The Gambia expects a ruling in October in its genocide case against Myanmar, but the Court has not announced a date. For Rohingya, the eventual judgment could be historic—but it will not by itself deliver prosecutions, citizenship or safe return.
by Hafizur Rahman
- The Gambia expects a ruling in October in its genocide case against Myanmar, but the Court has not announced a date. For Rohingya, the eventual judgment could be historic—but it will not by itself deliver prosecutions, citizenship or safe return.
- What Is the Case About?
- What Could the Court Decide?
- What Would a Judgment Not Do?
- Could Rohingya Receive Reparations?
- What About Other Justice Processes?
- Could It Affect Repatriation?
- Why the Judgment Matters
29 August 2026: The Gambia says it expects the International Court of Justice to deliver its judgment in the Rohingya genocide case against Myanmar in October, raising expectations around one of the most important international legal proceedings concerning the persecution of the Rohingya.
Gambian Attorney General and Justice Minister Dawda A. Jallow shared the expectation during a meeting with Bangladesh State Minister for Foreign Affairs Humaiun Kobir on the sidelines of the 23rd Extraordinary Session of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers in Jeddah.
According to Bangladesh’s Foreign Ministry, Jallow said a judgment addressing accountability for atrocities committed against Rohingya could play an important role in efforts to find a sustainable solution to the crisis.
But October should not yet be treated as a confirmed court date.
The ICJ itself has not publicly announced when the judgment will be delivered.
That distinction is important because only the Court can formally schedule the delivery of its ruling.
What Is the Case About?
The Gambia filed the case against Myanmar in November 2019 under the 1948 Genocide Convention.
The case asks whether Myanmar, as a state, violated its obligations under the Convention through its treatment of the Rohingya.
It is therefore different from a criminal prosecution.
The ICJ does not decide whether individual generals, soldiers or political leaders should go to prison. Its task is to determine whether Myanmar bears international legal responsibility as a state.
This distinction matters for Rohingya expectations.
A judgment against Myanmar could be legally and politically significant without immediately producing individual criminal punishment.
What Could the Court Decide?
At the centre of the case is the question of whether prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention were committed against Rohingya with the specific intent required to establish genocide.
The Court may examine conduct including killings, serious bodily or mental harm and conditions allegedly imposed on the Rohingya population.
It must also determine Myanmar’s responsibilities under the Convention, including whether the state failed to prevent genocide or committed other treaty violations.
A judgment finding Myanmar responsible would represent one of the strongest international judicial recognitions yet of the violence inflicted on Rohingya.
For survivors, such a finding would carry particular importance after years in which Myanmar authorities denied or minimised allegations surrounding the 2017 military operations.
What Would a Judgment Not Do?
Even a major ruling in favour of The Gambia would have clear limits.
It would not automatically prosecute individual perpetrators.
It would not itself grant Rohingya citizenship.
It would not immediately restore confiscated homes or land.
It would not automatically allow refugees in Bangladesh to return safely.
And it would not ensure that Myanmar complies immediately with every part of the judgment.
Those issues require additional legal, political and diplomatic processes.
The Rohingya crisis therefore cannot be solved by the ICJ case alone.
Could Rohingya Receive Reparations?
Questions of remedy will become especially important if the Court finds Myanmar responsible.
In interstate cases, the ICJ can require a state to cease unlawful conduct, comply with international obligations and provide forms of reparation depending on the findings and arguments before it.
But any eventual remedy would need to be assessed from the actual judgment.
It would be premature to assume that individual Rohingya refugees would automatically receive direct financial compensation.
For survivors, however, recognition of state responsibility could strengthen future claims concerning remedy, restitution and accountability.
What About Other Justice Processes?
The ICJ proceedings are only one part of the broader accountability landscape.
Other international processes have focused on criminal responsibility and evidence concerning atrocities committed against Rohingya.
Those mechanisms operate under different legal mandates.
An ICJ ruling on Myanmar’s state responsibility could therefore complement rather than replace criminal accountability efforts.
It could also influence future diplomatic pressure by providing an authoritative legal judgment on Myanmar’s obligations under the Genocide Convention.
Could It Affect Repatriation?
Bangladesh and The Gambia have linked accountability with efforts to find a long-term solution to the Rohingya crisis.
During their meeting, Kobir thanked The Gambia for pursuing the case and called for continued cooperation to keep the Rohingya issue high on the international agenda. Both sides also reiterated support for a safe, voluntary and dignified return.
But a judgment would not make current conditions in Arakan safe overnight.
Rohingya refugees have repeatedly said that return requires recognition of their identity, citizenship, security, freedom of movement, access to land and homes, and guarantees against renewed persecution.
Those conditions would still have to be created politically and practically.
Justice and repatriation are therefore connected, but they are not the same process.
Why the Judgment Matters
For Rohingya, the importance of the case lies partly in the possibility of an authoritative judicial answer to a question survivors have carried for years: whether Myanmar violated one of the most serious obligations in international law in its treatment of their community.
The eventual judgment may strengthen accountability and international pressure.
It may establish important legal findings about what happened.
It may also influence future discussions about remedy, protection and return.
But it should not be presented as the end of the Rohingya justice process.
Whether the judgment arrives in October or later, the larger challenge will begin after the Court speaks: translating legal recognition into accountability, rights and meaningful protection for the Rohingya people.
