Professor Ghulam Azam was not a lighthouse of a criminal campaign; rather he worked as a lighthouse for the Islamic and democratic movement in Bangladesh. The prosecution has utterly failed to produce any evidence required for conviction and punishment in a criminal proceeding. A judgment cannot be based on emotion but on the evidence. The case against Prof. Ghulam Azam on the charge of his alleged involvement in crimes against humanity is full of emotion and concocted stories but what it is missing is evidence.

Let’s now analyze the case of Prof Ghulam Azam.

Prof Ghulam Azam has been charged with the murder of police inspector Miru Mia on the basis of an alleged letter of Prof Ghulam Azam. However, the alleged letter has not been recorded as evidence in the Tribunal. None amongst the collector, conveyer or bearer or the addressee of the alleged letter has been called as witness to the Tribunal. This means that the prosecution has not been able to present any evidence. They have merely concocted baseless stories.

It is stated that Prof Ghulam Azam conspired with Tikka Khan. However, no witness has confirmed this. No documents have been submitted in support of this. A political party chief can surely meet an army general of the country at a discussion table. Nobody can deny that Sheikh Mujib also held meetings with Bhutto. What matters here is that no evidence was produced or no witness was brought in the Tribunal to prove what Prof Ghulam Azam discussed with Tikka Khan that should constitute conspiracy.

Prof Ghulam Azam has been charged with the murder of 38 freedom fighters in Brahminbaria jail at his written instruction. However, no evidence has been presented in the Tribunal as to who was the messenger of his written instruction, to whom it was addressed, what was written in that letter. Furthermore, no existence of any such letter has been established. Superior or command responsibility only applies to the military and not to civilians.

The Defence Counsel had presented a list of 2,939 witnesses in defence of Prof Azam. The prosecution protested the list, at which the court told the defence to present a fresh list of no more than 12 witnesses. No such arbitrary limit was placed on the prosecution, who presented 16 witnesses – 4 more than the defence. It is also interesting that with no limit placed on them, the prosecution was only able to present 16 witnesses against Prof Azam’s 2,939. It is clear how partial and unfair this court is in openly pandering to the prosecution and hindering the defence. Later the court forced the defence to conclude Prof Azam’s defence on a single witness.

None of the documents of the prosecution was prepared by the investigating officer, Matiur Rahman, but were created by Dr Ahmed Ziauddin. Dr Ahmed Ziauddin created them in connivance with the prosecution and submitted to the Tribunal in the name of the prosecution. This is fraud. Whatever Justice Nizamul Haque has issued in the Tribunal including the charge sheet and orders, nothing is his own deliberation. Everything is prepared by Dr Ahmed Ziauddin from abroad. Nevertheless, Justice Nizamul Haque later passed those as his own deliberation. By this he has committed fraud and misconduct. As such this trial is entirely discredited.

Five drafts of charge sheet against Prof Ghulam Azam came from Belgium resident Dr Ahmed Ziauddin. Furthermore, it is Ziauddin who from Belgium determined as to whom should be selected as witnesses and what statements should be solicited from the witnesses etc. On 12/05/2012, from Belgium Dr Ahmed Ziauddin sent the last draft of the charge sheet against Prof Ghulam Azam via email to Justice Nizamul Haque. Justice Nizamul Haque copied the same draft in verbatim and issued the charge sheet order against Prof. Ghulam Azam on 13/05/2012.

As such this tribunal has been heavily manipulated from abroad by a person with no official role in the court and whose role in the court was not made known and kept concealed until it was exposed by the Skypegate scandal. Following the scandal, the tribunal Chairman, Justice Nizamul Haque resigned, yet these fraudulent activities were not rejected and the trial continued as if nothing happened. Under such circumstances, the trial of Ghulam Azam cannot be considered credible or fair.