Women in the Judiciary:  Oman

Oman frequently presents itself as a progressive leader in advancing women’s rights, positioning its accomplishments as distinct from those of neighbouring Gulf states and the broader Arab world. The nation has indeed made visible progress in enhancing women’s access to education, professional opportunities, and political participation, supported by policy reforms aimed at improving gender equity. However, despite these advancements, Omani women continue to encounter numerous constraints that limit their freedoms and opportunities. 

These constraints are embedded within a multifaceted interaction of legal, religious, and societal dimensions. Notably, forms of discrimination against women manifest in frameworks such as the Nationality Law and the Personal Status Law.

A prominent example of such restrictions is the absence of female judges in Oman. Despite the significant number of women occupying high-ranking legal roles, including positions such as public prosecutor and heads of public prosecution, no woman has been appointed to a judicial position thus far. This exclusion reflects the structural and cultural barriers that limit women’s representation within the judiciary, highlighting a gendered discrepancy between women’s qualifications and their access to judicial roles. Such limitations underscore the broader challenges within Oman’s legal and institutional frameworks that restrict women’s advancement to the highest levels of legal authority.

From a legal standpoint, national laws fundamentally prohibit any form of gender-based discrimination, whether in rights, responsibilities, or participation in public affairs. Article 15 of the Basic Statute of the State explicitly mandates equality in the appointment to public office, while Article 21 prohibits any gender-based discrimination. Additionally, Article 21 of the Judicial Authority Law does not specify or restrict the judiciary to any particular gender, indicating no explicit limitation on women’s eligibility for judicial roles. Furthermore, the Civil Service Law explicitly mandates equal employment opportunities for women and men, ensuring parity in pay and benefits. 

Notably, the role of women within the judiciary is confined to positions such as legal practice, public prosecution, and other administrative functions. However, no position held by a woman exists within any of the judicial roles specified in Article 20 of the Judicial Authority Law.

Oman ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 2005, though it expressed reservations regarding certain articles that conflict with Islamic law, indicating that the convention is not fully implemented within the country. Regarding women’s representation in legal and leadership positions, it remains limited; women constitute approximately 13% of the Council of Ministers, with 3 female ministers out of 23 total ministers. Additionally, women represent just over 20% of the appointed Majlis Al-dawla (State Council), with a total of 18 female members out of 86.

But let’s take a look at some of the real obstacles that have thus far prevented women from becoming judges:

Political Representation:

The assertion that women’s political roles are limited to symbolic gestures—serving primarily to enhance the country’s international image—highlights a challenge of substantive versus symbolic representation. If true, this limitation suggests that women’s political participation may be conditional and tied to government-driven objectives rather than an intrinsic commitment to gender equality. This form of controlled involvement can restrict women’s influence in decision-making processes and perpetuates the notion of them as “window-dressing,” limiting their advancement across sectors, including the judiciary.

Religious Interpretations:

The hadith mentioned, which suggests that a nation led by a woman will not prosper, has been used by some religious scholars to discourage women from leadership roles, particularly in fields like the judiciary. However, this interpretation has been debated, with scholars pointing out that it may not reflect a universal principle but rather a contextual historical perspective. Relying on such religious arguments to exclude women from judicial roles may also ignore interpretations within Islamic jurisprudence that support women’s involvement in leadership positions. This ambiguity underscores the need for nuanced theological discussions that consider the evolving roles of women in modern society.

Physiological Arguments:

The physiological argument suggesting that hormonal changes affect women’s mood and, consequently, their judgment is contentious and widely disputed in academic and professional circles. While studies on the impact of hormonal fluctuations exist, they do not provide a sufficient basis to question women’s ability to serve in high-stakes professions. Many women worldwide hold high-responsibility roles (including judicial positions) without evidence of impaired judgment. This argument often overlooks that emotional and psychological resilience is not inherently gender-specific, undermining the credibility of such claims.

Social and Cultural Norms:

Socially, the concept of “shame” remains deeply entrenched in Omani society, which largely views the judiciary as a profession reserved for men, while considering a woman’s appropriate role to be primarily within the domestic sphere. This perception is closely tied to traditional Islamic interpretations and cultural norms that have historically shaped gender roles within the region.

The inclusion of women in the judiciary as judges would be a significant and practical demonstration of true occupational equality, highlighting that there are no inherent gender-based limitations in legal professions. Such appointments could serve not only to uphold gender equality but also to foster a legal system more responsive to the specific needs and issues faced by women. Integrating women as judicial authorities may contribute positively to the evolution of legal perspectives and frameworks, especially on matters that directly impact women’s rights and status.

However, the continued reluctance of Oman’s legislative authority to appoint women as judges or to admit them to judicial roles invites critical inquiry. This hesitancy raises questions about potential underlying motives, including whether the legislature fears opposition from religious authorities who may resist reforms seen as contrary to traditional interpretations. Alternatively, this gradual approach could reflect a deliberate strategy of incremental empowerment, aiming to avoid rapid societal shifts in favour of more measured, long-term integration of women into traditionally male-dominated sectors. The slow pace of progress suggests a balancing act between advancing gender equality and managing socio-religious expectations, underscoring the complex dynamics influencing women’s full inclusion in Oman’s legal system.