The legal foundation of Bangladesh’s crimes against humanity trials has once again come under judicial scrutiny, with a writ petition filed before the High Court challenging the validity of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, the law under which prosecutions linked to the July-August uprising and other alleged crimes against humanity are being conducted.
Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Mohsin Rashid filed the petition on Wednesday, naming the law secretary and other relevant authorities as respondents.
The move comes at a time when the International Crimes Tribunal is handling a growing number of high-profile cases, including those related to the July-August uprising, enforced disappearances and alleged crimes committed during previous governments.
The challenge revives a long-running legal debate over the scope and constitutional status of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, a law that successive tribunals have relied upon to prosecute crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.
However, previous attempts to challenge the law have largely failed.
In November last year, then Chief Prosecutor Mohammad Tajul Islam asserted that there was no legal scope to question either the validity of the amended law or the tribunal’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Act enjoys constitutional protection.
“The petition challenging the law has already been dismissed. Proceedings under the Act will continue in accordance with the law,” he said at the time.
The issue also surfaced in proceedings involving former National Telecommunication Monitoring Centre (NTMC) director general Maj Gen (retd) Ziaul Ahsan, who is facing charges before the tribunal.
Lawyers representing him challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction, but International Crimes Tribunal-1 rejected the plea in January this year, reaffirming its authority to try crimes against humanity cases linked to the mass uprising.
Legal disputes surrounding the Act date back more than a decade.
In 2012, the High Court delivered a split verdict on a writ petition challenging amendments to the law, particularly provisions that expanded the tribunal’s jurisdiction beyond members of armed and auxiliary forces to include individuals and groups of individuals.
At the time, then attorney general Mahbubey Alam argued that the amendments were necessary to prosecute crimes committed by civilian actors.
The High Court has also disposed of several other petitions challenging different provisions of the Act over the years.
The latest petition is expected to reignite debate over the constitutional status of one of the country’s most consequential laws, under which dozens of crimes against humanity cases are currently under trial.