2nd Round Oral Argument of Myanmar: Myanmar legal counsel began its 2nd round of oral argument

The legal counsel of Myanmar argued that The Gambia's evidence is not reliable and responded to the judges' questions, during the Myanmar's second round of Oral Argument began on January 28 at 3:00 PM local time at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands.

First, Myanmar's lead counsel, Mr. Christopher Staker, delivered the opening statement for Myanmar's second round of arguments. He stated that The Gambia could not present new evidence and could only continue to rely on the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) and the testimony of expert witness Newton.

He objected to the accusation made by The Gambia's legal team on January 26, 2026, that Myanmar's legal counsels were making untrue defenses for Myanmar. While acknowledging that genocide was a possibility in the Counter-Terrorism operations, he argued that it did not actually occur, as also indicated by the International Commission of Enquiry (ICOE). He further stated that attacks were not carried out against those who fled to Bangladesh, and that displaced persons living in IDP camps were protected.

He also noted that although The Gambia accused the military of killing a group of people, a large Bengali population continues to live in Rakhine State. Next, Myanmar's legal counsel, Mr. David Hooper, addressed the false and deceptive testimonies of The Gambia's first, second, and third witnesses.

He pointed out that all three witnesses requested their names be kept confidential because there were informants against Myanmar in the refugee camps in Bangladesh, and that they were afraid to speak about ARSA due to its influence. Mr. David Hooper continued, discussing the testimony of witness M1 (name withheld) submitted by Myanmar.

He stated that analysis of the facts shows that those who arrested them and killed the men were fellow Bengali villagers from the same village, and that many in the villages were under ARSA's influence. Regarding the Inndin incident, he presented strong evidence that 105 Hindus and ethnic people were killed.

He noted that the testimonies of the three witnesses submitted by The Gambia contradicted their previous written statements, particularly in concealing ARSA's attacks and its significant role. Regarding The Gambia's expert witness Newton, he pointed out that the analyses submitted to the court lacked methodological guidelines and admitted that Newton was associated with organizations supporting The Gambia in this case.

Following this, Myanmar's legal counsel, Ms. Leigh Lawrie, addressed questions about ARSA and incidents where innocent civilians were rescued due to ARSA violence. She fully responded to Judge Brent's questions regarding ARSA's structure, strength, and offensive capabilities.

In response to Judge Pillay's question about the military rescuing civilians, she explained that Rakhine, Mro, Dainet, and Hindus, whom ARSA pursued and killed, were rescued. Bengalis accused by ARSA of being informants were also rescued, and protection was provided to prevent conflict between Rakhine and Bengalis. The second round of oral arguments by Myanmar legal counsel will continue on January 29 at 10:00 AM local time.