Bangladeshi interim leader Muhammad Yunus has praised the International Crimes Tribunal’s (ICT) ruling in Sheikh Hasina’s case; however, the manner in which the trial was conducted—marked by procedural errors and biased motivations—has undermined its legitimacy.
To begin with, the trial was conducted in absentia, leaving Hasina without any legal representation. Furthermore, both the judges and prosecutors were either appointed in contravention of established norms or had clear connections to her political adversaries.
Moreover, the use of the ICT for Hasina’s trial contravened established norms, as the ICT was originally established with the explicit purpose of prosecuting war criminals involved in Pakistan’s genocidal actions leading up to Bangladesh’s War of Liberation. The legitimacy of Yunus’s amendment to the court’s mandate—allowing for Hasina’s trial in the absence of an elected parliament—has been challenged and remains inadequately addressed.
Partisan judges, unconstitutional court
First and foremost, the ICT was established by the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973, with the clear mandate to prosecute genocide-related crimes committed during Bangladesh’s War of Liberation. Yunus’s unelected government altered this mandate through an ordinance.
Without the endorsement of an elected parliament, such an amendment is therefore deemed invalid, according to a source familiar with the situation who spoke to Hindustan Times.
Additionally, the structure of the ICT highlights the tribunal’s partisan character.
The three judges—ICT Chairman Golam Mortuza Majumder, Mohitul Haque Md Enam Chowdhury, and Shafiul Alam Mahmud—were appointed in violation of the stipulation that requires a person to serve for two years as an additional judge before being eligible for permanent appointment.
Among them, Mahmmod has ties to Hasina’s opposition, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which is an Islamist pro-Pakistan party.
Yunus also designated Tajul Islam as the chief prosecutor, who has built a career defending war criminals involved in the East Pakistan conflict.
Furthermore, Mozumder was appointed merely six days prior to the commencement of the trial. In a similar vein, Mahmud was also appointed just days before the trial commenced.
“All three were designated as permanent judges in contravention of Article 98 of the Constitution, which mandates a two-year period of satisfactory service as additional judges before being elevated to permanent judges,” an individual acquainted with the situation informed HT.
“Moreover, none of the three judges possess prior experience in applying international legal principles, which represents a significant deficiency in trials concerning crimes against humanity,” the individual added.
In total, at least 22 judges—including those appointed to the ICT—were appointed in this manner, violating established norms, as reported by the Economic Times.
The ET also highlighted that the appointment of Toby Cadman as Special Adviser to the Chief Prosecutor of the ICT was flawed, given that he had previously served as a lawyer for Jamaat-e-Islami.
