The death sentences handed to Obaidul Quader and six other senior Awami League, Jubo League and Chhatra League leaders drew contrasting reactions on Tuesday, with families of July uprising martyrs welcoming the verdict and demanding its swift execution, while the Awami League rejected it as a “politically vindictive” judgment.
Movement activists and prosecution witnesses also hailed the International Crimes Tribunal-2 ruling as historic, but state-appointed defence lawyers expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome.
Pro-Awami League lawyers separately staged a silent protest at the Supreme Court.
The reactions came after the tribunal sentenced all seven fugitive leaders to death for crimes against humanity committed during the July-August 2024 mass uprising.
Mosharraf Hossain, father of July uprising victim Meherunnesa Tanha, who was present at the tribunal when the judgment was delivered, said he was satisfied but wanted the convicts arrested and the sentences carried out.
He also welcomed the order confiscating half the assets of five convicts for compensation to July victims and their families, urging that the money be distributed through the July Foundation.
Mahin Sarkar, a former coordinator of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement and a witness in the case, described the judgment as “historic”, but said its significance would depend on implementation.
He called on the government to bring the fugitives back to Bangladesh and execute the sentences without delay.
Political analyst and prosecution witness Ashraf Kaiser said the verdict would bring peace to those killed, injured or permanently disabled in the uprising.
Chief Prosecutor Md Aminul Islam also expressed satisfaction, saying the majority of the four charges against each accused had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
AL rejects verdict
The Awami League, however, rejected the ruling, describing it as “one-sided, biased and arranged” and accusing the tribunal of delivering a politically motivated judgment.
In a statement, the party alleged that the judicial process had violated principles of international human rights and criminal law and amounted to “political vendetta rather than the rule of law”.
It also challenged the admissibility of digital evidence presented by the prosecution and questioned the tribunal’s authority to order confiscation of the convicts’ assets.
State-appointed defence lawyers also voiced dissatisfaction.
Israt Jahan, who represented four of the convicts, said she respected and accepted the tribunal’s decision but was “not satisfied” with it.
M Hasan Imam, who represented Quader, AFM Bahauddin Nasim and Mohammad Ali Arafat, similarly said the defence had presented its arguments on issues including command responsibility but he could not be satisfied with the outcome.
Verdict enters India ties
The fallout also reached Bangladesh’s relations with India.
Prime Minister’s Information and Broadcasting Adviser Zahed Ur Rahman said the handover of former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, Quader and others sought by Bangladesh was a crucial condition for easing relations with New Delhi.
“We are seeking Sheikh Hasina; why wouldn’t we seek Obaidul Quader and the others as well?” he said, calling on India to consider the issue “for the sake of a working engagement with Bangladesh”.
