The recent execution of Abdul Quader Molla in Bangladesh after being convicted of killing hundreds of civilians in the war of independence has raised fears of renewed instability in the fledgling democracy... The execution of Abdul Quader Molla, assistant secretary general of Jamaat el- Islami, - who was convicted earlier this year in February 2013 and initially sentenced to life imprisonment, has sparked violent protest and the deaths of at least 25 people in clashes between the security forces and supporters of the Islamist party. There have been calls for a general strike and many fear that the execution will propel the country towards further instability. In January this year, the first verdict of the so called 'International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh found former leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party - Abul Lalam Azad guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to death in absentia. This verdict and those that have followed have been met with mixed responses from both those at home in Bangladesh (and in the diaspora) and the wider international community. By the end of last year, nine leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest Islamist party in the nation, and two of the Bangladesh National Party, had been indicted. Three Jamaat leaders were tried and convicted of several charges of war crimes. The first convicted was Abul Kalam Azad who was sentenced to death in January 2013. To put things into context, we have to know the historical background. It is a tragic statement of fact that the transition of East Pakistan to the independent state of Bangladesh over 40 years ago in 1971 was a bloody affair. There were those who believed passionately in the ideals of a Muslim nation and it seems were prepared to go to great lengths to protect those ideals. The Pakistan Army, in collaboration with the militias of the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams, engaged in what international human rights organisations say amounted to systematic genocide - committing atrocities against those Bengali citizens who supported the nationalist ideal - including intellectuals, youth and religious minorities. There are many who witnessed the brutal murder of relatives, the rape of mothers and sisters who have understandably craved justice and let it be said - revenge. They cited figures of over 300,000 women 'raped as a weapon of war' during the conflict. There are those who argue that such a profound 'war of liberation' as it has been called, would inevitably have it's casualties and that the nine month war and its large scale atrocities; the exodus of over 10 million refugees and the displacement of 30 million was the unfortunate and unavoidable price to pay for the establishment of an independent sovereign state. Some believe that a moratorium on the whole bloody affair is the only way towards a stable future for the new nation. Others maintain that there cannot be stability without justice being done and being seen to be done. Given the plague of famine and natural disaster which beset the new nation at its outset in 1971, what followed (somewhat inevitably) was a period of instability - with recurring military coups and consistent political upheaval and this has meant that it was not until twenty years on in 1991, that relative calm allowed the restoration of a semblance of democracy in Bangladesh and with it renewed calls for justice.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made the prosecution of war crimes a major plank of her election manifesto and the trials which began three years ago have seen her popularity rise in many quarters. Few international pundits can argue against the principle of justice and most will recognise the significance of international protocols which demand justice and accountability. The integrity of any legal process it is said remains fundamental to any democracy and revelations such as those published in March this year in the Economist current affairs magazine - indicating that the ICT process was 'sullying its judicial and political systems', that it was a sham and that it was politically driven, led some months later to the resignation of the presiding judges and the appointment of new ones. It did not lead (as many have demanded) to the complete dissolution of the trials, on the grounds that they do not meet with or even come close to international standards. While it is true that the ICT received initial support from the international community with strategic planning advice provided by the UN and resolutions of support being passed by the European Union, the ICT trials have since been subject to enormous criticism from the EU and human rights groups who cite issues of fairness and transparency and the harassment of lawyers and witnesses amongst a catalogue of flaws which ensure that the trials are not only without impartiality, but completely unjust. The UK Government was one amongst several who raised the issue of the integrity of the ICT process following news of the execution stating its concern that "Abdul Qader Mollah was sentenced to death following an appeal permitted under retrospectively applied legislation, and that he was not permitted to review his sentence before the Supreme Court. Bangladesh's commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) require that all citizens be treated equally before the law." They went further and called "...for Bangladesh to implement a moratorium on the death penalty leading to the eventual abolition of the death penalty." As Bangladesh celebrates 'Victory Day' and it despatches to Calcutta an 82 strong delegation led by retired Lt Col Zafar Imam and six other senior Bangladeshi officers (along with their families) to receive honours for their role in 'Liberating Bangladesh' in concert with Indian Armed Forces, we should consider the short and long term implications of the continuation of these trials in their current format. Can Bangladesh truly celebrate its establishment as a modern democracy while it adopts such legal processes (by default or by intention) which effectively introduce a one party state - having indicted the key players in the opposition for crimes against humanity? Polls indicate an outright victory for the ruling Awami party at the elections scheduled for January 5th next year and given the circumstances this should not be a surprise to anybody. It is significant (as one prominent Bangladeshi figure said to me recently) "for the government to adopt such procedures in Bangladesh ten years ago would have been unthinkable, but within the context of current global conflicts and what appears to be a suspension of international protocols relating to the rule of law, anything seems to now be acceptable." More must be done internationally to ensure that the legal process in Bangladesh and in other states which fail to meet international standards, are compelled to raise their game. If we truly believe that justice must and needs to be done, is it not incumbent upon us all, that the ITC's legal process stands up to scrutiny? This must be achieved, If not for the protection of the innocent, than at least for the protection of the integrity of the justice demands of the victims.
