Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

DeathSentenceofJamaatLeader

AliAhsanMohammadMujaheed
WhoisMujaheed?

June16,2015
TheSupremeCourtofBangladeshhasupheldthedeathpenaltytoJamaateIslamileader
andFormerAliAhsanMohammadMujaheed.
The Supreme Court headed by Chief Jus ce S.K. Sinha "dismissed" Ali Ahsan Mohammad
Mujaheed'sappeal.
OnMay27,thesamebenchfixedthedatea erconcludingargumentsbybothdefenceand
statecounsels.
Duringtheninedaysofhearingontheappeal,A orneyGeneralMahbubeyAlamarguedfor
thestatewhiletheBNPchiefsAdviserKhandkerMahbubHossainandSMShajahanstood
fortheJamaatleader.
Mujaheeds lawyers argued he had not served as the chief of alBadr. The inves ga ng
ocerhadnotfoundhisnameonthelistofalBadr,defencelawyerShishirMonirsaid.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina set up the tribunal in 2010 to inves gate abuses during the
independencewar.Hergovernmentsaysaboutthreemillionliveswerelostandthousands
ofwomenwererapedduringthewar.
Cri cssaythegovernmenthasabusedtheprocessasapoli caltooltotargetthetwobig
gestopposi onpar es,theBangladeshNa onalistParty(BNP)andJamaateIslami.

Mr.AliAhsanMohammadMu
jaheedistheSecretaryGeneral
ofBangladeshJamaateIslami,
apartyinopposi oninBangla
desh.Healsoservedthena on
astheSocialWelfareMinister
from20012006.Hehasplayed
pivotalroleinalltheprevious
movementagainsttheautocra
cytorestoredemocracyinthe
country.Butsimplyoutofpo
li calvende a,thepresent
governmentbroughtsome
falseandconcoctedcharges
againsthimastheyfailedto
tacklehimpoli cally.
Mujaheedwassentencedto
deathin2013inlinewiththe
allega onofcommi ngcrimes
againsthumanityduringthe
libera onwarof1971,charges
whichhadneverbeenheardin
last44years.
MrMujaheedwasastudent
leaderin1971andamong
thosewhosupportedaunified
Pakistan.
Helaterbecamesocialwelfare
ministerintheBangladeshNa
onalistPartyledgovernment
from20012006.
Heishighlyregardedforhis
oratoryandorganisa onal
skills.

Whataretheallega onsagainsthim?
SecretaryGeneralofBangladeshJamaateIslamiandformerSocialWelfareMinisterandpop
ularleaderMr.AliAhsanMujahidisheldcap veinprisonunlawfullyforlast5years.Heisa
vic mofpoli calvengeanceoftherulinggovernmentinBangladesh.Governmentinorderto
killhimhasconspiredtoconvicthimthroughthefalseaccusa onandcasesofcrimeagainst
humanityandfalsewitnessesgivenbypartymenguidedbytheblueprintdesignofthegovern
ment.Theallega onsbroughtagainsthimaretotallyfabricatedandstageddrama.
The1stallega onbroughtagainstMr.Mujahid was abduc ng and murder of journalist
SirajUddinHossain.WhereassonofSerajUddin,SahinRezaNurhimselfstatedatthecourt
thata ertheabduc onofhisfather,hefiled
acaseandgavewitnessunderthecollaborator
act in 1972/73 at the Ramna police sta on.
There was only one accused whose name is
Khalil. Khalil gave confessional statement and
inthetrialhewasawardedlife mesentence.
All the legal trial of the incident thus lawfully
se ledimmediatea ertheincidentofoence.
But again a er 43 years a er the incident, a

ll now-a-days, all the people who had witnessed the incident and the real vic ms of the
incident never men oned Ali Ahsan Mujahids
name with the incident. Many of them have
wri en books and ar cles in dierent journals
and newspaper. Even Rumis mother President
of Eka oter Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Commi ee
Jahanara Imams war me diary Ekkatorer Dinguludoesnthaveanymen onofMr.AliAhsan
Mujahids name. Therefore inclusion of his
name in the charge isnt just a conspiracy for
beinghisinvolvementwithJaamat-e-Islami?

concoctedcaseforabduc ngandmurderingof

Inthe6thallega onitwasmen onedthatMr.

SirajUddinwasbroughtagainstMujahidatthe

Ali Ahsan Mujahid was involved with

controversial tribunal. Ques on is now placed

Intellectual Killing. Whereas in the whole

before the na ons conscience isnt a new

charge sheet, it was not men oned that how

casefiledagainstMr.Mujahidonlytoimplicate

and where Mr. Mujahid killed and abducted

him which had already been resolved at the

whom or which intellectual had been killed by

trial court long me before? Whereas we all

Mujahid.Nochargehasmen onedanyspecific

knowthatthereisnosuchopportunitytotrial

date.Besidenofamilymembersoftheintellec-

afreshcasewhichisalreadyresolved.

Shahin Reza Nur clearly stated, his family

tuals who were the vic ms of physical training


ins tute so called incident didnt appear at the
tribunaltogivetes monyagainstMr.Mujahid.

members in past 43 years wrote memorial

Onlywitnessoftheincident,thesecurityguard

write-up about Shaheed Journalist Siraj Uddin

of Mohammadpur Physical Training Ins tute,

Hossains abduc on and murder. But not in

Rustam Ali Molla came to the court and rather

anyofthesewriteup,Mr.AliAhsanMujahids

said he or his father didnt give statement any-

name was included and intertwined with the

wherebeforeregardingthefactthattheyknew

case. Then whya er 44 years of the incident,

Mr. Mujahid during 1971 or they saw him at

Mr. Mujahid name is included with this

that meorsawhimcomingtophysicalcollege.

oence? Shahin Reza Nur confessed at the

Therefore isnt such baseless allega on is

cross examina on that he never complained

broughtonlytoentrapMr.Mujahid?

against Mr. Mujahid anywhere before and


except the tribunal never gave any statement

On the 7th charge Mr. Mujahid was given

men oning Mujahid as Al-Badr or the com-

death sentence- the so called Bakchor mass

mander. Then at what basis, government

genocide of Faridpur district was not even in-

wantstoshowthisinnocentpopularleaderas

cluded in the main formal charge. The tribunal

Al-Badr commander. Is his only crime is to

didnt take the charge into cognizance at all.

remaininvolvedwithIslamicmovement?

Though rule 23 of the Interna onal Crimes


(Tribunal) Act clearly says, if any oence is not

Inthe5thallega onMr.Mujahidischarged

taken into cognizance it would be dismissed

with torturing Rumi, Bodi, Jewel, and Altaf

automa cally. Whereas Mr. Mujahid was not

MahmudandothersattheoldM.P.hostel.But

charged only rather he has been sentenced

death penalty with death on this specific


chargewhichisseriousviola onoflaw.Genocide of such a large scale is not even describedinanyofthelibera onwarhistorical
book involving Faridpur district. Even the
book Muk jodde Faridpur supplied by the
prosecu on at the tribunal didnt men on
anything about the incident. The list of martyrs who had been killed during libera on
war, has been discovered by the IO of the
casebutnosaidvic mwasfoundinthatlist.
No monument or sign was found about the
martyrs of the incident at the Bakchor village.Thislackscredibilityoftheincidentasa
whole.
Inves ga on ocer Abdur Razzak didnt
recordthetes monyofShak Sahathe13th
witnessofthecharge.NurHossain,theinvesga ng ocer of the case against Maulana
Abul Kalam Azad had video recorded Sak
Sahastes monywhileconduc ngtheinvesga on against Mawlana Azad in Kolkata. In
that video, this witness didnt involve Mr.
Mujahidwiththecase,heinvolvedtwoother
people named Wahab and Kalu Bihari. This
witnessofMawlanaAbulKalamAzadscaseis
usedunlawfullyinMr.Mujahidscase.
Witness in the cross examina on confessed
he doesnt have any passport and without
passport he travelled to and from Kolkata 3
mes. There is no reason to believe such a
personwho violates rule according to lawof
witness. Sak Saha confessed at the tribunal
during his long stay at Bangladesh he didnt
lodgeanycaseabouthisfatherskillinginany
policesta onorcourt.Sak Sahaclaimshimself to be the only witness of the ma er. In
spite of knowing the killer he didnt file any
case in such long years. Is it believable?

In fact all the charges brought against Mr.


Mujahid are false, concocted and framed by
the government with ill poli cal intend. The
charges are brought to trial and punish Mr.
Mujahidaccordingtogovernmentsblueprint.
Mr.Mujahidwasastudentof23yearsoldat
1971. He did not hold any government posion. He was neither a military ocer nor a
civilian with high civilian authority. Even he
was not a policy maker of any party at such
age.
A er so many years the false charges that
areframedagainsthimareonlyaconspiracy
ofthegovernmenttotraphimforhisrolein
theIslamicmovementandIslam.
Pleasetakeastandagainstthisconspiracyof
thegovernment.

ThoughthegovernmentandICThave
statedthatjus cewasthepriority,
opposi onpar esJamaateIslamiand
theBNPaccusedtheprimeminis
terSheikhHasinaofusingthetribunal
topersecutethem.
In

December

2012,

conversa ons

and

emails between the judge and a Brussels-based


lawyer were published, which according to The
Economistrevealedthatthegovernmentwanted

Howbiasedandpoli cisedwasthecourt?

a quick verdict from the Interna onal Crimes

and

Tribunal.

viewirrespec veofwhateverevidenceorwitness

butinthenameofreply,theyplacedtheirviews

tes monyarepresentedbeforethem.

for two sessions, almost similar to defence and

Followingtherevela ons,the controversialchief


Jus ce Nizamul Huq resigned from the post and

they

would

never

change

that

the Appellate Division simply allowed them to

Defencehasbeendeprived

doso.

Against the death sentence by the trial court

The Appellate Division also disallowed the de-

(Interna onal Crimes Tribunal), the defence filed

fence to place the counter argument to the

an appeal in the Appellate Division seeking ac-

replyoftheA orneyGeneral.

FazleKabirwasappointedthere.
It was absolutely clear, from the very beginning,
that these courts are merely kangaroo courts,
where standards of law and jus ce are blatantly
disregarded and the verdicts have already been
decidedbeforethetrialshavebegun.Severalkey
incidentsmadethisobvious:
As revealed in #SkypeGate, the judges of this
mockery of jus ce were directed by Ziauddin
Ahmed, a member of a notorious an -Jamaat
group. He was not an ocial of the court and
yet,likeaCzar,hecontrolledevery aspectofthe
tribunal. On many occasions, he has wri en or-

Thoughtheprosecu ondidnotfileanyappeal,

qui al.Theappealhearinghasbeenconcludedin
27th May, 2015 and the Appellate Division fixed

Atthelastdayoftheargument,thechiefjus ce

16th June for declaring verdict. But in the en re

in open court expressed their view about the

procedureofthisappealhearing,thedefencehas

appellant. They clearly admi ed that, factual

been deprived from due rights and experienced

evidenceisnotstrongagainsttheAppellant.But

someunprecedentedapproachesfromtheAppel-

they want to rely more on documentary and

late Division. Those points are being quoted be-

other evidences to assess the posi on of the

low:

Appellantin1971.Theyalsoclaimedintheopen
court, the posi on of the appellant and hislink

TheAppellateDivisiontookjust9workingdaysto

with the an -libera on forces has been estab-

completethehearingofthisvoluminouscase.

lished. From their concluding speech, the de-

ders that were handed down by the court as-is.

fence feels highly prejudiced as it seems that,

He has also designed a guideline for the judges

Theseniorlawyerofthedefencehastoreadout

andabasicstructureforalltheverdictstocome,

the judges had a mindset about the appellant

the paper book for 4/5 hours at a stretch as the

waybeforethetrialscompleted.

and judgment is almost ready with the same

Appellatedivisiondeniedanyadjournment.

view.

A number of the Tribunal members par cipated

In most of the occasions, the Appellate Division

in the so called Gana Adalat Commission (or

Tillnow,inallthepreviouscasesunderthisact,

created hindrance in the normal hearing of the

PeoplesCourt)thatprejudgedthesecasesinthe

the Appellate division denied to fix any specific

defenceastheyclaimedtheyknowthecaseand

early 1990s. Indeed the former Chairman of the

date for declaring judgment. They are used to

theyarenotinterestedtolistenmore.

keep the case as CAV. But unprecedentedly in

Tribunal is listed as a member of the Secretariat


oftheCommission.

The Appellate division confined the defence in


readingoutthepaperbookandtheyalsodidnot

There was clear evidence of collusion between

allowthedefencetoreadoutthetotaljudgment.

theTribunal,theprosecu on,andmembersofan

The defence had to struggle to convince them

an -Jamaat organiza on during the trial pro-

and subsequently the defence was allowed to

cess. The prosecutor and judges would meet

readoutapor onofthejudgmentandsimilarlya

regularlyinsecretanddecidehowtheywouldact

por onofthepaperbook.

inunisonagainstthedefence.

thiscase,theyfixed16thJune,2015fordeclaringtheverdict.

16th June, 2015 another day of judi


cialkillinginBangladesh
Under the circumstances, any one could clearly
seethat16thJune,2015hadbeenfixedearlier

The defence got only two sessions (4 hours) to

foranotherjudicialkillinginBangladeshandthis

Former Chairmen of the ICT-1, Jus ce Nizamul

place their argument (final submission) and the

is why the division made hurry and compelled

Huq, admi ed that a state minister, Quamrul

Appellate Division par cularly the chief jus ce

thedefencetocompleteeverythingwithintheir

Islam, pressured him for quick verdicts and a

barredtheminplacingtheargumentrepeatedly.

plannedschedule.

judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme


Thechiefjus cewasextremelyreluctanttohear

Inthisbackdrop,wearedrawingkinda en on

the factual argument though the defence think

of Interna onal communi es to take due

theywillbehighlyprejudicediftheyarenotable

measurestostopinjus ceandtohaltthepro

On several occasions, the judges declared that

toupholdtheloopholesinthefactualfindingsby

cessofanotherjudicialkillinginBangladesh.

theyhaveapar cularviewoftheeventsof1971

thetrialcourt.

Court,Jus ceSKSinha,oeredhimpromo onin


return.