Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi

 

A local court in Bangladesh, which calls itself the “International Crimes Tribunal”,  issued a verdict last week against Prof. Ghulam Azam, former president of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. The 90-year-old Azam has been sentenced to 90 years in prison for his alleged crimes against humanity which are said to have occurred 42 years ago during the civil war between West Pakistan and East Pakistan that led to the creation of the independent state of Bangladesh.



The court which pronounced the verdict was virtually a restoration of a court established in 1973 to try Pakistani military officers who were accused of committing crimes against humanity. These officers were taken as war prisoners by India and later they were released following a treaty signed by India with Pakistan and Bangladesh. During that period, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, founder of Bangladesh, declared a general amnesty with his famous saying: “Let the world know how Bengalis can forgive.” The incumbent government in Bangladesh has restored the old war crimes tribunal to undertake the trial of around 10 leaders of the opposition, including Ghulam Azam.



The first evidence relating to the innocence of Ghulam Azam came from the very words uttered by the presiding judge Justice A. T. M. Fazle Kabir prior to pronouncing the judgment. He said: “This case is different from others. The accused was never present in any account of atrocities and the main allegation against the accused is superior responsibility and that he was the chief of the East Pakistan unit of Jamaat - e - Islami during the 1971 Liberation War and the para-militia forces like Al-Badr and Al-Shams were formed with a large number of Jamaat members.” The judge also added: “The documents which the prosecution has submitted as evidence were not adequate. Books containing concrete information are more acceptable as reference.”



It is very strange that the court pronounced such a judgment against Ghulam Azam even after the utterance of these words by the presiding judge. Also, all the evidence presented by the prosecution consisted of newspaper cuttings and not even a single eyewitness was produced in court. The defense lawyer pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove  the charges framed by it against the professor, and that if the judgment was fair, then he would not have been sentenced to even a single minute in prison.



Also in the past week, the tribunal awarded the death penalty to Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed, Secretary General of Jamaat-e-Islami, for war crimes during the 1971 war of independence. With this verdict, the number of war crimes suspects who have been sentenced to death by the tribunal reached four, including the famous preacher and Vice President of Jamaat-e-Islami Sheikh Delwar Hossain Sayedee.



Two scandals rocked Bangladesh in the midst of the trial of war crimes suspects. One was the Skype scandal, exposed by the British magazine The Economist. The magazine disclosed Skype conversations between ICT’s presiding judge Mohammed Nizamul Haq and Ahmed Ziauddin, a war crimes expert of Bangladeshi origin living in Brussels, Belgium, who had nothing to do with the tribunal. It was also revealed that Ziauddin used to contact the public prosecutor, and this was a clear indication that he was dictating things to the prosecutor and the judge. This scandal eventually led to the resignation of the tribunal’s presiding judge which was sufficient to halt the tribunal proceedings. But the authorities did not pay any heed to criticism and appointed another judge to continue from where the presiding judge had stopped.



The second scandal was the issue of kidnapping the defense witness SukhRanjan Bali. According to the prosecution, it was Bali who testified that Sheikh Sayedee killed his brother. The prosecution included Bali’s name on the list of witnesses but he denied giving any testimony to the effect that Sheikh Sayedee had killed his brother. When Bali found that his testimony was fabricated as a prosecution witness, he wanted to return to the court to officially deny that testimony. However, he failed to do so as he was kidnapped when he arrived at the door of the court. He was forcefully whisked away in a secret police vehicle, and since then his whereabouts have been unclear. Even though lawyers informed the tribunal that the witness had been kidnapped, no investigation was made.  



However, a newspaper publishing from Dhaka reported that Bali was locked up in an Indian prison in Kolkata. In an interview with the newspaper, Bali asserted that he was kidnapped from near the door of the court and had to remain in police custody for several weeks. Then, he was taken to the border and pushed onto the Indian side where he was caught by Indian police. Bali was subjected to torture during interrogation as he was unable to give convincing answers to the questions of the policemen. Some human rights organizations voiced concern that Bali’s life could be in danger if he returned to Bangladesh and, therefore, they asked that he be given protection. The war crimes tribunal has come under severe criticism and its integrity was questioned within Bangladesh and abroad, especially after the exposure of the two scandals.



In Bangladesh, everyone knows that the proceedings of  the tribunal are a typical political trial in an attempt to remove the political rivals of the ruling party. Most international human rights bodies have sharply criticized the restoration of the tribunal. These bodies include the UN Human Rights Council, International Bar Association, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, in addition to the British House of Lords.



The House of Lords demanded that the Bangladesh government issue a formal invitation to a delegation of its lawyers to view the trial proceedings of those accused of war crimes at the tribunal and to meet all parties concerned, but the Bangladesh government ignored this demand. Everyone agrees that these trials were not up to the minimum international legal standard. Similarly, a delegation of Turkish lawyers visited Bangladesh and made some statements with regard to the trial of these respected figures, but this also did not influence the concerned authorities in any way and they continued issuing unjust verdicts.

 

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