In Uzbekistan, judges will receive lifetime appointments for the first time — after a five-year probationary term. The new presidential decree of Shavkat Mirziyoyev DP-227 dated 24 November 2025 changes the very architecture of judicial power: the practice of appointing judges for consecutive terms is abolished, and the principle of irremovability of judges is introduced, which is expected to be formalized in a future law.
This reform, the legislative formalization of which is expected in 2026, is intended to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and bring it closer to international standards of justice.
Presidential decree “On measures to increase the efficiency and openness of the activity of the bodies of the judicial community and further strengthen the guarantees of judicial independence”
The decree dated 24 November 2025 (the full text of the presidential decree is attached in the Uzbek and Russian versions of the article) establishes a transition to a new appointment model: a five-year term for a candidate and subsequent lifetime tenure in office. This structure is intended to eliminate the dependence of judges on reappointment procedures and to formally consolidate the principle of irremovability.
The document also provides for expanding the powers of the Supreme Judicial Council, including the authority to review the decisions of qualification boards and to approve its own structure. For the first time, there is an obligation to publish information about vacancies and competitions on the official website of the Council, which should increase the transparency of personnel procedures.
A separate block of reforms concerns disciplinary responsibility. Judges retain the right to defense during disciplinary proceedings, but new measures are introduced — demotion to a lower position and restrictions on career advancement during the period of disciplinary sanction.
The text of the decree also reflects social aspects. By 2030, the share of women in the judiciary must be at least 30 percent (the decree is linked to the “Uzbekistan — 2030” strategy). For this purpose, quotas are provided for training at the Academy of Justice and for establishing the Association of Women Judges.
The technological part of the reform is related to digitalization. Artificial intelligence is planned to be introduced into the system of selection and evaluation of judges, as well as electronic programs for analysing psychological profiles of candidates.
Thus, the decree forms a new model of the judicial system, where lifetime tenure is combined with disciplinary restrictions, and personnel processes become more formalized and technologically advanced.
Where judges are appointed for life or indefinitely
- United States: federal judges and Supreme Court justices are appointed for life by the president with Senate confirmation.
- Canada: Supreme Court judges are appointed until they reach the age of 75 — effectively a lifetime term.
- United Kingdom: judges are appointed until mandatory retirement (age 70), which also ensures long-term independence.
- Germany: judges of the Federal Constitutional Court are appointed for up to 12 years, with no possibility of reappointment — this is also a form of protection of independence. At the same time, they must retire upon reaching the age of 68. As for other judges (non-constitutional), the principle of lifetime appointment applies: after a probationary period (usually 3 years), they may be appointed “for life”. But all judges are required to retire upon reaching the prescribed retirement age.
| Country | Judicial appointment term | Independence features |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Lifetime (federal judges and Supreme Court) | Maximum independence: a judge does not depend on reappointment. But the appointment moment becomes highly politicized. |
| Canada | Until age 75 (Supreme Court) | Long-term independence, but with an age limit. |
| United Kingdom | Until age 70 | Independence ensured but limited by mandatory retirement. |
| Germany | Constitutional Court — 12 years without reappointment | High independence because there is no dependence on extension of tenure. |
Impact of lifetime appointment on independence
Advantages:
- A judge does not depend on political authorities that could reappoint or remove them.
- Ability to make decisions unpopular with the government but consistent with the law and the Constitution.
- Stability of the judicial system and accumulation of experience.
Disadvantages:
- Risk of conservatism: lifetime judges may retain outdated views for long periods.
- Weak accountability: if a judge acts unethically, it is difficult to remove them.
- Politicization of the appointment moment: since a judge remains in office for a long time, the struggle for appointment becomes extremely intense.
Lifetime or indefinite appointment of judges is one of the key mechanisms for ensuring judicial independence, but it requires additional safeguards (ethical oversight, impeachment or disciplinary procedures) to prevent abuses.
Examples of the influence of lifetime judges on key decisions (in our view)
- United States, Supreme Court
- Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — lifetime-appointed judges ruled to abolish racial segregation in schools. This was extremely unpopular in southern states, but judicial independence allowed them to issue a decision that changed society.
- Roe v. Wade (1973) — the decision on women’s right to abortion. Judges could adopt it without fear of losing office, although it triggered major political controversy.
- Bush v. Gore (2000) — the decision on vote recounts in Florida effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. Independence allowed judges to rule, but it demonstrated how politically significant lifetime appointments are.
- Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) — overturning Roe v. Wade nearly 50 years later. Lifetime-appointed judges were able to radically change the legal reality, showing the long-term consequences of political appointments.
Lifetime or long-term judicial appointments allow judges to make decisions that may go against the current political power or public opinion, but shape a long-term legal order. This makes the judiciary a stabilizing factor, but also turns the appointment moment into a strategic point of political struggle.