1. Executive Summary
Since the February 2021 military coup, Myanmar’s judicial sector has suffered a systematic loss of independence. The judiciary has been exploited by the State Administration Council (SAC) as a tool for political repression, while resistance-controlled areas are trying to establish credible parallel legal systems amid ongoing conflict.
This policy brief outlines the Institute for Peace and Social Justice’s (IPSJ) findings on Myanmar’s current judiciary. It highlights three main crisis areas: courts under SAC control, challenges faced by legal professionals involved in the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), and the absence of standardized justice in conflict zones. The brief concludes with a roadmap for transitional justice, stressing the importance of structurally separating the judiciary from executive or military influence.
2. Context and Problem Statement
2.1 The Weaponization of the Courts
Historically, the Myanmar judiciary has struggled against executive dominance. However, after the coup, developments have replaced even the semblance of due process with a military-led administrative order. The SAC has used the judiciary to justify illegal detentions and suppress dissent through “closed-door” trials in prisons (e.g., Insein Prison) and military tribunals.
2.2 The Collapse of the Legal Profession
Thousands of lawyers, judges, and court staff participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM). While this was a powerful statement of non-recognition of the junta, it resulted in:
- A brain drain of the most ethically aligned legal minds.
- Increased risk for lawyers still in the system, who face arrest for “obstructing justice” when defending political prisoners.
3. Primary Challenges in Today’s Judicial Landscape
3.1 Judicial Administration under the SAC
The management of courts has returned to a top-down structure. Key issues include:
- Lack of impartiality: Judges are appointed based on loyalty to the military regime rather than on merit or legal expertise.
- Procedural Violations: Denial of access to counsel, absence of public hearings, and reliance on coerced confessions as primary evidence.
3.2 Pursuing Justice in Conflict Zones
In regions controlled by Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) or the National Unity Government (NUG), the challenge is not just “reform” but “creation.”
- Fragmentation: Different regions use varying legal codes, resulting in a “patchwork” of justice that lacks national consistency.
- Resource scarcity: Shortage of trained personnel, physical infrastructure, and secure detention facilities causes arbitrary sentencing and raises human rights concerns.
3.3 The “Double Jeopardy” for Civilians
Civilians find themselves caught between two systems. Engaging with SAC courts involves the risk of social sanctions and being labeled a “collaborator,” while parallel systems often lack international recognition or enforcement power to deliver definitive resolutions in civil disputes such as land rights and inheritance.
