the Judicial Authority Law, which bar members of the bench from holding secondary public posts or engaging in overt political activity. The statement, first disseminated by the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), warns that the judges’ work inside the newly created “Supreme Legal Committee” in Suweida is “purely political” and “promotes division and separatism.”
What is the Supreme Legal Committee?
Formed on 3 July 2025 under the auspices of the province’s Druze spiritual leadership, the nine-member body—six judges and three lawyers—casts itself as an emergency caretaker authority. Its mandate, committee members say, is to:
• safeguard government buildings and courts
• fight corruption and respond to citizens’ complaints
• coordinate relief and reconstruction projects
• support families of “martyrs, wounded and forcibly disappeared”
• keep banks, hospitals, and other key services open
In a province where Damascus’ writ has been increasingly contested since 2020, the committee has already appointed a former Syrian-regime officer to head local security and sketched plans for a temporary executive council, heightening fears of a parallel government in the south.
Broader political stakes
The Justice Ministry’s move lands amid mounting unrest across Syria’s southern corridor. Neighboring Daraa remains volatile, while U.S. envoy-turned-businessman Tom Barrack recently lauded Washington’s “quiet role” in de-escalating Suweida protests yet simultaneously urged calm in Kurdish-controlled Manbij—highlighting the intricate external pressures on Syria’s patchwork of local crises.
Analysts note that Damascus has long tolerated a degree of Druze autonomy; however, the Supreme Legal Committee crosses a red line by appropriating core sovereign functions—justice, security, and finance. “If this model spreads,” warns Syrian political scientist Lamis al-Khoury, “it could unravel the state’s slow post-war consolidation.”
Unconfirmed reports suggest two additional Suweida judges, Iklas Darwish and Khuzama Masoud, may face similar probes. While disciplinary measures range from suspension to dismissal, a harsh crackdown risks igniting fresh demonstrations in a region that prides itself on communal solidarity and relative neutrality throughout Syria’s civil war.
“Damascus is walking a tightrope,” observes Beirut-based legal activist Omar Said. “It must reassert authority, but any heavy-handed response could push Suweida toward deeper defiance or outside alliances.”
The Inspection Department is expected to question the accused judges within days. If the panel confirms misconduct, the findings will be referred to the Supreme Judicial Council for final judgment. Meanwhile, the Supreme Legal Committee insists it will continue its work, framing the probe as political retaliation rather than a legal issue.
Whether this standoff evolves into negotiation or confrontation may signal the trajectory of post-conflict governance in southern Syria—and determine just how far local actors can go in filling the vacuum left by years of war and waning central power.