I am concerned by the public statement directed by a US Government official at Judge ad hoc Navi Pillay in connection with the pending proceedings in The Gambia v. Myanmar before the International Court of Justice. Judge ad hoc Navi Pillay’s role is expressly provided for by Article 31 of the ICJ Statute. Each party in The Gambia v. Myanmar has a judge ad hoc. Such judges undertake to act impartially and conscientiously and participate in the decision on terms of complete equality with the other judges. Courts and judges are not beyond criticism. Judicial reasoning should be scrutinized rigorously, and governments are entitled to disagree with legal arguments and judgments. But attributing a political agenda to a sitting judge, saying “we’ll be watching,” and invoking punitive measures taken against another international court goes beyond disagreement with legal reasoning. It risks intimidation and improper pressure on a judge in a pending case. International safeguards are clear: judges must be free to decide according to law, without intimidation or improper pressure. Judicial independence is not a privilege for judges. It is a protection for all. Depending on the structure and jurisdiction of a given court, judicial independence ensures fairness for litigants, for States, for victims, for accused persons, and for the public interest in ensuring that disputes are determined according to law rather than political power. The bedrock safeguard of judicial independence cannot be contingent on whether a judge's decisions satisfy powerful governments.