COMMENT | The International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded hearings on the merits in January 2026 and is expected to deliver its decision soon on whether Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya.

Filed by The Gambia in 2019 under the Genocide Convention, the case alleges genocidal acts by Myanmar's military and security forces, and seeks to prevent further abuses, protect the community, and secure accountability and reparations.

At such a critical juncture, Malaysia is moving away from a position it once championed at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

In January 2017, amidst escalating violence in Rakhine, Malaysia hosted the OIC Extraordinary Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers on the Rohingya Muslim Minority in Myanmar, which condemned the violence and demanded that Myanmar restore Rohingya citizenship rights.

Malaysia also sat on the OIC Ad-Hoc Ministerial Committee on Accountability for Human Rights Violations against the Rohingya, which supported The Gambia’s efforts for justice.

On a podcast, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has now offered friendship, trade, and an official visit to Min Aung Hlaing, Myanmar's former junta chief, in exchange for taking back Rohingya refugees.

Min Aung Hlaing (above) stands accused of being the architect of genocide against the Rohingya, whom his army has killed, raped, and driven out of Rakhine State since 2016.

The International Criminal Court prosecutor sought a warrant for his arrest for crimes against humanity; Argentina's Federal Criminal Court separately ordered his arrest under universal jurisdiction for genocide and crimes against humanity.

He has been pursuing international legitimacy since being installed as president, following the 2021 military coup and a military-controlled electoral process from 2025 to 2026 widely condemned as a sham to legitimise junta rule.

Forced return or prolonged detention

Anwar's negotiations with Min Aung Hlaing began during Malaysia's Asean chairmanship in 2025, as Myanmar recovered from a devastating earthquake in March.

He used humanitarian assistance, and later diplomatic recognition, as leverage for Myanmar to accept the Rohingya back.

The timing of the forced return now raises uncomfortable questions. As these arrangements were being finalised, anti-Rohingya hostility suddenly flared in May 2026 following an online petition calling for the community's expulsion from Malaysia.

Anwar has now ordered the government to prepare for Min Aung Hlaing’s official visit, while allowing public anger to build around misinformation and disinformation, some of which he repeated on the podcast.


READ MORE: MP SPEAKS | Asean should not normalise relations with Myanmar's junta


The campaign echoes the dehumanising narratives used by the junta and nationalist actors even today.

All this while, the government offered no coherent refugee policy or law to protect a vulnerable community.

The only government response to refugees has been raids, detention, and exclusion. Many refugees, particularly Rohingya, are detained indefinitely, without judicial oversight.

Anwar now presents the Rohingya in detention with a choice: forced return or prolonged detention. Myanmar will certainly exploit any return as evidence that Rakhine State is safe, despite lacking control over the territory.

In reality, Rohingya persecution will persist; it cannot be resolved on an ad-hoc basis, and will simply be an issue passed from one government to the next.

Myanmar done nothing to earn trust

On Jan 23, 2020, the ICJ unanimously ordered provisional measures requiring Myanmar to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya, to prevent its military or armed groups under its control from committing or assisting in genocide, to preserve relevant evidence, and to report regularly on the steps taken.

Yet Myanmar has not complied with key requirements of the order. The Rohingya who remain still face killings, attacks, forced displacement, sexual and gender-based violence, and arbitrary detention.

The junta has forcibly conscripted Rohingya as "human shields" in the country's civil war, continues to deny them basic freedoms, and keeps inflaming anti-Rohingya propaganda that incites further crimes.

Myanmar has historically lied. In 1978 and 1992, Rohingya refugees were returned under bilateral arrangements with Bangladesh, only to face continuing persecution, insecurity, and further displacement.

Multiple repatriation attempts since, including in January 2018, November 2018, and August 2019, failed because Myanmar could not provide credible guarantees of safety, citizenship, or basic rights.

Crucially, Myanmar has not complied with the court order to preserve evidence. Villages such as Myo Thu Gyi (Hainda Fara), Inn Din (Aung Dung), Aung Seik Pyin (Done Paik), Ah Lel Chaung (Ali Yong), Hpu Khar Li (Fut Hali) held Rohingya homes, farms, schools, businesses, and places of worship for generations.

But these homes and villages were systematically demolished and razed, along with their land ownership and tax documents, household lists, and other community records.

Mosques and cemeteries were levelled, and evidence of military weapons, ballistics, and blast patterns was erased.

In their place, military bases and infrastructure were erected. Destroying these crime scenes was designed to obstruct on-site forensic investigation and erase the historical presence of the Rohingya.

Basic conditions of return ignored

The Rohingya have repeatedly said they wish to return home. Anwar is not the first to ask Myanmar to let them return and not kill them.

No political leader has pressed Myanmar for proof that its "guarantees" are genuine; instead, governments string each other along in a façade of progress through repeated repatriation plans, while underlying conditions remain unchanged.

The planned forced return meets no minimum conditions. Malaysia claims it is "voluntary", as though a Rohingya in prolonged detention has a genuine choice.

Promises of safety cannot rest on non-binding assurances from the junta.

Without a concrete plan from Myanmar to restore citizenship and equal legal status, address the deep-rooted discrimination and insecurity, allow Rohingya to return to their homes or have a genuine say in where to rebuild, and provide reparations for the losses and harms suffered, there is no credible basis to believe that the Rohingya will be able to return safely with dignity.

Details of past Rohingya repatriation plans were never made openly. Myanmar has not reformed the citizenship laws that stripped the Rohingya of theirs.

No promise of safety is legally enforceable once broken. The Rohingya themselves were negotiated over, never meaningfully consulted on how this affects their lives.

This is a disastrous cycle in which politicians and governments manipulate the crisis for political credit, funding, diplomatic leverage, or relief from domestic pressure.

Diplomacy cannot excuse complicity

The “pragmatic diplomacy” that Anwar and Min Aung Hlaing present is the cover under which each makes himself useful to the other, at the expense of Rohingya lives.

Anwar must halt the planned refoulement of 5,000 Rohingya, as the consequences reach far beyond that number.

These are individuals facing real violence. It demands that Malaysia apply the same commitment to human rights and protection from persecution that it has shown in its support for Palestine and also South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle.

The invitation to Min Aung Hlaing must be withdrawn, and the full terms negotiated with Myanmar must be disclosed for independent scrutiny, including by the Rohingya community.

Otherwise, the arrangement with the Myanmar junta would undermine Malaysia's credibility and weaken international accountability efforts.

And Malaysia would be complicit in shielding perpetrators and evidence of international crimes from scrutiny by normalising such heinous crimes in the region.


MELISSA SASIDARAN is a lawyer involved in investigative efforts and litigation of international crimes and human rights violations committed in Myanmar.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.