Professor Ghulam Azam invites everyone to be united to restore the country- said Mrs Afifa Azam in a statement.

The wife of the former president of Jamaat-e-Islami  Mrs Afifa Azam,  mentioned in a statement on Saturday- the jailed senior leader Professor Ghulam Azam calls all leaders and civil society of the country to dedicate themselves to unite to restore the country. He sincerely calls everyone to rise above the differences of party politics and opinions by avoiding revenge and political conflict; instead to focus on being united together to improve the welfare of the country. He requested his family members to pass this message on during a meeting with them at the BSMU prison cell two weeks ago.

Mrs Azam mentioned in her statement, Professor Ghulam Azam is approaching 91 years of age. Few people in history have been imprisoned at such an old age. Even after conspirators and evil-doers spread countless lies and gossip about him, he still unquestionably remains the popular leader of Global Islamic Movement. Worldwide, many pious Muslims are raising their hands with tears in their eyes to pray for this amazing person. Professor Ghulam Azam is a living legend.

It is sad but true that the soul who was dedicated to establish Allah’s deen is accused of lies as a victim of government’s vengeance. The world is aware of what is happening in the name of justice in the tribunal. The internationally discussed tribunal is being criticised by the whole world includingthe  United Nations regarding its transparency, quality and impartiality. Even those who know the truth of the tribunal, are unable to understand it. Conscientious people are already aware of these issues. Therefore, it is pointless to comment further on this tribunal.

She said Professor Ghulam Azam just past his 430th day in jail. Every day she has to face the question “how are you” many times by her family members. It’s the expression of everyone’s love for him. We are grateful to everyone. He is not entirely well physically. But, by the grace of Allah, he is free of many of the illnesses people over 90 suffer. He is very strong mentally. He does not have an ounce of worry about his own life. The man who spent 60 years of his life with the intense desire of martyrdom, death is of little value to him. He does not care about his death. He knows “the real justice happens with the Lord, not in this world”. We are inspired by him.

Mrs Azam said, he is very concerned about the people, the dirty politics and future of this country. He thinks there is no alternative to working in unity to improve the welfare of the country and the nation. He is earnestly praying that the nation’s leaders will rise above their difference in politics, opinions and find ways to work together to improve and advance the country.

The following article by Mahin Khan was published by Open Democracy on 28th February 2013. Please click here for the original article.

Today the opposition leader and internationally renowned orator Delwar Hossain Sayedee has been convicted by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal and sentenced to death. The murkiness around Sayedee’s trial almost does not bear repeating – this is the defendant whose witness was abducted by police and never seen again, and whose trial was most affected by the revelations brought by The Economist. Human Rights Watch published multiple statements demanding the missing witness be found and that a retrial take place in Sayedee’s case, but to no avail. While the court was in session, the government turned off social media, Facebook in particular, to prevent ‘negative propaganda’. Since the verdict, nationwide protests have erupted with dozens already dead and many more injured amidst police shooting. Meanwhile, protests are also taking place in the diaspora, with crowds gathering outside the Bangladesh embassy in London today.

A climate of fear has gripped Bangladesh following a rise in state-sponsored clampdowns on voices of commentary and dissent. While victims primarily include opposition commentators, with the recent escalation of violence, the net of attack has widened. The increasing erosion of free speech is a matter that should concern any believer in a just and democratic society, yet the relative silence in the international community is a worrying affair.

While the suppression is hugely troubling it is, however, nothing new under the ruling Awami League regime. In 2010, Mahmudur Rahman, the Acting Editor of the daily Amar Desh was arrested and brutally tortured in custody. Meanwhile his newspaper was also shut down. This was in response to an article printed in Amar Desh which implicated Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s son, Sajeeb Wazed Joy, in corruption. More recently Kader Siddiqi, a decorated 1971 war hero, was summoned to court for suggesting the Bangladesh Home Minister, MK Alamgir, was involved in collaboration with the Pakistani Army in the war of 1971.

Mahmudur Rahman, was ultimately released and his paper resumed, yet his grief from speaking truth to power was not over. More recently he again fell afoulof the authorities after he published exposing material on the War Crimes Tribunal (ICT). In December, an iconic investigative piece by the London basedThe Economist revealed a cache of leaked material which exposed collusion between the Bangladesh ICT judge, state and prosecution. Following this Amar Desh proceeded to print transcripts of the leaks in the public interest ofexposing the political farce that is the ICT. Kader Siddiqi praised Rahman for his actions, proclaiming him a hero worthy of the Nobel Prize; Amar Desh was sold out and forced to reprint copies which were flogged at incredibly high prices. However, court orders were soon issued, Amar Desh offices surrounded by police and Rahman has been unable to leave his premises since under threat of arrest. Amnesty issued a statement calling on the Bangladesh authorities to refrain from harassing the Editor.

The recent Shahbag protests, propelled and promoted by the ruling regime, have served to only exacerbate the situation. Shahbag’s undemocratic calls to ban opposition and dissenting institutions and media have driven the government to take an ever more aggressive stance against its critics. Recently, in tragic circumstances. a Shahbag blogger, Rajib Haidar, better known by his blog nickname, Thaba Baba, was found brutally murdered by unknown assailants. While investigations continue on this unresolved case, the protesters of Shahbag were swift to assume the opposition party, Jamaat-i-Islami, was responsible. The ruling regime pounced on the suggestion in spite of Jamaat’s denial, going so far as to threaten the party with banning.

Soon after, Sonar Bangla, a prominent blog run by the opposition that published critique of both the ICT and the Shahbag movement was shut down by the government. This especially followed circulation by Shahbag activists ofscreenshots from a particular Sonar Bangla blog in which Rajib had been identified as a lead Shahbag campaigner and atheistic in belief. The blog was hardly evidence for a murder, yet the Shahbag online activists circulated it as such and demanded that Sonar Bangla be closed. The government, in the obliging manner reserved only for its Shahbag supporters, seized upon the opportunity to shut down one of the opposition party’s few if not only prominent portals for citizen journalism in the country.

Sonar Bangla’s Editor, Aminul Mohaimen, was also arrested. By Bangladeshi law, any arrested individual must be produced before court within 24hrs. Arrested on Feb 16th, Mohaimen disappeared for a week, leaving his family traumatised for his life. His wife, Aasia Khatun, commented, ‘I along with my two children am passing days with huge agony and an unbearable trauma’. Khatun further stated she attempted to make an application with the police in connection to Mohaimen’s disappearance, but it was not accepted. There were fears Mohaimen had joined a long list of forced disappearances, a rampant issue under this regime. Past such victims include War Crimes Tribunal defence witness and victim of 1971 atrocities, Shukho Ranjan Bali, whose abduction has been reported by Human Rights Watch and in whose case also the police refused to accept any applications. Thankfully, Mohaimen was brought before court on February 23rd. The court charged him for destroying a shop, a remarkable accusation he denies, and placed him behind bars.

Opposition press offices continue to be intimidated by the state and are regularly raided by the police, with attacks intensifying since the Shahbag protests erupted. The protesters have been calling for boycott and closure of opposition media outlets, a worrying cry against free speech. The offices of newspaper, Naya Diganta were attacked and arsoned by ruling regime youth following Shahbag’s calls. When the police arrived afterwards, far from dealing with the arsonists, they raided the offices and detained an employee. Meanwhile another opposition newspaper, the Daily Sangram, has suffered repeated police raids upon its offices without any specific allegations being made. Shahbag has threatened arson against both these papers, as well as the daily Amar Desh; the latter was symbolically burned within Shahbag itself. Shahbag has been particularly vociferous in their chants against Mahmudur Rahman for his paper’s critical stance on the protest, more recently demandingthe government arrest him. The police accordingly sued him and there are fears he may be arrested at any time. Should the state detain him, there are serious concerns for his life.

Worryingly, recent events prove that violence against the press has now broadened. On Feb 22nd during countrywide opposition rallies, 25 journalistsfrom diverse media outlets were wounded from police fire and baton charge. This included senior reporter of the Daily Amader Otthoniti, Aminul Hoque Bhuiyan who was shot, as well as Mir Ahmed Meeru, chief photojournalist for Amar Desh who was shot no less than five times in the leg. Journalists have since expressed the fear that the state does not spare them from attack.

The environment created is such that now even the nation’s most decorated war hero gets accused of treachery and threatened for voicing critique. The result is the creation of a deep climate of fear; people are no longer comfortable to speak out for fear of arrest, custodial torture and even possible death. It has made it increasingly difficult to garner statements from within the country; only those safely living abroad seem to have the courage to speak. This writer has been in communication with numerous people within Bangladesh who have declined to comment out of terror and have even deactivated social media accounts due to increased state surveillance. As one Bengali expatriate commented:

If I were in Bangladesh right now, I would have never dared to write this, never ever. You can take risk on your own life, but no one wants to put their family members in harms way. In Bangladesh, now, if you say something and it goes against the interest of the government and/or its allies, you must pay the price. RAB (Rapid Action Battalion) or DB (Detective Branch) police will be haunting you. If you are lucky enough to escape, well, there is always someone in your family to pay off.

Apart from the disintegration of human rights such circumstances give rise to, fewer dissenting voices mean less accountability; where the people can no longer hold its leadership accountable things can only get worse in an already troubling situation of extraordinary state corruption and oppression. With the erasure of free speech and a free press, Bangladesh is fast turning into an oppressive autocracy; one in which justice and liberty mean little and security is measured by silent subservience to the state.

This article entitled ‘Bangladesh Justice: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ by Toby Cadman appears on Opendemocracy here

I  first visited Bangladesh in October 2010 and was greeted with a VIP red carpet reception at the Hazrat Shahjalal International airport in Dhaka. I was rushed from the airport to the Sonargoan Hotel to speak at an event hosted by the Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association on fair trial issues in war crimes trials. I was then taken to the old Supreme Court building that housed the International Crimes Tribunal and met the Tribunal Judges, two of whom have since resigned, and the Tribunal Registrar. This was my first visit to South East Asia and I was startled by the warm reception. I realised during this brief visit the enormity of my role. It was to save the leaders of the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamist political party with conservative Islamic views not favoured by the west. I remarked to one of my colleagues that this was a once in a lifetime opportunity for a young lawyer; I was not wrong.

The almost royal reception I received was short lived. The infamy that this case has brought has not diminished my status as an integral part of Bangladeshi politics – I am frequently recognised by members of the Bengali diaspora in East London and Manhattan taxis alike – I am not revered for any great achievement, I have become a thorn in the side of a government hell bent on destroying any political opposition.

The central problem in all of this is that the people of Bangladesh, a wonderfully warm and divergent population, are deeply divided by the issue of war crimes. Rational individuals lose all sense of reason when questioned about war crimes. Fair trial and due process rights have no place. All those accused of war crimes must be convicted and duly executed. Nothing less will suffice.

The demonstrations in Shahbagh epitomise the current political climate. The streets are filled with simply thousands of screaming supporters calling for death. Adults and children alike are sporting bandanas and T-shirts calling for the Islamist party leaders to be hung until dead. One must ask what therefore is the point in a trial where the only acceptable result is execution. One is reminded of the words of Justice Jackson, Chief Prosecutor of the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg who stated:

If you are determined to execute a man in any case there is no occasion for a trial. The world yields no respect to courts that are merely organized to convict.

 

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today, is the record upon which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poised chalice is to put it to our lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task, that this trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspiration to do justice.

The present situation in Bangladesh is critical. The demonstrations in Shahbagh, that followed the first two convictions before the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal (hereinafter: the Tribunal) have been compared to the revolution that started on Tahrir Square in Cairo. However, there is little comparison to be drawn. The Egyptian revolution sought to overthrow a dictator and return the democratic vote. The demonstrations in Shahbagh are seeking the execution of the leaders of an Islamist political party, and ultimately seeking the abolition of a democratic political party due to its Conservative Islamic beliefs and due to its perceived anti-liberation position in 1971 by supporting a unified Pakistan. One simply has nothing to do with the other.

The danger in what is occurring on the streets of Dhaka today is that mob rule prevails and the country is descending dramatically and rapidly towards civil war. The current Government is doing little to stem the flow of violence. If anything, by supporting the protesters, it is throwing fuel on the flames of discontent. To this point, the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, has been reported as saying in Parliament that she would talk to the judges to convince them to take the sentiments of the protesters into account in formulating their decisions. It is notable that one of the first judgments issued by the Tribunal referred to the ‘will of the people’ in reaching its decision clearly demonstrating the emotive manner in which these trials are now being conducted.

On 28 February 2013, the third accused, Maulana Delwar Hossain Sayedee, was convicted and sentenced to death following a trial that was characterized by prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, witness perjury, witness abduction and a flagrant denial of basic human rights standards. The call for death echoed by the Shahbagh demonstrators has seemingly dictated the course of events unfolding in the Tribunal in an atmosphere where defence witnesses are now too afraid to appear and where the judges have now been swayed by mob, anti-Jamaat sentiment. The big question is what would have been the response of the Shahbagh demonstrators had Sayedee not received the death sentence. It is clear that the Tribunal Judges were under such pressure to respond to the public calls for blood that, had they not responded as such, it is not inconceivable that it could have been their own blood spilt on Shahbagh. It has become a question of damned if you do damned if you don’t.

It is of course unquestionable that the nine-month liberation war that saw East Pakistan secede from the dominant rule in West Pakistan caused suffering on a massive scale. Figures ranging between 300,000 and 3 million are reported to have died during the conflict. Murder, rape and torture were prevalent. Millions of refugees were forced to flee to neighbouring India. It is therefore unquestionable that there should be a judicial response. In fact, immediately after the cessation of hostilities, the International Commission of Jurists opined that an international tribunal under the auspices of the United Nations should be established in order to bring to justice all those who bore responsibility for crimes of an international character. It was recognised that although the Pakistan Military leadership bore significant responsibility, crimes were committed on all sides and consequently an international response was required. These calls went unheeded. Little attention was given to Bangladesh and as a consequence a culture of impunity, which has pervaded Bangladesh politics ever since, was ignored for 41 years.

My involvement in this process over the last two years has taught me one thing; no one really cares about Bangladesh. I have to confess that is one of the saddest aspects of this whole process. How do you make people care? Why is this not front-page news in the western media? Is it the fact that there is no oil? Do we have no real interest in the future of Bangladesh? It would seem that unless we start paying attention, start listening and start thinking what it is Bangladesh now needs, and by Bangladesh I mean all the people of Bangladesh and not just the Government and its cronies, it is quite conceivable that Bangladesh will descend into bitter sectarian conflict. The leaders of Bangladesh, all leaders, must also start putting to one side their petty squabbles and also look to how this process can better serve a purpose of justice and accountability.

Violence and injustice

The Tribunal was established with the stated aim of bringing to justice those who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide during the 1971 War of Liberation. The pursuit of justice for the victims of the undeniable atrocities that occurred during 1971 is indeed important. Sadly, the opportunity for Bangladesh to come to terms with its past has been missed. The manner in which the Government has attempted to influence the judicial process risks not only destroying Bangladesh’s opportunity to come to terms with its past, but it also risks creating a very dangerous precedent in international justice that could infect the attempts of its neighbours, including Burma and Sri Lanka, to bring an end to impunity.

On 21 January 2013 the Tribunal convicted Abdul Kalam Azad, the first accused, in his absence and sentenced him to death. Azad is believed to be in Pakistan, having fled shortly after the initiation of the investigation. A state attorney was appointed to represent him. His attorney had no prior experience in conducting a war crimes case. He had 3 weeks to prepare and called no evidence in defence of the charges. His closing speech, in what was the first case of Genocide in Bangladesh in 41 years lasted less than two hours. It is notable that the appointed lawyer was a student member of the current ruling Awami League Party.

The recent life sentence handed down by the Tribunal on 5 February 2013 against Abdul Quader Mollah has done little to quench the determination of the Bangladeshi government to see all of the accused executed. Far from respecting the Tribunal’s decision, a hastily arranged amendment was passed which would allow the State to appeal against the sentence – i.e. to ensure that Abul Quader Mollah will face the death penalty. This development follows shortly after last month’s death sentence passed in absentia. The judgments in both cases are guided by a distinctly pro-Bangladesh narrative and unashamed bias against those whose political ideologies conflicted with that of the current ruling party. The actual evidence against the two men was of secondary importance. Indeed, the judgment in Mollah states in the second paragraph that “the degree of fairness as has been contemplated in the [International Crimes Tribunal Act of 1973] and the Rules of Procedure…are to be assessed with reference to the national wishes.” This is a deeply disturbing statement to find in any legal judgment. There are numerous errors of law in both the Azad and Mollah cases that demonstrate a lack of understanding of complex principles of international humanitarian law and the elements required to establish crimes against humanity and genocide.

The Sayedee conviction and sentence represents the most disturbing display of manipulated justice. It should serve as a warning that the Government of Bangladesh is driving the country deeper into sectarian conflict, and that the violence on the streets of its major cities is likely to increase.

Other developments are of similar concern. In the case against one of the accused, Professor Ghulam Azam, one defence witness was recently threatened, apparently by a member of the prosecution, with facing charges for war crimes himself if he decides to testify on behalf of the defence. Another potential defence witness was recently arrested. This reflects a similar incident that received international attention in November 2012, when a prosecution-turned-defence witness was abducted by plain-clothed police officers outside the gates of the Tribunal on the morning of his testimony. In all instances, the police, the authorities and the judges were informed of the situation but did nothing.

The plethora of problems with the trials generally has been published widely both in Bangladesh and in the international media. Following last November’s leaked Skype conversations and emails, between the former presiding judge and Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Md Nizamul Huq with an undeclared third party, revealed to be a Bangladeshi law professor residing in Belgium, the scale of the injustice that the accused face has become clear. It must be stated that in light of the exposed transcripts of these conversations and emails, it appears obvious that even the most basic standards of fairness and due process have been wilfully ignored.

What is also clear from the leaked conversations and emails is the overwhelming evidence of serious judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, and the collusion of the Government with members of the judiciary and prosecution to ensure quick convictions. Indeed, the exposure of these conversations was the validation of years of criticism of the Tribunal since its inception by prominent international bodies including the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Amnesty International as well as the UK House of Lords and US Ambassador for Global Justice, Stephen Rapp, to mention but a few.

Given the fact that all the cases have now reached the final stages and the accused, having not received a fair trial by any reasonable standard or observance, face imminent death upon conviction, the US and UK governments must take prompt and collective action to ensure that the rule of law and the fundamental human rights of the accused are observed. In particular, the evident violation of an accused person’s right under international law to a fair trial, as provided by Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (to which Bangladesh is bound), is a major issue about which both governments should be very concerned.

Turning a blind eye to the injustice that is currently unfolding in Bangladesh is no longer an option. What is required now, is immediate and effective action to ensure that the trials of the accused before the Tribunal are suspended pending an independent, international investigation into the serious allegations of misconduct against members of the Tribunal including judges and prosecutors, as well as senior members of the Bangladeshi Government and undeclared third parties.

The perpetrators of the crimes committed during 1971 deserve to be punished and the victims deserve closure. However, only a fair trial before an impartial and independent panel of judges will enable Bangladesh, as a nation, to move past the lingering pain brought about by the legacy of war.

Article from The Economist published today, entitled “Bangladesh’s War Crimes Trial: Bloodletting after the Fact”. The text is below: 

THE immediate effect of the latest verdict from the “International Crimes Tribunal” was the worst single day of political violence in the history of modern Bangladesh. Actually a domestic court, the tribunal is tasked with trying the men who stand accused of committing atrocities during the 1971 war that gave birth to Bangladesh as a nation independent from Pakistan.

On February 28th it issued its third verdict: death by hanging, for Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, now one of the leaders of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh’s biggest Islamist party, for the murder, abduction, rape, torture and persecution of his countrymen. His sentence had been expected.

Members of Shibir, the Jamaat’s student wing, and their supporters reacted furiously to the sentence against one of their leaders. Within 24 hours at least 35 people were killed, including four policemen. The police fired into the protesters, shooting dead at least 23 of them. In southern Bangladesh, attacks on the homes and temples of Hindus were reported. By the night of February 28th the government had deployed the Bangladesh Border Guards, a paramilitary force, in a bid to maintain law and order around the country. On the morning of March 1st it imposed a ban on public assembly in four volatile districts; in one of those places, it has been reported, Shibir activists beat to death a supporter of the government’s party.

The violent response to Mr Sayeedi’s sentence casts doubt on the notion that a public act of vengeance against the Jamaat might inspire a sort of catharsis for the country. If the reaction thus far is any guide, something much uglier is yet to unfold. Mr Sayeedi is far from being one of the most important leaders on trial but he is a twice-elected member of parliament and a popular preacher. His sympathisers have endeavoured to frame the contest between the prosecution and the defence as a battle between anti-Islamic elements of society and the pious.

In all 50 people have died in protests and other responses to the trials in the weeks since the court condemned another Jamaat leader to death on January 21st, after a trial in absentia.Two weeks after that, the same tribunal sentenced Abdul Quader Mollah, Jamaat’s assistant secretary-general, to life in prison, on charges of murder, rape and torture. That judgment triggered huge protests centred around the intersection at Shahbag, in downtown Dhaka, against the Jamaat-e-Islami and its leaders. The demonstrations were peaceful, even as the demonstrators called for the maximum penalty to be brought to bear against the trials’ defendants.

Seven more verdicts are due, most of them are expected to come within a matter of months. They include the cases of the Jamaat’s current leader, Motiur Rahman Nizami, as well as the party’s head in 1971, Ghulam Azam. Under a newly amended war-crimes law the appeals process must be completed within 90 days. If, as is widely expected, the defendants are found guilty, then the entire leadership of the Jamaat, and also two senior members of the main opposition group, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), could be sent to the gallows this year.

At one point Mr Sayeedi’s conviction had been expected by mid-December. It was delayed after the presiding judge, Mohammad Nizamul Huq, resigned as chairman of the tribunal on December 11th, following questions put to him by The Economist and the subsequent publication in Bangladesh of private e-mails which cast doubt upon his role and upon the court proceedings.

The reconstituted tribunal struck down applications for a retrial on behalf of Mr Sayeedi and other defendants. Anyone judging the trials by international standards will be thoroughly unimpressed by the process. Reacting to Mr Sayeedi’s verdict, the International Commission of Jurists said the perpetrators of atrocities “should be brought to justice, not subjected to vengeance”. In this case one of the three sentencing judges had heard only a fraction of the prosecution’s evidence, another had heard none of it and the third had heard no evidence whatsoever.

The demonstrators at Shahbag, who had been calling for the death penalty, were jubilant at the news that Mr Sayeedi is to die. Many of them are calling too for a ban on the Jamaat itself, with the demand that its partisans should “go back to Pakistan”. The Jamaat’s violent reaction may sharpen some of these protesters’ dissatisfactions, as well as their demands: for further capital punishment, for a vote to have Bangladesh declared a secular state or for even broader change of its rotted-out political system.

Already the political consequences of the trials and the backlash are momentous. The trials are likely to be a vote winner for the Awami League (AL), the party of the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina. The AL have campaigned on the promise of holding the trials. When their spin doctors polled thousands of young Bangladeshis in the run-up to the 2008 elections they discovered something extraordinary: four out of five of their respondents supported the idea of holding the trials.

No matter if UN experts urge the government to ensure that the trials be fair. The awkwardness that comes with being a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights will not bother most voters very much. The AL must hope that wrapping up these trials will help sway undecided voters in the next parliamentary elections—which the AL’s politicians say they will aim to hold in December 2013.

In purely political terms, the chief consequence of the Jamaat’s violent fight for survival is the existential dilemma it presents for the BNP. The conventional wisdom within the party’s leadership has long been that the Jamaat’s street-fighting capabilities and the votes from its marginal seats make it an indispensable ally. Looming executions within its leadership, along with the fact that it is now polling a mere 1% of the popular vote, may well force the rest of the opposition to reconsider its options.

Please see the following for a sample letter to send to your MP or representative. A copy can be downloaded here: Letter_to_MPs_on_ICT 02-13

Dear

The International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh

Bangladesh is currently trying alleged war criminals for crimes committed during the independence war of 1971, under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 as amended in 2009. This Act established the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). The original intention of the Act was to try the Pakistani military and auxiliary forces, which were considered responsible for war crimes committed during Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971.

However, instead of trying these Pakistani forces in the aftermath of the war, the Act is being used today in a manner that targets members of the political opposition, alleging that they engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity as members of the Bengali auxiliary forces of the Pakistani Army. Further, the Act does not encompass alleged war crimes committed against non-Bengalis (predominantly Biharis) by pro-liberation freedom fighters. Therefore, there is widespread concern that the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act is being used as a political tool to weaken the opposition, rather than the tool for justice that it should be. This is against a background of brutal suppression by the governing Awami League party of freedom of speech and political expression, including the carrying out of extra-judicial killings, torture and detention without trial, as reported by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The International Crimes Tribunal has been the subject of concern to many leading international bodies and organisations, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the International Bar Association, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as US Ambassador for War Crimes Stephen Rapp. Key concerns include:

• the accused are afforded neither internationally accepted defendants’ rights nor fundamental national constitutional rights;
• lack of definitions for key crimes, including ‘crimes against humanity’;
• interrogation of defendants in the absence of counsel and without knowledge of the charges against them;
• extraordinary sources accepted as evidence, including general media reports and hearsay[1]; and
• apparent bias on the part of the Tribunal members based on participation at mock “peoples’ courts”, which prejudged the cases of key defendants, with mock convictions and the burning of effigies to symbolise their execution;
• collusion between judges, the prosecution, the government and international lawyers with respect to court proceedings and  the drafting of final judgments (see further below).

Professor Ghulam Azam, aged 90, was arrested on 11 January 2012 on 62 charges including the absurd charge of responsibility “for all atrocities committed across the country between March 25, 1971, and December 16, 1971”. Azam politically supported the unity of West and East Pakistan at the time of the war of independence, but he was opposed to a military solution to political problems and spoke out repeatedly against the crimes perpetrated by the military and paramilitary. Ghulam Azam’s family, many of whom are British citizens, are deeply concerned at the allegations being made against him and fear that he may eventually be convicted by virtue of media reports and hearsay evidence alone. The punishment for any such conviction will almost certainly be execution,[2] probably by hanging.

Azam is currently detained under very difficult conditions; aggravated by the fact that he has a number of age-related ailments. Despite not yet being indicted on any charges, he is being held virtually in solitary isolation and permitted merely a half-hour visit from his family a week, which is occasionally denied.

In November 2012, Human Rights Watch has, expressed concern regarding an alleged defence witness in one of the cases who was allegedly abducted by plain clothes police outside the tribunal gates.[3]  Defence lawyers have been intimidated and harassed by Bangladeshi police and intelligence services.[4] In December 2012, the Economist magazine published an analysis of the contents of leaked email and Skype communications between the chairman of the ICT and a Brussels-based lawyer of Bangladeshi origin.[5] According to the Economist, the communications indicated collusion between the judge, the prosecution and Bangladeshi government. The leaks resulted in the chairman resigning from the tribunal; however the tribunal has continued to proceed with the relevant cases, despite newly appointed judges not having been present for the entire trial.[6]

United Nations human rights experts have expressed concerns regarding the impartiality of judges and the prosecution, and their independence from the executive. They have also stressed that compliance with international standards of fair trial and due process should be at their most stringent when the death penalty is being imposed.[7]

Most recently, the Bangladeshi government amended the ICT legal framework in order to enable the prosecution to overturn a sentence imposed on one of the defendants, a step which Human Rights Watch considers “make a mockery of the trial process”. Human Rights Watch also reported that defence witnesses are deciding not to appear in court out of fear for their safety. It also expressed concern that the judges will be forced to give death sentence in all other cases – including Azam’s.[8]

I respectfully request that you table a Parliamentary Question on this matter and do all that is in your power to stop this injustice continuing. I also request that the British government send a message of concern to the Government of Bangladesh regarding the human rights situation generally and specifically the on-going war crimes trials.

Yours sincerely,

Key International Responses to Bangladesh ICT.

Please continue to campaign against the unfair and illegal trial of Professor Ghulam Azam

Points of note:

• Following intimidation and the aggressive nature of the Shahbag protests, many defence witnesses have been too afraid for their safety and the protection of their families to appear in court and testify for the accused. Climate of fear undermines this sham tribunal. Prof Azam began with thousands of witnesses, the court limited it [on prosecution request, astoundingly] to twelve, they are now proceeding on just one defence witness statement. This means Prof Azam had a total of one witness permitted in this high profile case of 52 charges that is 42 yrs after the events of 71.
  
• The defence lawyers have been harassed and intimidated and lawyers from abroad have been prevented from entering Bangladesh to provide assistance to the defence team.
• The government have passed a law which allows them to challenge the judge’s sentence in the case – this contravenes international legal agreements that Bangladesh is party to.
• There is clear evidence of collusion between the government, the original judge Nizamul Hoq (who has since resigned) and prosecutors.
• Due to the current climate of fear in Bangladesh, there is no possibility of a fair trial and the trial must be moved to an international setting with impartial observers.

Please act now to prevent a serious miscarriage of justice that will seriously damage Bangladesh’s future!

How you can help

Please sign this petition to the UK government if you are a British citizen

Please sign this petition to the US government if you are a US citizen

Join the growing number of voices criticizing the Bangladesh government and its illegal trial: 

Facebook Free Ghulam Azam

Twitter @FreeGhulamAzam

The recent events in Bangladesh are dealt with in this article by Mahin Khan for Open Democracy.

The text is below:

Laws of Passion – Shahbag Protests

The second verdict handed down by Bangladesh’s war crimes tribunal is life imprisonment. Now a death sentence is being demanded in mass protests supported by the ruling regime, with calls for violence that extend into Bangladeshi society. Yet the guilty verdict itself may be a far cry from sound.

Thousands have gathered across Bangladesh in protest across several cities. Images of the freedom movements of the Middle East are evoked, but this is no freedom movement. The protesters have gathered to speak out against the second verdict handed down by the Bangladesh International War Crimes Tribunal (ICT). Abdul Quader Molla, a senior leader of the opposition party, Jamaat-i-Islami, was found guilty by the ICT of crimes against humanity and sentenced to life imprisonment. To the protestors, who began their movement in the Shahbag crossing of the capital Dhaka, this is not enough. They want Molla and the other accused hanged.

Molla denies having committed the crimes and repeated his denial upon receiving the sentence. His party has strongly condemned the verdict as politically motivated while his lawyers have pledged to appeal to the high court. Among the concerns raised by the defence are that the prosecution only presented 12 witnesses, many of whom were ‘hearsay’ witnesses and beneficiaries of the ruling Awami League led regime that has championed this tribunal. More tellingly, the defence themselves were permitted to only present six witnesses, half those permitted the prosecution, in this high profile and much belated war crimes case. Ultimately, the lawyers observed that the trial dealt with deeply emotional issues and the judges had permitted their emotions to cloud their judgement.

The concerns are glaring. Nonetheless, the government’s junior Law Minister, Qamrul Islam, has expressed dissatisfaction at the ‘leniency’ of the verdict. Islam has, incredibly, confirmed the government is now preparing to make changes to the ICT Act to allow the prosecution to appeal the verdict of life imprisonment and seek the higher sentence of execution. Under current laws the prosecution can only appeal acquittals. The Law Commission of Bangladesh has already presented draft amendments to the Bangladesh Law Ministry.

There has been much international criticism for the ICT, and not without reason. The most recent, and most high profile, includes a statement issued by the United Nations in which Christof Heyns, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, “expressed alarm” at the fair trial and due process concerns raised, stating “Capital punishment may be imposed only following proceedings that give all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial and due process, at least equal to those stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a State party.”

Not long before the UN statement, Human Rights Watch, in its latest of a series of press releases expressing concerns over the ICT and as part of its World Report 2013, condemned the current running of the tribunal. The report commented on “glaring violations of fair trial standards” in the trials of the ICT, observing that “serious flaws in the law and rules of procedure governing these trials have gone unaddressed, despite proposals from the US government and many international experts.”

These are not the only reputable – and clearly impartial – international bodies to have expressed concerns. Apprehensions have been vocalised by members of the House of Lords in Britain, Lord Avebury and Lord Carlile. The US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, Stephen J Rapp has also spoken out, as has the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales and the International Centre for Transitional Justice. Critique for the current process has also come from the International Bar Association, as well as Suzannah Linton, a respected legal academic. Previous statements of concern issued by Human Rights Watch, particularly regarding an abducted defence witness, the need for retrials following a whistleblower leak that exposed improper coordination between judges, prosecution and government, and on the trials’ flawed legal framework, can be viewed here, here and here.

Perhaps the most interesting international report on the ICT, however, came from The Economist. In an analysis, the British based news magazine revealed it had been given a cache of leaked material that exposed ‘a disturbing pattern’ of collusion between the presiding judge of the tribunal, Nizamul Haque Nasim, an international lawyer based in Brussels, Ziauddin Ahmed, and the prosecution team. Furthermore, it became clear from the leaks that the government was applying serious pressure on the ICT to come up with quick verdicts.

For their part, the opposition party, Jamaat-i-Islami, and its youth wing, Chatra Shibir, have been protesting the partial and political nature of the ICT, under which all their senior most leaders stand accused. They have, however, been specific in asserting that they will stand by any new court that is established on fair grounds and following due process. These protests, while large and countrywide, have not enjoyed the same widespread and rose-tinted coverage by the pro-regime media as Shahbag has. Instead, this opposition has been sharply and consistently condemned as a ‘conspiracy’ to undermine the tribunal, with complete disregard for the opposition party’s expressed acceptance of a tribunal that respects due process and fulfills international standards. Meanwhile, the police, in coalition with the ruling regime’s youth, the Bangladesh Chatra League, have administered a brutal crackdown on opposition rallies, leaving many dead and arresting hundreds. Recent protests resulted in four deaths of Jamaat and Shibir members, including a boy of class 10.

The protests in Shahbag and elsewhere in the country, are an interesting addition to the mix. These protestors, unlike the opposition, have faced no police violence; indeed the police have been helping them along by diverting traffic (meanwhile, police have prevented another opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, from holding a prescheduled rally on Saturday). This is perhaps unsurprising, given the protesters of Shahbag are repeating the very demands members of the ruling regime have been making throughout the ICT process. While Shahbag may claim to be apolitical, it is evident their concordance with the nation’s ruling politicians is doing much to assist the cause. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself has openly expressed solidarity with the protest and committed herself to fulfilling the protestors’ demands, stating in parliament “Every word of their oath is justified. We will do whatever necessary to implement their oath. It is our commitment” and even whimsically commenting “My soul is also with them, I wish I could join them at Shahbagh.”

It has also proven almost impossible to reason with the protestors, many of whom aggressively denounce any critique of their movement as “pro-Pakistani”, “pro-war criminal”, “unpatriotic” and accuse critics of being “razakars” (“collaborators” – a derogatory term for those deemed to have assisted the Pakistan army in 1971), “neo-razakars” or “children of war criminals” among any number of other tasteless epithets. That blindly angry individuals of this kind are likely to descend upon this article too is quite expected.

The protest has gathered people of varying ages with a common cause. Photos are appearing of protestors wearing “we want razakars hanged” bandannas across their forehead, while Shahbag slogans are being broadcast across the media: “We have only one demand, hang the Razakars”, “Hanging, we want hanging!”, “Make batons, beat Shibir”, “Throw shoes at the face of Razakars”, “catch Shibir and slaughter them”. Meanwhile, there have been placards proclaiming “I want to murder Quader Molla and spend two months in prison”. Even young children have been photographed with “we want the razakars hanged” painted in blood red across their torso.

The terms of this protest are truly disturbing in their open advocacy of violence and capital punishment, particularly in their inclusion of children in this violent and vindictive approach. While Bangladesh was freed as a nation in 1971, it is clear that it is yet to be freed from the aggressive hate of the dominant liberation narrative. Much as the Bengali media may try to claim it, this rally is no Tahrir Square, where the noble cause of protest was freedom from oppressive dictatorship and the establishment of democracy. This rally is one of hate and revenge. As one astute blogger notes, this is not Shahbag Square, this is Shahbag More with more people than usual. Some protestors have even created the slogan, “we’ve got the razakars, what about their children?” Little is left to be said.

The Shahbag protestors have also been calling for the banning of Jamaat-i-Islami, taking pledges to boycott many of Jamaat’s institutions, including hospitals and banks. That a democratic party – the only one to be internally democratic in structure in a nation of dynastic political parties – should be banned in the name of secular democracy is an incredible claim. As a registered political party that observes due political processes, there is little claim to ban the party if democracy is to be respected. The democratic way to oppose would be to use the ballot – if you don’t like them, don’t vote for them. Yet this fact appears to elude the self-proclaimed secular democrats of this protest, and a more autocratic law of governance seems to paradoxically reign.

Aristotle states in his Politics that “the law is reason unaffected by desire” (in a more popular variant: “the law is reason free from passion”). The Shahbag protest only confirms that Bangladesh is singularly ill-suited to hold a tribunal over the terrible war crimes of 1971. As the glaringly controversial and compromised tribunal continues to conduct problematic trials, the people on the ground of Shahbag are evidently more interested in revenge fed by deep vitriolic passions than true justice conducted by a rational and balanced court of law. For this reason, among the great many others, it is imperative that the Bangladesh ICT be transferred abroad, to be conducted under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, where heated passions of either party in this conflict cannot compromise a court in which lives – both those murdered in 1971 and those behind bars today – are in the balance.

Despite international condemnation, the ICT Bangladesh Tribunal rejected applications for a retrial. The reasoning given was that the trial depends on evidence and witness statements, rather than the orders and formal charges alone. This ignores the fundamental flaw in the trial that none of the three judges will have heard the evidence in its entirety. In addition, the clear evidence of bias as revealed in the now infamous Skype discussions is being ignored. 

The ICT has however asked Ziauddin Ahmed to explain his role in the tribunal proceedings.