& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Status of Bangabandhu Murder Case

Interview with Supreme Court Advocate Anisul Huq
The Daily Star (DS): Let's start with your own connection to the case:
Anisul Huq (AH): My father, the late Serajul Huq and Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman were childhood friends. They grew up together and studied together and even stayed together in Calcutta for some time. They were also close politically since the time of the formation of the Awami League in the late 1940s. Furthermore, he was Bangabandhu's personal lawyer. These were the personal connections that led to him being entrusted with the case. I too was part of the prosecution team.
DS: When did the prosecution begin?
AH: The prosecution commenced on March 12, 1997. The prosecution was forced to remain dormant because of the Indemnity Ordinance which was passed on November 8, 1975. No government of Bangladesh prior to the Awami League government that came to power in 1996 attempted to repeal that law. The first task, then, was the repeal of the law, which was accomplished in 1996. It was only then that the case could proceed.
DS: So no one took any steps to repeal the Indemnity Ordinance before then?
AH: Not at all. No one. The law was enacted during the time of Khandaker Mostaque Ahmed, and subsequent to that, neither General Zia nor Ershad took any steps to repeal the law. You could say that until 1990, for the leaders that ruled the country played with the Constitution -- the Constitution took a back role.
DS: Moving on, what were the specific charges?
AH: Charges were brought of conspiracy and murder.
DS: And how many total murders came within the purview of the prosecution?
AH: On August 15, 1975, there were three occurrences.
In addition to the killings at Road 32, there were also killings at the house of Sheikh Fazlul Huq Moni, the Secretary of BAKSAL, and the house of the Minister for Flood Control and Water Resources, Abdur Rab Serniabat.
The other two occurrences are also being prosecuted. But the Bangabandhu Murder prosecution that I was involved with dealt with the killings of the 13 people at Road 32, mostly family members of Bangabandhu.
DS: And how did the case proceed?
AH: A criminal case must be initiated by lodging a First Information Report (FIR) with the thana. In the Bangabandhu Murder case, the FIR was lodged on October 2, 1996. That's a delay of over twenty-one years before the FIR was even issued!
The next step is investigation and submission of a charge-sheet based on the investigation. The charge-sheet was submitted on January 15, 1997.
The FIR named twenty-three people, of whom four were dead by the time the charge-sheet was prepared. So charges were lodged against nineteen people, of whom twelve were absconding, and seven left to face trial.
DS: When did the trial commence?
AH: The trial commenced on March 12, 1997.
Because twelve of the accused were absconding, the formalities for trial in absentia had to be completed. Bangladesh is one of the few countries in the world where if you are charged with a capital offense, even if you are absconding, the law requires that the state provides a defence. It took some time for the formalities to be completed and for state defence counsel to be appointed. On April 7, 1997, charges were framed and formally accepted by the court. This is when the accused receive the right to plead either guilty or not guilty.
DS: Please continue.
AH: As many as sixty-one witnesses were called. The final judgement was delivered on November 8, 1998. Of the nineteen charged, fifteen persons were sentenced to death, and four of the accused were acquitted.
DS: What can you tell me about the prosecution?
AH: One thing asked of us by many people was why no special tribunal was formed to try the case. We did contemplate such a thing at the time. Given the length of time between the killings and the trial, we would have been justified in convening a special tribunal. But our reasoning was that Bangabandhu had been a man of the people, and we felt sure that he would have wanted that everything be done in accordance with the law the common people enjoy. Nothing special.
This was the most important
consideration. He belonged to the people, and it would always have been his desire to be treated like the people.
We were also concerned about the acceptability of the trial to the international community. And we wanted to show the maturity of the legal system in Bangladesh.
We had the example of the Zia killing trial. It was conducted in camera (closed court) and people were sentenced to death just like that.
We wanted to be more transparent. We wanted the case to be watertight. At every step of the way, all the legal rights the accused could have were tested and endorsed by the superior courts.
Transparency and accountability were the most important issues for us.
I'll give an example. The wife of Col. Rashid was discharged by the court. The High Court endorsed almost all our legal steps, but not the charge against her. So we complied with the court's rulings. We gave all the accused every chance.
DS: What happened then?
AH: Well the next step in a case like this is that the judgement of the district and sessions court judge must be confirmed by the High Court. Even those who have been absconding and are fugitives from justice have this right under Bangladesh law.
So the case was sent for confirmation on December 14, 2000.
DS: If my math is correct, that's over two years after the judgement. Why did it take so long?
AH: It's a very unfortunate story, but as many as eight honourable judges were embarrassed to hear the case.
DS: Embarrassed? You mean they did not want to involve themselves?
AH: Embarrassed is the word and I'll stick to it. This was historically unprecedented. I have never heard of such a thing.
DS: So how did the matter resolve itself?
AH: Finally, Chief Justice Latifur Rahman intervened and a special bench was formed.
This bench delivered a split judgment.
DS: What was the split?
AH: Justice MM Ruhul Amin, sentenced nine of the defendants to death, one to life imprisonment, and acquitted five. Justice ABM
Khairul Huq convicted and sentenced to death all fifteen.
DS: So there was a split with respect to six of the defendants?
AH: Exactly. So the matter went to Justice Fazlul Karim, who acquitted three of the six and sentenced the other three to death.
DS: So at the end of the day, out of the nineteen charged, twelve were convicted and sentenced to death, and seven were acquitted.
AH: Yes. The final judgement was handed down on April 31, 2001
DS: Did this confirmation exhaust the appeals process for the defendants?
AH: By no means. They still had the right to appeal to the Appellate Division within thirty days. But please note that to do so you must abide by the judgement and be present before the court. Therefore those who were
absconding did not file, and their time to file an appeal has run out.
DS: So out of the twelve that were convicted how many were absconding and how many filed for appeal?
AH: Eight remained fugitives and four appealed.
DS: What happened in the Appellate Division?
AH: The way it works is that to appeal you must file something called a leave of appeal that is an application for permission to appeal. Only when the Appellate Division grants you permission to appeal can you appeal.
The four in custody did file their leave to appeal application. It is this leave to appeal application that is still pending.
DS: But if the final judgement was delivered on . . . let me see . . . April 31, 2001 . . . and they have to file within thirty days, that would
mean that it has been pending . . .
AH: Over three years. Yes.
DS: Is this unprecedented?
AH: Let's just say that I have
never heard of it in my forty-eight years.
DS: Are you still involved with the prosecution?
AH: My father passed away on October 28, 2002, and I was
removed from the prosecution on December 20, 2002. I was later reappointed to the prosecution team for the Jail Killings case.
DS: So who is in charge of the Bangabandhu Murder case now?
AH: Nobody.
DS: Nobody?
AH: Well, nothing is happening, but the prosecution is always the state so therefore the Attorney General's office is in charge.