Home / Articles / Miscarriage of justice in Bangladesh

Miscarriage of justice in Bangladesh

Mohammad Hossain

Tuesday, November 24, 2015 – WITH the execution of Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mujahid on the eve of the 21st of November, controversy surrounding the war crimes trials in Bangladesh has attained new dimensions. Not only did they face gross injustice, but as will be elucidated later on in this piece, the defendants were victim to dirty tricks and cheap propaganda by vested quarters as well.
Earlier, on the 18th of November, the Appellate division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh rejected review petitions by the two politicians against the death sentences imposed on them by the International War Crimes Tribunal, a local court set to try perpetrators of crimes against humanity during the war of independence of the country in 1971. The trials have however have been rife with controversy, and local and international human rights bodies and renowned legal experts like Geoffrey Robertson QC have raised concerns on the proceedings and various aspects of successive trials since their inception in 2010. The latest verdicts against Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mujahid are no different.
A seven-time MP with an illustrious political career, Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury was a sitting MP from the port city Chittagong in Bangladesh. He was the son of the well known Bengali politician Fazlul Quader Chowdhury who served as the 5th speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan from East Pakistan from 1963-65. All charges, and subsequently death sentences against Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury hinge on the claim that he was at Chittagong during the 13th and 19th of August, 1971. As reported by David Bergman, the defense argued that Chowdhury was not present in Chittagong on these two particular dates (or indeed throughout the 9 month war).
However, the tribunal not only limited Chowdhury’s defence to 5 witnesses against the 41 witnesses by the prosecution, it also did not take into account sworn affidavits submitted to the court by several individuals, among them 5 prominent Pakistani witnesses who say that Chowdhury was in Karachi in April 1971, the time of occurrence of the four offences he has been accused of. The court simply ruled them as been inadmissible, vaguely stating that they had not been “submitted correctly”.
The verdict against Ali Ahsan Mujahid is another classical case of a miscarriage of justice. An illustrious politician, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid is the Secretary General of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest Islamic political party in Bangladesh. He was Minister for Social Welfare during the tenure of the 4-Party Alliance government led by BNP-Jamaat from 2001-2006. He was sentenced, on the basis of assumption and hearsay, of being guilty of the conspiracy to murder all intellectuals in 1971, a bizarre statement by its own right considering that there was no concrete evidence presented to substantiate such a claim.
Mujahid was convicted on four charges along with the death sentence for “killing intellectuals”. An in depth analogy of the trial reveals that fundamentally problematic hearsay statements were used to indict the defendant, such as the statement of Rustom Ali Mollah.
A 14-year old guard at the time, Rustom claimed that he had seen Mujahid at the gate of the Physical Training Institute, 3-4 months after the beginning of the ‘liberation’ war, conversing with an army officer from far off. Although he confessed that he had never seen or heard of Mujahid beforehand and that he heard the other guards saying Mujahid was here along with others, his evidence was used to ‘prove’ that Mujahid had been scheming with the Pakistani army and was involved with the “intellectual killing” at this institute later in 1971. The only other witness in this charge is Jahir Uddin Jalal, who was 13 years old at the time, and gave hearsay evidence, claiming that Rustom the guard had told him that Mujahid came to the Physical Training institute in Mohammadpur, Dhaka. On cross examination, Rustom the guard claimed that he did not know who Jalal was.
An interesting point to note here is that the father of Rustom Ali the guard, Mohammad Rohom Ali Molla, is still alive and was also working at the Center, also as a guard, at the time. Yet the father was not called to be witness. Similarly, the erstwhile principal of the very same institute, Muhib Ullah Khan Majlis and his son, the present day principal, Tareq Iqbal Khan Majlis (he was a class 8 student in 1971), were not brought to the tribunal as witnesses as well. Moreover, the investigation officer did not take the statement of any teacher or staff, who were employees of that college during that time in 1971 or bring them as witnesses.
Despite the clear discrepancies highlighted above, the court wasted no time in handing down the two prominent opposition politicians the death sentence. The trials, and in particular, the recent verdicts have been widely criticized by many rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, NWPJ, ICJ, prominent politicians like Lord Carlyle and Tom Brake and intellectuals such as Toby Cadman or Grahame Lucas, all of who had asked the Bangladesh government to stop the executions. Furthermore, on the day of their execution, both politicians were subject to sleazy tactics and propaganda on part of those vested interests, notably the government.
Earlier, the government shut down social media communication tools Facebook, Viber and Whatsapp among others from the 18th of November, the same day the review appeals were rejected. On the 20th of November, local news media surprisingly reported that both men had appealed for Presidential clemency, a fact that the families of both vehemently denounced as false and fake. No further explanation was given by the government, which hurriedly announced that the “clemency applications” had been rejected, and oblivious to all concerns, proceeded to carry out the executions after 12 midnight on 21st November.
Apparently, as far as the Bangladesh government was concerned, it had successfully weathered all criticism by simply choosing to ignore them. Blinded by myopically construed political interests, it had chosen to disregard all valid concerns surrounding fair trial standards and create another dangerous precedent by carrying out a miscarriage of justice instead.

—Courtesy: WB as reproduced by Pakistan Observer on November 24, 2015

About admin

Check Also

Is the new push for Afghan peace genuine?

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said during an unannounced visit to Kabul on July 09 that there was “now hope” for peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. “An element of the progress is the capacity that we now have to believe that there is now hope,” Pompeo told a press conference. “Many of the Taliban now see that they can’t win on the ground militarily. That’s very deeply connected to President Trump’s strategy… Make no mistake, there’s still a great deal of work to do”, he added. However, recent BBC study reveals that Taliban are openly active in 70 per cent of Afghanistan; Afghan government controls 122 districts, or about 30 per cent of the country. Yet, it does not mean that government controlled territories are free from Taliban attacks. “Kabul and other major cities, for example, suffered major attacks – launched from adjacent areas, or by sleeper cells,” the report said. When asked about the BBC’s study, the Pentagon did not comment directly, but pointed to the latest figures by the NATO-led coalition, asserting that about 56 per cent of Afghanistan’s territory was under Afghan government control or influence. The study quoted a spokesperson for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani playing down the findings. The BBC study also said Islamic State had a presence in 30 districts, but noted it did not fully control any of them. Earlier Taliban had refused the government’s request to extend their three-day Eid ceasefire, launching fresh attacks that have seen scores killed or injured. Resurgence of insider attacks after almost a year’s gap also belies Pompeo’s claims. President Ashraf Ghani thanked Pompeo for US support, hailing Trump’s strategy as a “game changer” in the conflict. Pompeo said while the United States would have an “important” role in peace talks, the process must be Afghan-led. Taliban’s key demands for engaging in talks has been the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, but observers say they now appear amenable to a timetable for their pull-out. However, Taliban have rejected the latest peace talks offer. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said Taliban “are not interested in talks while foreign troops are still on Afghan soil.” Mujahid also repeated long-standing Taliban claims that Afghan government officials are “puppets. Renewed violence and the Taliban’s recent vow to continue their fight has dampened hopes that the truce would provide a clear path to peace talks. Ambassador Alice G Wells, US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, visits Islamabad [and Kabul] so frequently that Pakistan’s foreign office might be thinking of offering her complimentary accommodation for setting up Islamabad camp office! Beyond routines Wells has a special assignment: to hold Taliban by their throat and present them to President Ashraf Ghani, as soon as possible. Ghani already has an America dictated power sharing draft agreement in his pocket. And American support for granting him blanket clearance for rigging his second term election is contingent upon making reasonable performance on this track. Both Afghanistan and the US want to reach some kind of deal with the Taliban before the parliamentary elections due later this year. Hence Wells’ urgency! Arduous challenge for Alice is that Taliban insist on talking directly to the US, as they think that present status of Afghanistan is of a country under American occupation. So they want to engage with the power that be—ostensibly, logical thinking. With focus on Taliban, Wells is putting in strenuous effort to steer the Pak-US relationship clear of mines laid by President Donal Trump. During her latest visit, she reiterated that Pak-US relationship is important and the US would like to carry it forward. Despite Trump sown hiccups, these bilateral relations are still presenting a functional façade. Pakistan is confident that Taliban could be brought to the negotiating table after the success of recent short ceasefire on Eid. However, it feels that bringing Taliban to negotiating point is not the sole responsibility of Pakistan, but is a shared errand. In a parallel development, during several rounds of discussions between Pakistani and Afghan officials, both sides have worked out a roadmap on how to invite Taliban to join the political process. Afghan President has confirmed that Pakistan and Afghanistan have made considerable progress on how to achieve peace in Afghanistan. This however does not match ground realities. Against this backdrop, Wells’ recent visit to Kabul and Islamabad was significant. While in Kabul, she stated that American leadership desires decisive moves in the peace talks. Wells said there was widespread support for peace, underlined by scenes of unarmed fighters mingling with government troops and civilians on the streets of Afghan cities during Eid festival. Wells said that Taliban’s failure to engage in talks to end Afghanistan’s nearly 17-year old conflict was ‘unacceptable’: “I think it creates this impulse for everyone to renew their efforts to find a negotiated political solution. “Increasingly I think it’s becoming simply unacceptable for the Taliban not to negotiate”— a wishful assumption. Taliban soon responded by multiple attacks killing scores of people in Jalalabad and elsewhere. Wells also called on Army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa. Views were exchanged on issues of mutual interest, regional security and cooperation between both the countries, the Inter-Services Public Relations said in a statement. She “commended the sacrifices and resilience of the people and armed forces of Pakistan and appreciated the role Pakistan Army has played in battling the scourge of terrorism”. Both agreed on continued engagement at multiple levels. Trump has suspended military and civil sector aid to Pakistan since the beginning of this year alongside holding back the already paid for military hardware. America is also defaulting on arears of Coalition Support Fund, amount that America owes to Pakistan that latter has already spent on account of logistical services provided to the US. Finance Minister, Dr Shamshad Akhtar also held a meeting with Wells. They discussed the current state of Pak-US relations with particular focus on economic cooperation. Finance Minister said that such bilateral visits enhance understanding of each other’s point of view on important issues. The Minister also briefed Alice Wells about Pakistan’s participation in the recently concluded FATF meeting. America had gone out of the way to have Pakistan placed on FATF grey list to the extent of circumventing the FTAF operating procedures. Wells said that since the Afghan government and United States were willing to start talking without preconditions, the onus was now on the Taliban to respond— once again logic stands on its head. “Right now it’s the Taliban leaders… who aren’t residing in Afghanistan, who are the obstacle to a negotiated political settlement,” Wells said. She forgot to account for those Taliban controlling over 70 percent of Afghan territories. Previous meaningful peace initiatives were deliberately scuttled by the US, one has to see how the current one proceeds! Only the forward movement of peace process will reflect on America’s sincerity of purpose, which is hard to discern—at least for now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *