The atrocities committed by Prime Minister Hasina Wajid and her government beneath the false pretense of justice have been brought to surface thanks to the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in the Mueen-Uddin vs. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2024) case. A bare reading of the verdict suggests that the international community should lend an ear to the ongoing wave of human rights breaches in Bangladesh. This is not justice; rather, it is vengeance. It’s revenge. It’s all about the vendetta. The global conscience must rise to put an end to this fundamental unfairness.
A special war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh is currently in the process of bringing those responsible for atrocities during the 1971 war to justice. For an in-depth comprehension, the inadequacies of this exercise can be summarized as under:
- The mandate of the Tribunal is skewed , flawed and lopsided. The tribunal can only try people who have supported the Pakistani military. Consequently , only those who supported Pakistan’s military are being tried and convicted. There has not been a single Mukti Bahini indictment or prosecution as a result of the relevant law. Even though Mukti Bahini has been accused of raping and killing large numbers of non-Bengalis and Biharis.
- Pro-Pakistani nationals were put on trial by the tribunal in 2009 for a purported crime from 1971. Lapse of a 40-year period is more than enough to illustrate the malicious intents of the Awami League’s ruling coterie.
- Bangladesh enacted the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act in 1973 and established the International Crimes Tribunal, Perhaps with the purpose of convincing the world that these individuals were being judged under international law. The British Supreme Court has culled this impression declaring that ” It is not an international body but an institution of Bangladesh’s domestic legal system.’’ ( Para 13)
- Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are flagrantly violated and disrespected by the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973. Both provide that everyone is entitled to fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. This tribunal does not grant the accused the right to a fair trial and is neither independent nor impartial. Need not to mention is the fact that Bangladesh is signatory to ICCPR.
- Article 35 of Bangladesh’s constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, however this right has been denied to anyone being tried under this Act due to the insertion of Article 47 A into the constitution. . There is no constitutional remedy available to the accused under this Act. The procedure is flawed. The rules of evidence are absurdly harsh and inhuman. The British Supreme Court addressed this matter extensively in its findings, declaring that: “ It bars any challenge to the composition of a tribunal or the appointment of its members, disapplies the ordinary rules of evidence and procedure set out in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, provides that the tribunal is not bound by rules of evidence and can, in particular, rely on newspaper reports, and empowers the tribunal to impose the death penalty. Under its rules of procedure, the ICT’s decisions as to the admission of evidence are final and cannot be challenged.”
- The time frame to which these instances pertain is crucial. There was no state known as Bangladesh at the time. It is therefore unlawful and irrational to punish someone subsequently for supporting armed forces in defense of one’s own state. Everyone is a citizen of their state, and no one can be penalized for that.
International organizations such as the United Nations Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, and the International Commission of Jurists have repeatedly expressed their concerns and reservations about the tribunal’s entire process, but despite a barrage of criticism the Bangladesh government has so far ignored all sane voices.
Never has it been a secret that Hasina Wajid regime is eliminating its political rivals through a sham trial sans any evidence but the British Supreme Court’s decision has exposed this war tribunal to the core. Essentially, this ruling has brought up legitimate concerns regarding the impartiality of the war crimes court in Bangladesh.
With reluctance and trepidation, this political vendetta will snuff out the lives of political opponents in Bangladesh. Hasina Wajid’s government lacks patience and is the epitome of majoritarian radicalism.
This is not fairness; it is victor’s justice. This reminds me of Michaela Halpern’s million-dollar question: Is justice, like beauty, only in the eyes of the beholder?
This is not fairness; it is victor’s justice. This reminds me of Michaela Halpern’s million-dollar question: Is justice, like beauty, only in the eyes of the beholder?
