Several journalists, writers, historians and activists from South Asia, expressed their concern over the use of ‘contempt of court’ law to curb freedom of expression over the conviction and sentencing of New Age journalist David Bergman.
They said they were “deeply concerned” in a statement issued on Saturday.
The International Crimes Tribunal-2 held the Bangladesh-based British journalist in contempt on December 2, 2014 and sentenced him to prison for the duration of the court’s session for that day. Effectively, Bergman had to remain standing for about the 15 minutes he spent ‘in jail’.
Bergman was given the punishment for citing publications that questioned the figure of 3 million martyrs during the 1971 Liberation War. Signatories of the statement said this was “a serious set-back to Bangladesh’s commitment to free speech and independent scholarship”.
The group of 24 intellectuals stated that those responsible for genocide and international crimes during the Liberation War must be prosecuted and punished through an open and transparent process.
“We firmly believe that the right to expression must include the right to examine, analyse and comment on differing historic narratives. We are aware that in his blogs, posted most recently two years ago, Bergman cited figures from published research on deaths and other casualties during the 1971 Liberation War. A difference in the figures of total fatalities does not in any way diminish the truth that heinous and widespread war crimes were committed in 1971 – and Bergman’s articles stress this very point and call for evidence-based data.”
They said they are also particularly concerned about the tribunal’s personal attack on David Bergman. Having contributed to the Royal Television Society’s award winning Channel Four documentary, the 'War Crimes File', on which the tribunal itself relied on in another case to convict Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman, Bergman has consistently written in support of the need for war crimes trials for the atrocities and crimes against humanity in 1971.”
They found “the court’s decision may have a chilling effect on freedom of expression with ramifications for journalists, writers and scholars throughout the region.”
They also expressed concern that the ICT’s governing statute does not allow any appeal against contempt orders or judgments, and allows no defence of truth, which undermines due process and rule of law.
They noted that the accepted standard in emerging jurisprudence around the world is for courts to avoid resort ‘contempt of court’ as this reflects negatively on public respect towards the court itself.
The signatories urged and appealed to the authorities concerned to reform the contempt of court law as it is a relic of South Asia’s colonial past. They said it should be reformed in line with a broad understanding of freedom of expression.
The statement was signed by 24 persons including Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena, Kumari Jayawardena, Kanak Mani Dixit, Aunohita Mojumdar, Laxmi Murthy, Vrinda Grover, Uma Chakravarti, Amar Kanwar, Shohini Ghosh, Kavita Krishnan, Nandini Sundar, Urvashi Butalia, Siddharth Varadarjan, Harsh Sethi, Sukumar Muralidharan, Ammu Joseph, Geeta Seshu, Jyoti Punwani, Kalpana Sharma, Kavita Panjabi, Sushil Khanna, Selvyn Jussy, Rajashri Dasgupta and Geeta Ramashesan.