Law Minister Shafique Ahmed yesterday lambasted the Human Rights Watch for its report opposing the conviction of former Jamaat-e-Islami chief Ghulam Azam, alleging that it had been paid to do the report.
“Where did they get such nerve? Who gave them the right? They have been working as a lobbyist [of Jamaat] or else they could not present such a report,” he told the Dhaka Tribune while commenting on the HRW report, published yesterday.
The New York-based organisation in their report “Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on Flawed Proceedings” condemned Ghulam Azam’s conviction, saying it was “deeply flawed and did not meet the international fair trial standards.”
Tajul Islam, one of the counsels for Ghulam Azam, told the Dhaka Tribune that the HRW report was “objective” and that it reflected what Jamaat had been saying about the tribunal on different occasions – in or outside the court.
Meanwhile, prosecutor Tureen Afroz observed that the comments were outrageous.
Sultana Kamal, executive director of Ain o Salish Kendra, at a programme yesterday advised people not to be confused by the HRW’s claims. “The tribunal is following the related laws and rules in conducting the trials.”
Ghulam Azam was sentenced to 90 years’ imprisonment on July 15 for masterminding crimes against humanity, genocide and other offences during the Liberation War.
The tribunal said the former Jamaat chief had not been given death penalty considering his old age and long ailment.
The HRW report reads: “Human Rights Watch’s concerns about the Azam trial include: judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution; collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges; failure to take steps to protect defence witnesses; changes in the trial court panel; and lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The organisation also alleged that the law minister and the law state minister had interfered in the independence of judiciary at the tribunal.
Shafique said: “It’s a rubbish comment. I never go near it. I strongly believe in the independence of judiciary.”
He said it was obvious from the statement that the organisation made it as a paid lobbyist. “Making such comments without citing any evidence is deplorable.”
The minister also said since the matter was under the consideration of the Appellate Division, “making such comment is tantamount to contempt of court.”
There was no scope to question the war crimes trial proceedings as the tribunal had taken much time to maintain fairness and impartiality, he said, adding that the accused side was given every opportunity to ensure justice.
Criticising the report, prosecutor Tureen Afroz told the Dhaka Tribune that the HRW should be cautioned.
“What did the HRW do when Eichman trial or Saddam Hussein trial were carried out in complete violation of all standards of international law? Did they ever protest to safeguard the so called ‘international standard’ then?”
As the HRW questioned the tribunal’s conducting a “separate and/or independent investigation” in the case, Tureen said: “A judge can read many books or judgements of various countries, which the prosecution or defence side did not submit, for the for the sake of justice.”
She pointed out that the HRW also did not actually mention which part of the investigation was allegedly conducted that way. “It is a vague allegation only to shamelessly undermine our judicial process.”
Tureen also questioned the basis of alleging that there had been collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges. “They did not provide any proof in support,” she added.
On the rights body’s accusation that the tribunal failed to protect the defence witnesses, the prosecutor said: “There was only one defence witness in Ghulam Azam case. Where did HRW find plural witnesses in Ghulam Azam case? On top of that, the witness was the son of the accused and he was very much a regular attendant at the trial. If he was under any threat, then how did he come and attended all the sessions of the trial, including the verdict day? The HRW must have done their homework before making such stupid statement!”
Regarding the question of changes in the tribunal judges, she said: “What will happen if one of the judges die or fall permanently sick or have to leave the panel for some unavoidable circumstances/reasons?”
The HRW also claimed that there was lack of evidence to establish the guilt of Ghulam Azam beyond reasonable doubt.
On this, the prosecutor said: “When the appeal is pending before the Appellate Court, can anyone actually comment on the merit of the findings [lack of evidence] of the trial court? Also, how can the HRW claim to be an independent trial observer? The publication clearly shows that the HRW is speaking like one of the parties of the trial. Does the HRW have expertise or authority to comment on the quality of evidence in a trial process? It is turning out to be too big for its boots.”
