In Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, if Mace Windu and the three other Jedi masters had waited until the Galactic Senate was in session and then came there and openly accused Chancellor Palpatine of being a Sith Lord, how would they have proven to the Galactic Senate that he was a Sith Lord?

enter image description here

  • 3
    If I recall correctly, the word of a Jedi is acceptable in court as proof.
    – Valorum
    Jun 8 at 15:22
  • 1
    They could have tested his midichlorian count, which would presumably have been high, suggesting he was likely a force user, and pointed out that he carried and used a red lightsaber, produceable only with the dark side of the Force. With time, they might have been able to tease out his relationship of mentorship to Count Dooku, at that point a known Sith Lord.
    – Adamant
    Jun 8 at 15:48
  • 3
    But would they have focused on him being a Sith Lord? By most accounts, it was not illegal. His being behind the Separatist rebellion would have been the most likely approach.
    – Adamant
    Jun 8 at 15:49
  • 5
    They’d probably be like “Are you a Sith Lord?”, and if he said no they’d be all “May I REMIND you Chancellor that you are under SPACE OATH?” And if he still said no they’d be like okay, seems fair, there are these three other guys we’re kinda suspicious about, it’s probably them, and he’d say “No no! Always two Sith there are, a master and an apprentice”, and they’d be all “And HOW do you know that, Chancellor? CHECKMATE!” If they have space chess I guess. Jun 8 at 16:42
  • 2
    @PaulD.Waite - He's a politician. You can tell he's lying because his lips are moving
    – Valorum
    Jun 8 at 18:29

1 Answer 1


Per the Revenge of the Sith novelisation, the fact that Palpatine is a self-professed Sith Lord (and indeed a secret Force user) isn't a crime. In fact, due to his machinations over the intervening years, changes have been made to the Constitution that guarantees the political freedom of expression even of those who profess to faiths that the Jedi find objectionable.

You're a Sith Lord!"
"Am I? Even if true, that's hardly a crime. My philosophical outlook is a personal matter. In fact—the last time I read the Constitution, anyway—we have very strict laws against this type of persecution. So I ask you again: what is my alleged crime?"

We can assume that these facts would be mentioned at his trial, but only in conjunction with proof being offered that he's been secretly controlling the Separatists, which is clearly treasonable behaviour.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.