Tribunal verdict: A political vendetta

Last Updated : Wednesday, February 20, 2013 12:23 AM

Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi


In a previous article, I drew attention to a verdict issued by Bangladesh’s war crimes tribunal. The International Crimes Tribunal sentenced Abul Kalam Azad to death in absentia in its first verdict on those accused of committing crimes against humanity during the 1971 Liberation War. Azad’s whereabouts are unknown.

In that article I criticized Mahfuz Anam, editor and publisher of the Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star, for his celebration and delight over the verdict. In an article written in his newspaper, Anam said that there are millions of reasons to celebrate the verdict. But I pointed out that there were no grounds for a celebration as the verdict was the culmination of a political vendetta against opponents. I also noted that the verdict was against the true spirit of the general amnesty declared by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh.

Today, I am writing about another verdict issued by the tribunal; this time against Abdul Kader Mullah, the assistant secretary general of the Jamaat-e-Islami of Bangladesh. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Following the verdict, a large number of people turned out in Shahbag Square in downtown Dhaka in protest rallies seeking the death penalty for him.

Once again, it is with astonishment and surprise that I ponder the real motive of those who organized these protest rallies and strikes. I also denounce the intense desire for seeking a vendetta against political opponents. I am not the only one who opposes this. Veteran Bangladeshi political leader and lawyer Moudud Ahmad has also taken this position. Ahmad earlier worked as secretary of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Later, he held higher positions in successive governments. He was a minister in the government of Gen. Ziaur Rahman and then became prime minister under President Gen. H.M. Ershad. He also served as justice minister in the government of Begum Khaleda Zia and was a member of the executive committee of her Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Being an eminent lawyer, he was one of the architects of the country’s constitution during the period of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

Recently, Ahmad criticized the Hasina government for its position that the verdict against Mullah was not sufficient. He also slammed those who instigated youths to take to the streets to seek the death penalty for Mullah. Ahmad demanded the judges at the tribunal tender their resignation in protest against the position of the government and its allies with regard to the verdict.

Apart from this, human rights organizations as well as lawyers who appeared for Mullah have stated clearly that the accused did not receive a fair trial. They are of the view that the trial proceedings did not meet even the most basic criteria of justice because it was the government which appointed the judges, prosecutors and investigators who are all loyal to it.

Even so, the government is not satisfied with the verdict and some government officials and parties in the ruling coalition have stated that they would only be satisfied with a death sentence for Mullah and others who are accused of war crimes. They made such statements even before the trial began.

This was evident from the Skype scandal exposed by the British magazine The Economist a few months ago. The magazine disclosed Skype conversations between ICT’s presiding judge Mohammed Nizamul Huq and Ahmed Ziauddin, a war crimes expert of Bangladeshi origin living in Brussels, Belgium. This eventually led to the resignation of the presiding judge.

This is a clear manifestation of the government’s desire to kill justice before killing its political opponents, including Abdul Kader Mullah, who said that he was not in Dhaka during the Liberation War, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. During that time, Mullah was in a remote rural region of the country. His lawyers also argued in court that he arrived in the capital city and joined Dhaka University only after the creation of Bangladesh. Mullah lived in the house of a fellow university student until his graduation. He then served as a teacher in a school under the Bangladesh Border Guards. Eventually, he turned to journalism and served for two years as deputy chairman of the Journalists’ Federation in Dhaka. Not a single case was registered against him during the period of his unblemished public life spanning over 40 years.

But now he has been given a life sentence in prison as the result of a flawed trial that met no known international criteria. There were no international judges serving at the tribunal and international lawyers were not allowed to witness the court proceedings.

During a meeting with Shafique Ahmed, Bangladesh’s minister of law, justice and parliamentary affairs, Lord Carlile, a member of the British House of Lords, demanded that the Bangladesh government issue a formal invitation to a delegation of lawyers from the House to view the trial proceedings of those accused of war crimes at the tribunal. This request was made following an oral assurance given by Shafique Ahmed when the two met in London. But no written confirmation was ever issued.

World renowned lawyer and expert on war crimes Toby Cadman was also denied permission to witness the trial proceedings. He was denied an entry visa and was forced to return home after landing at Dhaka airport. A delegation of Turkish lawyers visited Bangladesh and held talks with the concerned parties. They made some statements in support of the defendants but this did not result in changes in the position of the government.

It is obvious that the Bangladeshi authorities are determined to get rid of their political opponents. They take no notice of the criticism of international human rights and Islamic organizations nor of local organizations even though this may result once again in internal conflict.

— Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs. He can be reached at algham@hotmail.com