Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

BDINN Newsletter / October 26, 2015


desh.Hehasgainedhugereputa onforhis
transparency,honestyandcorrup onfree
humanrightsinBangladesh.Thena onad
cra candan autocra cmovement.
resistthisexpandingforce,theyini ateda
tribunaljustimmediatea ercomingtothe
powerinordertoprosecutetheopposi on
findanymisdeedsorcorrup onintheprevi
ousrecordoftheseleaders,theyhadini at
edthetrialimplica ngthemwithsome
oenceswhichhadbeencommi ed44years
againsttheopposi onleaders,par cularly

interna onalcrimestribunalin2010toprosecute
itisinterna onalinname,butactuallyitisado
mes ccourt.Allthejudgesandprosecutorsarelo
cals,evenwithsomerulingpartyconnec ons.No
foreignlawyersandinterna onalobserversareal
Inpastcoupleofyears,manyinterna onalorgani
za onslikeUN,EuropeanUnion,Humanrights
watch,AmnestyInterna onal,Interna onalBarAs
socia onandmanydis nguishedpersonnelaround
theworldraisedques onsandexpressedconcern
overthestandardandpar sanac vi esofthetri
Butignoringalltherecommenda ons,thegovern
mentcon nuedthetrialandalreadyexecutedtwo

Though the prosecu on brought allega on

Whataretheallega onsagainsthim?

of killing a specific intellectual namely Shi

rajuddin Hossen, a renowned journalist

ularleaderMr.AliAhsanMujahidisheldcap veinprisonunlawfullyforlast5years.Heisa
vic mofpoli calvengeanceoftherulinggovernmentinBangladesh.Governmentinorderto
killhimhasconspiredtoconvicthimthroughthefalseaccusa onandcasesofcrimeagainst
ment.Theallega onsbroughtagainsthimaretotallyfabricatedandstageddrama.

against Mr. Mujahid, but the appellate divi

sion has acqui ed him from the charge.
Mr. Mujahid has been convicted and sen
tenced as a commander of Al Badar (An
auxiliary force of the Pakistani Army). But
the prosecu on failed to address following

The trial court (Interna onal Crimes Tribunal)

merged charge number one (the murder of
journalist Shirajuddin Hossen) into charge
number 6 (criminal oence in Mohammadpur
Physical Training ins tute) and awarded death
sentence to Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid.
The Appeal court has acqui ed him from
charge number one and maintained the death
penalty for making conspiracy to conduct intel
lectual killing.
The lawyers of Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid
filed the review pe

on in the concerned sec

on of the Supreme Court on 14th October,

2015 at 10 am. In the 38 pages of the pe


the lawyers have included 32 grounds. Some of

those are as follows:

Rustom recognize him? However, if it is taken as

assumable truth, thus it proves that Mujahid
plo ed conspiracy or designed planning for
these killings with the army ocer?

burning ques ons in this regard

Who and when appointed Ali Ahsan Mo
hammad Mujahid as the commander of Al
Badar force?

Jahir Uddin Jalal stated in his tes mony that

Rustom Ali Molla informed him about the fre
quent movement of Nizami, Mujahid at the
Mohammadpur Physical Training Ins tute. But

Was he the first and last commander of Al

Badar? Who had discharged this duty before
and a er his oce?

the inves ga on ocer clearly denied such

According to the prosecu on, Al Badar was

claim and said Rustom had never told him that

formed in Jamalpur district with the ini a

he had knew Jalal before. So the claim of Jalal in

ve of one Pakistani ocer Major Riaz.

this regard is being proved false.

Mujahid was the President of Dhaka district

Raham Ali Molla, the father of Rustom Ali Mol

la was the security guard of Mohammadpur
Physical training ins tute in those days of war.
Inves ga on ocer admi ed in the cross exami

Islami Chhatrashangha at that me. How he

became the chief of the force staying in
Dhaka while the force was established in
some other parts of the country?

na on that Raham Ali Molla is alive now but the

In the book The Vanquished Generals

prosecu on did not produce him as witness. The

edited by noted academician Professor

then Principal of the Physical training ins tute

Muntasir Mamun, two top generals of the

Mohibbullah Khan Majlish and his son and cur

Pakistani Army Rao Forman Ali and AAK

rent principal Tareq Iqbal Khan Majlish (who was

Niazi admi ed that Al Badar was operated

a student of class 8 in 1971) were not produced

under the command and control of the

as witness as well. Moreover the inves ga on

Pakistani army. Being a student, how Mr.

ocer did not talk to anyone who had been

Mujahid became the chief of such a para

working in the Mohammadpur Physical Training

military force. We have submi ed this book

Rustom Ali Molla did not see Mujahid to plot

ins tute in 1971 or any stas who had resided

as the Fresh Evidence along with our re

conspiracy or to design planning with the sen

inside the ins tute or even the IO did not pro

view pe

ior army ocers. He claimed to see Mujahid at

duce any of them as witness. Ignoring and defy

the gate of the Mohammadpur Physical Train

ing the availability of the senior and credible

During the trial, the inves ga ng ocer of

ing ins tute 3/4 months a er the war begins.

persons of those incidents, the prosecu on

the case categorically admi ed that during

He further admi ed that he did not know Mu

brought an immature man of that

me and

his two yearlong inves ga ons, he did not

jahid. The security guards who were working

based on his false and contradictory statement,

find out the name of Mujahid in any list of Al

over there, they were talking about the arrival

the death penalty of Mr. Mujahid is maintained.

Badar, Al Shams, Razakars or peace com

In support of the intellectual killing allega

ons, the prosecu on brought two witnesses.
One is Rustom Ali Molla who was 14 in 1971
and the second one is Jahir Uddin Jalal who
was just 13 during the 1971 war. Rustom Ali
Molla claimed himself as eyewitness though
there are severe discrepancies in his statement
while Jalal has appeared as a hearsay witness.

mi ee. Then how did the court convict him

of Ghulam Azam, Nizami and Mujahid at the

Mohammadpur Physical Training ins tute and
then he came to know Mujahid. It becomes
crystal clear from Rustoms tes mony that he
knew none of these aforesaid 3 persons. No
body has introduced him with Mujahid specifi
cally as well. Then naturally the ques on
comes up, without any prior knowledge about
the face or the iden ty of Mujahid, how did


It has been alleged that Mujahid had hatched

as the commander of Al Badar?

conspiracy with the army ocials for commi ng

intellectual killing. But the prosecu on failed to

Immediate a er the war of independence

reveal that how, when and with whom he had

(17th December to 1972), many news had

made this conspiracy. Even, the prosecu on

been published in the then dailies about the

u erly failed to produce any evidence to prove

atroci es and crimes of Al Badar which also

that who had been murdered for this alleged

asked the countrymen to assist in process of


arres ng the people who had involved with

those crimes. But no news is found men oning the

name of Mujahid. If he really was the commander
of AL Badar, then immediate a er independence,
why did the people fail to blame him for any
In connec on with the intellectual murder, 42
cases had been filed under the collaborator act in
1972. The prosecu on did not submit the docu
ments of those cases during the trial of the instant
case. But it is truly ques onable that a er 42
years, the liabili es of all those murders are being
imposed upon a single man, Mujahid.
A 7 member inves ga on commi ee led by re
nowned film maker Zahir Raihan had been formed
on 29th December, 1971 for probing the intellectu
al murder. Veteran lawyer Barrister Amirul Islam
and Barrister Maudud Ahmed were also included
as a member in this commi ee. The prosecu on in
the case against Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid
did not submit the findings of that inves ga on
commi ee or not even discussed the ma er with
any of the commi ee members. Why the prosecu
on did not disclose the report of this probe com
mi ee before the na on?

oroence.Simplybasedonassump on,
plo ngtheconspiraciesoftheintellectu
conspiratorevena erhisphysicalin
publicsen mentaboutthewaroflibera
todestroythepossiblerisingopposi on

How biased and poli cized was the court?


group. He was not an ocial of the court and

statedthatjus cewasthepriority,

yet, like a Czar, he controlled every aspect of

opposi onpar esJamaateIslamiand


the tribunal. On many occasions, he has

wri en orders that were handed down by the
court asis. He has also designed a guideline


for the judges and a basic structure for all the


verdicts to come, way before the trials com

In December 2012, conversa ons and


emails between the judge and a Brussels

A number of the Tribunal members par cipat

based lawyer were published, which according

ed in the so called Gana Adalat Commission (or

to The Economist revealed that the govern

Peoples Court) that prejudged these cases in

ment wanted a quick verdict from

the early 1990s. Indeed the former Chairman

the Interna onal Crimes Tribunal.

of the Tribunal is listed as a member of the

Following the revela ons, the controversial

Secretariat of the Commission.

chief Jus ce Nizamul Huq resigned from the

There was clear evidence of collusion between

post and Fazle Kabir was appointed there.

the Tribunal, the prosecu on, and members of

It was absolutely clear, from the very begin

an an Jamaat organiza on during the trial

ning, that these courts are merely kangaroo

process. The prosecutor and judges would

courts, where standards of law and jus ce are

meet regularly in secret and decide how they

blatantly disregarded and the verdicts have

would act in unison against the defense.

already been decided before the trials have

Former Chairmen of the ICT1, Jus ce Nizamul

begun. Several key incidents made this obvi

Huq, admi ed that a state minister, Quamrul


Islam, pressured him for quick verdicts and a

As revealed in #SkypeGate, the judges of this

judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme

mockery of jus ce were directed by Ziauddin

Court, Jus ce SK Sinha, oered him promo on

Ahmed, a member of a notorious an Jamaat

in return.

On several occasions, the judges de

claredthattheyhaveapar cularview
of the events of 1971 and they would
neverchangethatviewirrespec veof
whateverevidenceorwitnesstes mo

Law enforcers have been

harassing the defence
lawyers of Mujahid.
On 22th Oct, Advocate Asad Uddin, who is making regular
eort in the Appeal prepara on of Jamaat leaders has been
picked up by the law enforcing agencies while going to his
na ve district Sirajganj and taken into an unknown place.
Police also raided into the house of Advocate Mohammad
Shihir Monir that evening. Shishir Monir is one of the key
members of the defence team and he is engaged now at the
prepara on of the review pe on hearing of Jamaats Secre
tary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid. The date of the
review hearing of Mr. Mujahid is fixed at 2nd November.
Police is crea ng obstruc on in his professional ac vi es by
conduc ng raid into his house. Harassment of the lawyers is
somehow similar to create obstruc on in the judicial process.
Earlier, the defence team members had faced similar harass
ment and police raid in their houses and chambers. Subse
quently the defence team had filed an applica on in the
interna onal crimes tribunal seeking protec on. Later, the
tribunal ordered not to harass or arrest the members of the
defence team. That order of the tribunal is s ll valid.
Just before the appeal hearing begins, such harassment, raid
and abduc on of the defence lawyers from the vehicle is
amount to create obstruc on in providing the legal assis
tance. The lawyers are being regarded as the ocers of the
court. So by harassing them, actually the government is ham
pering the judicial procedure.
Commen ng on this unjust situa on son of Mujahid, Ali Ah
mad Mabrur, said:
We have been taking prepara on maintaining the legal and
approved course of ac ons. Already our lawyers have sub
mi ed the review pe on as per the Supreme Courts rules
and it is ready for hearing. Then why our lawyers are being
harassed? The people who are talking about rule of law,
would they kindly explain that why our lawyers are being
obstructed in performing their du es? Why the lawyers, the
ocers of the court are being barred?
We do not know that whether we would get jus ce or not,
but are we going to lose our minimum right to face the case
We are condemning such role of the government and calling
upon the concerned authori es to stop the harassment of
the lawyers and to assist them in discharging their profes
sional du es properly.

BangladeshJamaateIslami,apartyinopposi oninBangla
desh.Healsoservedthena onastheSocialWelfareMinister
country.Butsimplyoutofpoli calvende a,thepresentgov
astheyfailedtotacklehimpoli cally.
onofcommi ngcrimesagainsthumanityduringthelibera
Heishighlyregardedforhisoratoryandorganiza onalskills.

Похожие интересы