Why Did BROUK Go Silent on Aung San Suu Kyi’s Arrest Warrant?
BROUK Pushed for Aung San Suu Kyi’s Prosecution - So Why Downplay It Now?
On February 13, 2025, a federal criminal court in Buenos Aires, Argentina, issued arrest warrants for 25 senior Myanmar officials, holding them accountable for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya. Among those named are junta chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, ousted State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, former President Htin Kyaw, and Deputy Junta Chief Vice-Senior General Soe Win. This marks a historic step in international justice, as the case - filed under universal jurisdiction - seeks to prosecute those responsible for one of the most heinous crimes of the 21st century.
Yet, in a surprising turn, BROUK (Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK) - the very organisation that fought for this case - initially chose to obscure the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi is among those facing an arrest warrant.
BROUK's original press release is deliberately vague regarding whether an actual arrest warrant has been issued for Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw. The wording suggests that the Argentine prosecutor added their names in June 2024, but it does not explicitly confirm that the court approved and issued arrest warrants for them, unlike Min Aung Hlaing and the military officials.
The lack of clarity in BROUK’s press release was sufficient to cause significant confusion among observers, leading some to incorrectly state that no arrest warrant had been issued for Aung San Suu Kyi. Progressive Voice, a respected advocacy organisation, even posted (now deleted and correction posted):
"#Argentina Court issued historic arrest warrants for 25 of alleged perpetrators of genocide against #Rohingya. No arrest warrants were issued for State Counsellor and President."
This misleading claim was made while linking directly to BROUK’s own statement. Similarly, Matthew Smith of Fortify Rights, an organisation that closely monitors human rights developments in Myanmar, tweeted
“An #Argentinian court issued an int’l arrest warrant for #Myanmar coup leader Min Aung Hlaing and other architects of the #Rohingya #genocide in response to @brouklondon’s 2019 petition. Huge congrats & gratitude to @tunkhin80 @tojeaquintana & all involved.”
Notably, he made no mention of Aung San Suu Kyi, despite her clear presence on the list of those facing an arrest warrant.
The confusion extended to media coverage as well. An AP report on the case, quoted by several sources, including a newsletter by Frontier Myanmar, left out Aung San Suu Kyi’s name while mentioning Htin Kyaw, further reinforcing the impression that Suu Kyi was not among those indicted.
At best, this demonstrates how BROUK’s wording was so vague that it led even close allies and media to misreport the case. At worst, it suggests a deliberate attempt to control the narrative, omitting a detail that might provoke political backlash.
What the Original Press Release Says vs. What It Doesn't Say
It states that the Argentine prosecutor included Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw in June 2024, acting on their own initiative.
It also says that BROUK requested a review of this decision, implying they were not supportive of it.
Crucially, it does not clearly say that the court went ahead and issued a final arrest warrant for Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw - only that it issued warrants for military officials.
The actual court ruling, however, makes it crystal clear that Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw are among the 25 individuals for whom Argentina issued international arrest warrants.
A Quiet Update: BROUK Clarifies the Arrest Warrants
Then, at 10.30am on February 14, BROUK quietly updated their press release - a move that went unannounced but directly contradicted the earlier ambiguity.
The new version explicitly confirms that the Argentine court dismissed BROUK’s request to reconsider Suu Kyi’s indictment and officially issued arrest warrants for both Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw. The update reads:
"However, the court has decided to dismiss our request and has issued arrest warrants for Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw."
This update directly contradicts the initial press release, which left the status of Suu Kyi’s warrant unclear.
It is worth asking:
Why did BROUK not clearly state this from the outset?
Why was this update made quietly, rather than with the same level of emphasis given to the rest of the case?
What changed between the original press release and the update?
Did this delay prevent broader media coverage of her indictment, shifting focus solely onto the military?
This shift raises concerns about narrative control - and whether BROUK was initially hesitant to highlight Suu Kyi’s indictment due to political considerations. If organisations that claim to fight for justice are willing to shift their messaging for political convenience, how can we ensure that justice remains impartial and not dictated by strategic interests?
Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two press releases:
Original BROUK Press Release (Feb 14, 2025 – Early Version)
"A court in Buenos Aires yesterday requested arrest warrants for Min Aung Hlaing and other Burmese military officials involved in the genocide of the Rohingya."
(No mention of Aung San Suu Kyi or Htin Kyaw.)"BROUK requested international arrest warrants against military officials only. BROUK did not present any evidence regarding Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw."
(Leaves ambiguity about whether the court approved the warrants for Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw.)(No clarification or correction notice included.)
Updated BROUK Press Release (Feb 14, 2025 – Quiet Revision)
"A court in Buenos Aires yesterday requested arrest warrants for Min Aung Hlaing and other Burmese military officials involved in the genocide of the Rohingya. The court has also issued arrest warrants for Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw."
(Explicitly confirms that the court issued arrest warrants for Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw.)"However, the court has decided to dismiss our request and has issued arrest warrants for Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw."
(Explicitly states that the court dismissed BROUK’s request and confirmed the arrest warrants.)"UPDATE: The media release was updated at 10:30 AM on 14 February to correct editing errors which had led to misunderstanding regarding arrest warrants being issued for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and President Htin Kyaw."
BROUK Once Fought for Suu Kyi’s Inclusion - Why Downplay It Now?
The quiet revision is even more puzzling given BROUK’s own history of pushing aggressively for Aung San Suu Kyi’s inclusion in this case.
BROUK has been at the forefront of the Rohingya justice movement, pushing for legal accountability for crimes committed against the Rohingya. Yet, their initial silence on Suu Kyi’s warrant suggests they may now be controlling the narrative - possibly to avoid backlash from those who still view her as a pro-democracy figure.
But this is not how BROUK always framed it. In fact, they fought tooth and nail for Aung San Suu Kyi to be included in this case. The evidence of BROUK’s past efforts to include Suu Kyi in the case is undeniable.
1. November 13, 2019: Tun Khin Files the Case - Explicitly Naming Aung San Suu Kyi
In a tweet, BROUK President Tun Khin announced that he was filing the universal jurisdiction case in Argentina and that it aimed to hold those responsible for Rohingya genocide accountable - including Aung San Suu Kyi.
“Today I filed a universal jurisdiction case in #Argentinian courts to ensure perpetrators of the Rohingya genocide are personally held to account, including Aung San Suu Kyi.”
This was a clear and public commitment to ensuring Suu Kyi was held accountable alongside the military leadership.
2. June 1, 2020: Confirmation That Suu Kyi Was Named in the Case
Another tweet from Tun Khin on June 1, 2020, further reinforced BROUK’s push to have Suu Kyi included.
“Those named in the case include Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the Tatmadaw Commander-in-Chief, and other high-ranking military officials, as well as former presidents U Htin Kyaw and U Thein Sein.”
This demonstrates that BROUK was fully aware of, and supportive of, Suu Kyi’s inclusion at the time.
3. August 25, 2020: BROUK Takes Ownership of the Case Against Suu Kyi
By August 2020, BROUK was actively promoting the idea that they had initiated the case against Suu Kyi.
“My organisation, @brouklondon, has also brought a case against Aung San Suu Kyi, her govt and the military before the Argentinian judiciary.”
This was not an unwanted inclusion by the Argentine prosecutor - BROUK itself was claiming responsibility for making it happen.
4. June 4, 2020: BROUK Celebrates Overturning a Court Decision That Initially Excluded Suu Kyi
One of the most striking examples of BROUK’s active push to include Suu Kyi came on June 4, 2020, when Tun Khin posted about the Buenos Aires court’s decision to overturn a previous ruling that excluded Suu Kyi from the case.
“The court in Buenos Aires on Friday overturned a previous decision not to pursue a case against State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and senior officers in the #Myanmar military.”
There is no doubt that BROUK fought hard to get Suu Kyi included in the case.
Why the Change?
Given this history, BROUK’s hesitation about mentioning Suu Kyi’s arrest warrant raises interesting questions:
Is BROUK now concerned about political backlash?
In 2019 and 2020, when the above tweets were posted, Suu Kyi was still in power. Since the 2021 military coup, she has been imprisoned and rebranded as a victim of the junta.
Has BROUK softened its stance to avoid alienating Myanmar opposition groups who still support her?
Did BROUK try to control the narrative by omitting key details from their original press release?
The fact that the court issued arrest warrants for Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw is a matter of public record.
Why, then, did BROUK frame their statement in a way that left room for doubt?
Is this a strategic attempt to shift focus away from civilian complicity in the Rohingya genocide?
While the military was the primary actor, the civilian government under Suu Kyi provided cover and justification for the atrocities.
By downplaying Suu Kyi’s warrant now, is BROUK trying to draw a distinction that no longer holds up legally?
Clarity please
BROUK has been instrumental in the fight for Rohingya justice, and its role in bringing this universal jurisdiction case in Argentina is undeniably significant. However, surely justice ought to be transparent and not selective?
BROUK is now saying that it actively opposed Suu Kyi’s inclusion in the arrest warrants, citing Myanmar’s changed political circumstances. What changed as far as her complicity is concerned? And why did they quietly update their statement instead of making their position explicit?
Should justice be dictated by political expediency? If the movement to hold Myanmar’s leaders accountable is to retain its credibility, then clarity and consistency, one would have thought, are non-negotiable.
BROUK must now explain its shift in stance. The public deserves to know:
Does BROUK still stand by its past statements that Suu Kyi should be prosecuted?
If so, why did their original press release omit the fact that the court had indeed issued a warrant for her? It is after all a headline-grabbing fact.
If not, what changed?
Final Thought
The original press release made no clear statement that the court had issued arrest warrants for Aung San Suu Kyi and Htin Kyaw. Instead, it merely mentioned that the Argentine prosecutor had added their names - leaving enough ambiguity for media and advocacy groups to incorrectly claim that no warrant had been issued for her.
Only after this confusion spread did BROUK quietly revise their statement, confirming that the court had indeed issued the arrest warrants. But this correction does not explain the deeper question: Why did BROUK, after years of pushing for Suu Kyi’s prosecution, change its position and actively oppose her inclusion in the case? The correction was framed as an 'editing error,' but the timeline suggests a calculated shift - not just in wording, but in political strategy.
Either Aung San Suu Kyi is held accountable for her role in the genocide, or BROUK must explain why they no longer believe in a principle they once championed.