The unusual delay of delivering judgement in the case of war criminal Motiur Rahman Nizami was one of a widely discussed issues since November last.
When the three judges of the International Crimes Tribunal 1 yesterday morning sat on the bench to deliver the verdict, each and everyone present in the courtroom was curiously waiting to see the end of about a year-long wait for this verdict.
Before starting to pronounce the verdict, tribunal Chairman Justice M Enayetur Rahim gave a short speech on the issue of the delay. “As you – prosecution and defence – were waiting for this verdict since long, we were also waiting to deliver the verdict.”
He said different sections at different times talked about this issue. “[But] we do not have the scope to take those conversations into cognisance or reply as judges; it will not be right to respond too.”
The judge said to ensure justice, “no one should be condemned unheard.”
The court could not talk going to the streets. “Keep it in mind that we [judges] cannot respond if anybody blames us and comments about the court, trial proceedings and judges,” he said.
“We did not have any directive; we do not compromise with anything. We follow the directions shown by the constitution and the laws. We compromise with constitution and law,” he said.
The case would have ended much earlier had the defence not delayed it intentionally. The counsels of Nizami exercised many strategies to lengthen the trial proceedings apparently with a view to save him as they believed the Awami League-led government would change following the January 5 election.
Moreover, last year’s lengthy restructuring of the tribunal dealing with the case and arranging the arguments afresh contributed to the delay.
The simultaneous trial of Nizami in sensational 10-truck arms haul case in a Chittagong court, for which he had to be taken to the port city from Gazipur jail, also delayed the war crimes case. It is necessary to place the accused during a trial.
Finally, after the verdict date was set, for the second time, to be pronounced in June this year, the tribunal had to postpone at the eleventh hour learning that Nizami had suddenly fallen sick. It took the tribunal four months to declare another date.
In November, when the International Crimes Tribunal 1 kept the case waiting for verdict, then chairman ATM Fazle Kabir went on retirement. The government took nearly two months to reconstruct the tribunal. It was reformed on February 20 and the closing arguments began afresh.
Following his arrest in a case for hurting religious sentiment, Nizami was shown arrested on August 2, 2010 in connection with war crimes along with his party colleagues Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed, Muhammad Kamaruzzaman and Abdul Quader Molla.
Nizami and Quader Molla were indicted on the same day – May 28, 2012. Molla’s case ended in February last year when the prosecution only began placing witnesses in Nizami case – more than one and a half years of submitting the probe report.
Both Mujaheed and Kamaruzzaman have been awarded death penalty by the tribunal whereas the appeals case of Mujaheed at the Appellate Division is now awaiting verdict. Molla was executed in December.
The prosecution too was not well prepared when they began dealing with the case. The conducting prosecutor was changed three times.
With the Jamaat-Shibir men creating hype against the tribunal throughout the trial period, the defence remained absent on most of the hearing dates on “security grounds” or due to “unavoidable situation.”
The tribunal deferred the trial again and again though the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973 does not allow any adjournment after framing of the charges. The tribunal then said they had accepted the adjournment pleas of the defence for the sake of justice.
Asked about their intention to delay the trial process, defence counsel Tajul Islam said: “Is there any hurry? Why should somebody mention it as delay?”
Casting doubt over fairness of the trial process, he said the trial should continue whether the ruling government is changed or not.