Venezuela’s government and opposition have agreed to a full renewal of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), putting the country’s judicial system at the centre of a broader political transition. The agreement is accompanied by changes to the bodies that screen judicial candidates, but the two sides’ stated aims are shadowed by concerns over whether the process can produce a genuinely autonomous court.

The official case is that the reforms will restore institutional order. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez told the UN General Assembly that Venezuela had begun an institutional review intended to strengthen the state and provide legal certainty, so that citizens would not feel “overrun by arbitrary power” but would see it working in their service.¹ The government also portrays legal stability as necessary for investors as well as Venezuelans.

The agreed measures include replacing every TSJ justice, expanding the Judicial Nominations Committee from 21 to 23 members, and raising civil-society representation on that committee from 10 to 12. A new council of jurists is also expected to review candidates’ credentials. Separately, the court’s membership was expanded from 20 to 32 seats, a step officials say can support the institutional reorganisation.²

Critics do not dispute the scale of the proposed reset, but argue that structure alone will not establish independence. A coalition of 19 Venezuelan and international organisations called the overhaul a “historic opportunity,” while warning that no credible reform is possible if the justice system remains an instrument of political power. It called for explicit safeguards, international and civil-society verification, and protections against interference by the executive and legislature.¹

Analyst Eduardo Galvão similarly argued that replacing judges may renew the court but “is not enough, by itself, to make the judiciary independent.” He said confidence would depend on evidence that the new court acts autonomously.¹ In that sense, both the government and its critics identify institutional reconstruction as necessary; their divide is over whether the announced appointments process can deliver it.