/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Bangladesh government's unlawful Anti-God crusade



Abz2000
08-05-2016, 02:36 PM
Getting a bit ridiculous now.

Bangladesh to ban Islamic TV channel after Dhaka attack

Government orders ban followng reports that Peace TV may have played a role in inspiring Dhaka cafe assailants.



Islamic preacher Zakir Naik, pictured on posters, is the founder of Peace TV [Hindustan Times via Getty Images]Bangladesh has ordered the banning of an Islamic television channel following a*deadly attack on a cafe in the capital, Dhaka, following reports that the station's broadcasting may have played a role in inspiring the assailants.

Peace TV, a private channel founded by Indian Islamic preacher Zakir Naik, was said to have inspired some of the attackers in their raid on the cafe, according to an intelligence report cited by local media."We will take administrative steps to ban Peace TV on Monday," Information Minister Hasanul Huq Inu told journalists after a counterterrorism meeting in Dhaka on Sunday.*The attack on the Holey Artisan Cafe in an upmarket Dhaka suburb was one of the deadliest in Bangladesh, with many of the hostages being hacked to death during a 12-hour siege.

The armed group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attack - though Bangladeshi authorities deny this*and insist that the violence was homegrown.

Local media reports said one of the five dead attackers was a follower of Naik on social media.

A multilingual broadcaster, Dubai-based Peace TV launched its Bengali service in 2011 in*an effort to reach Bangla-speaking viewers around the world.Authorities may also begin monitoring sermons given during Friday prayers to check whether any provocative lectures are delivered.*Last week, at least three people*were killed, and nine others wounded when bombs were hurled near a huge Eid prayer meeting in northern Bangladesh, officials said.There was no immediate claim of responsibility for that attack.

Both al-Qaeda and ISIL have made competing claims for a series of killings in Bangladesh during the past year - but the government disputes them, insisting that domestic groups are responsible for the attacks.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...074444953.html

No matter how hard i try, i feel like laughing as if someone's tickling me when i try to imagine zakir naik talking like vito corleone as an evil mastermind.
also the fact that "isis" and "aq" are both appearing or being made to appear as willing scapegoats with at least the people who claim that they both tried to claim credit being liars, or one of the two groups, and the fact that the Bangadesh government is clearly afpprehensive of the implications such a circumstance would bring clearly demonstrates a false narrative fed to the public with hidden threats, pressure and blackmail taking place in the policical arena behind the scenes.
National sovereignty and democracy were always lies fed to the masses as a tool for distraction.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Little_Lion
08-06-2016, 01:04 AM
I do not know how to link a specific Facebook post or video, but if you go to Zakir Naik's Facebook page and go to July 21st, he speaks about this . . . in the video he is specifically referring to downlinking in India (which has been banned since 2012) but I think it would also apply to Bangladesh.
Reply

Abz2000
08-27-2016, 03:18 PM
By: Toby Cadman

Source: http://mwcnews.net/

On 17 September 2014 the Bangladesh Supreme Court ruled on an appeal against the conviction and death sentence originally imposed on 28 February 2013 by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on Maulana Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee. Sayedee was originally convicted of eight charges of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death in respect of two of those charges.

Immediately following the announcement of the verdict, accusations of political collusion and behind the scenes deals emerged. The ‘Ganajagaran Mancha’ pro-execution activists from the blamed the Government. The Government blamed the Prosecution. The Prosecution blamed the Investigators. It appears to be everyone’s fault. Even the Tribunal Judges have expressed their dismay at constantly being criticised for the failings of others and reminded the Prosecution that they are required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, not the judges.

This is an interesting remark. One would think that if the Prosecution failed to establish the burden of proof an accused is entitled to an acquittal, not a mere reduction in sentence. If the Investigators and Prosecutors are so lacking in competence, as the Attorney General has suggested, then is it not the judges who at fault for not directing an acquittal, or at the very least, as the defence have repeatedly demanded, a full retrial before a competently assembled tribunal of law demonstrating the requisite independence and impartiality necessary to maintain fair trials. The Attorney General, as British journalist David Bergman has pointed out, has failed to consider his own failings, as it was his submissions to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court that led them to reverse three convictions and commute the death sentence to a period of imprisonment. This is a time therefore to take a very serious look at this special brand of justice that the Government is weaving in Dhaka.

The Prime Minster, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, not known for demonstrating restraint, expressed her regret that Sayedee would not be hung. This is supposedly a process, if we are to believe the Government, aimed at justice and reconciliation. It is difficult to see how such a statement contributes to either. The Prime Minister has assured us that the judges are independent and impartial and came to their decision independent of the Government, but this in reality is paying lip service.

Two important questions emerge. First, has justice been done? Second, if not, who is to blame? In response to the first question it is to be noted that the full judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is yet to be released and therefore any criticism of its findings will have to wait for some weeks as yet. It is clear that there will be a rigorous dissection of how the judges came to the present decision amidst such widespread allegations of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, witness perjury, witness abduction, falsifying of evidence and governmental interference. The Supreme Court will also have to reconcile the very serious allegations made by the defence as to the impartiality of two of the panel of five Supreme Court Justices for demonstrating bias prior to the appeal being heard.

The Awami League Government has declared that the verdict has been delivered by the highest court in the land and that no criticism may be levelled at the honourable justices. This is possibly one of the very notions that separates a functional democracy and judicial system like we have in the UK from the autocratic system in Bangladesh. It is not considered contemptuous or seditious to criticise the decisions of our Government or Judges. In fact it is a national pastime. As a lawyer I can say, and have said on numerous occasions, that the decisions of our courts at times defy logic. I can also challenge the decisions of our Courts and public bodies in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I can criticise my Government and the Courts without fear of reprisal. In one recent matter where the Prime Minister commented on proceedings that were sub-judice, the phone hacking trial of Andy Coulson, he was heavily criticised by the trial judge. Such a situation only occurs in a functional and mature democracy. It would not occur in Bangladesh where the Courts would appear to have become an extended arm of the Executive.

In most capital cases the commuting of a death sentence of one’s client is considered to be a success – particularly in such a volatile political environment built on blood and vengeance. However, whilst it is clear that a sigh of relief was shown immediately following the verdict, both for my client and the risk of ensuing instability, let us not forget that following Sayedee’s conviction by the Tribunal violence on the street ascended to an unprecedented level, the decision to sentence Sayedee to the rest of his natural life in prison clearly demonstrates the level of control the Government has over the Courts. The lives of the accused would appear to be literally in the Prime Minister’s hands. Let us not forget her words following the execution of Abdul Quader Mollah in December 2013. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, and US Secretary of State, John Kerry, had both pleaded for her to show mercy, but she rebuffed all efforts. She is attributed as having stated publicly, some time after the conviction, that none other than the daughter of Bangabandhu had the courage to carry out the execution. She was quite emphatic in her valour.


Background

Sayedee, like most of the other accused, has been demonised as a war criminal that collaborated with the Pakistan Military. This is quite convenient as it allows the Government to peddle its rhetoric of fighting extremism and rebuilding a broken nation. In this regard it is convenient to forget the fact that the two charges upon which Sayedee was initially sentenced to death were based on the flimsiest of evidence. In fact there was no direct evidence was heard. Such a low standard would not have even satisfied the test of confirming an indictment before an international court, let alone to send a man to prison for the rest of his natural life.

This entire process has been plagued with criticism from a number of legitimate and varied sources. Whilst the Government of Bangladesh is at pains to convince the outside world that international standards are being maintained and that this process will serve as an example of justice for historical crimes before national courts, it is nothing short of a crime that the international community, most notably the United Nations, has remained silent.

It is fully accepted that, as a member of the defence, I can only present one side of the argument and for that reason it is important to inquire deeper into the sordid facts of this case. However, there is a wealth of criticism available from reliable sources. Reputable organisations such as HRW, Amnesty International, The International Commission of Jurists, The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, No Peace Without Justice, The Center for Justice and Accountability, The International Bar Association, The Bar Association of San Francisco and the International Center for Transitional Justice have continued to serve as a thorn in the side of the Awami League Government by exposing one controversy after another. Most recently, Professor Beth Van Schaack, the former Deputy War Crimes Ambassador at the US State Department and visiting professor at Stanford University, delivered a scathing assessment of the Tribunal in an article entitled ‘The Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal (BICT): Complementarity Gone Bad.’

The Sayedee case epitomises the level of injustice that has just unfolded in many respects. A prosecution witness recanted his statement and was called as a defence witness. He was later abducted and tortured by Bangladesh law enforcement officials before being thrown over the border into India. The Chairman of the Tribunal was shamed into resigning after having embarked on numerous improper discussions with a Bangladeshi law professor in Belgium intent on seeing the defendant convicted and executed. Two members of the Supreme Court bench that heard the appeal had issued statements prior to the appeals that clearly demonstrated they lacked the requisite impartiality to sit in judgment. Prosecution witnesses were prepped by a group that has campaigned long for the Jamaat leaders to be summarily tried and executed. Prosecutors were instructed by a so-called advisor to the Chairman of the Tribunal. Pro-execution activists drafted orders and judgments for the judges. These are just some of the matters that have characterised the Sayedee trial, but we are expected to believe that it was conducted transparently and in accordance with the highest international standards. The criticisms have been referred to as procedural irregularities and part of an international conspiracy orchestrated by Jamaat lobbyists.


One of the most curious relationships that has emerged is that of the former Chairman, Justice Nizamul Huq, and Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin, an international law expert based in Brussels. The two jurists were long standing friends. In December 2012, the Economist received a series of leaked emails and Skype recordings involving Nizamul Huq and Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin. The latter, the self-styled Director for Bangladesh Genocide Studies, had provided expert evidence in the form of reports for the prosecution in the Sayedee case. The Economist article revealed how Ziauddin had urged Huq to speed up the Sayedee trial, with the promise of swift promotion to the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division. In light of the publication, Huq was forced to resign. Despite the presiding judge’s resignation the trial continued with a replacement. This is startling, not simply because Skypegate had fatally damaged the credibility of the Tribunal, but as will be shown, the Sayedee trial was to be presided over by a panel of three judges none of whom had heard all of the evidence and yet were expected to make an impartial and informed decision.

The infamy of the former Chairman was not limited to Skypegate. Prior to this there were serious allegations raised by the defence as to the appearance of impartiality. In the 1990s, Justice Nizamul Huq, had played an instrumental role in the People’s Inquiry Commission, an investigative body that conducted a war crimes inquiry. The findings of the inquiry were provided to a ‘People’s Court’, a public mock trial that culminated in death sentences for many of those persons now on trial. An application was filed by the defence team in the ICT, requesting Huq’s recusal given his previously involvement and therefore the clear inference of bias – this was refused.

A further clear example of prosecutorial and investigative misconduct so as to influence the trial was highlighted on 10 April 2012. On 29 March 2012, the ICT passed an order that provided for 15 prosecution unsigned witness statements to be admitted into evidence without those witnesses being present to testify, on the basis that those witnesses were now either missing or in hiding because of threats made against them by agents of Sayedee.


On 10 April 2012 the Amar Desh newspaper published an exposé demonstrating that three registers concerning a safe house had been obtained, which showed that some of those 15 witnesses were in fact in a prosecution provided safe house during the time in which the ICT was hearing testimony. Clear evidence therefore that it had in fact been the prosecution that had prevented the witnesses from attending court to give evidence, and thus denying the defence the opportunity to challenge their evidence.

One of the fifteen witnesses was Shukhoronjon Bali. Bali had confirmed to the defence that his witness statement had been fabricated by those investigating the allegation and he refused to give the evidence contained within that statement. Bali confirmed that he would testify on behalf of the defence, not only to confirm that he had been available previously and that the statement had been fabricated, but also to testify that those persons who killed his brother in 1971 were members of the Pakistan army and not Sayedee.

On arrival to the Tribunal to give that evidence, Bali was abducted by state law enforcement officials and vanished. Defence pleas to the Judges for assistance were rejected, and it later transpired that Bali had been detained, tortured, and then sent over the border into India where he was duly arrested and was currently detained in a prison facility there.


Justice Huq was the Chairman of the Tribunal presiding over the Sayedee case. The criticisms of Justice Huq are well documented, in that it was clearly inappropriate for him to have been appointed in the first instance given his previous involvement in the People’s Inquiry Commission, and yet the controversy didn’t end there.

Despite being clearly predisposed towards a guilty verdict and effectively allowing the Prosecution free reign, it wasn’t until ‘Skypegate’ that Huq was finally forced to resign. As much as this is concerning in isolation, it is perhaps of even more concern when we consider the position it left the trials in.

Following Huq’s resignation, the trial was left without any of the original justices who had begun to hear evidence. Not one judge had heard the case from start to finish, and yet this was deemed to be acceptable procedure and the trial reached its conclusion.

On 25 March 2010, the Tribunal was established with three Judges elected. The first bench of Judges consisted of Justice Nizamul Haque Nasim (Chairman); District Judge A K M Zahir Ahmed; and Justice ATM Fazle Kabir. The Registrar of the Tribunal was Md. Shahinur Islam, who established the infrastructure for the running of the court. The three Tribunal Judges at this Tribunal began to deal with the first wave of cases that included the first trial of Delewar Hossain Sayedee (ICT-BD Misc. Case No. 01 of 2011) in October 2011.

On 22 March 2012 a second Tribunal was established consisting of Justice ATM Fazle Kabir (Chairman); Justice Obaidul Hasan; and Md. Shahinur Islam. Interestingly, the Chairman of the Second Tribunal was the same Justice ATM Fazle Kabir originally serving as a judge in the first Tribunal and currently hearing the case against Sayedee, which at the stage of his promotion was still at the stage of hearing the Prosecution evidence. The new judge appointed to replace Justice Kabir in the Sayedee trial was Justice Anwarul Haque. He joined the trial not having heard nearly all the Prosecution witnesses give evidence, so it would was an impossible task for him to convict an accused in these circumstances, as he could never be sure of the quality of the case against Sayedee.

Later in August 2012 a further judge was removed. Justice AKM Zahir Ahmed resigned citing ill-health. Justice Jahangir Hossain Selim of the High Court was appointed to replace him. Justice Selim had not heard any of the prosecution case and only part of the defence case.

The final nail in the coffin of justice came when Justice Huq was forced to step down in December 2012. This presented the Government with a serious dilemma. Not a single judge who started the trial and confirmed the indictment in the Sayedee case was left on the bench. To counter any criticism, the Government moved Justice ATM Fazle Kabir back from the Second Tribunal and appointed him Chairman of the First Tribunal. The defence argued that under such extraordinary circumstances the only recourse was a retrial. The Tribunal, and notably the Government, disagreed. The judges could simply rehear closing submissions.

On 28 February 2013 Sayedee was convicted and sentenced to death. On 17 September 2014 his appeal was dismissed and his sentence of death was commuted to a term of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

The Supreme Court proceedings have also come under increasing scrutiny. In 2013 Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Manik Choudhury, a staunch advocate of hanging the accused, was appointed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. On 31 March 2013, the Chief Justice constituted a bench of the Appellate Division to hear the Appeal of Abdul Quader Mollah (whom we must remember was executed). Justice Choudhury was appointed to the bench to hear the appeals. Another member of the bench, Justice Sinha, was exposed during the Skypegate scandal of having promised the disgraced Chairman an elevated promotion to the Supreme Court if he convicted three of the accused by the end of the year.

A defence application was filed against the two judges, Justices Sinha and Chowdhury, to be recused given the clear evidence of bias. Against Justice Choudhury it was alleged that in April 2010 he had attended a meeting with members of the Awami League during which they campaigned for the trial of the Jamaat leaders as war criminals.

As per other petitions filed, the application was refused, despite clear procedural impropriety and bias.

Sheikh Hasina, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh is at pains to suggest both domestically and to the world at large that the Tribunal is independent; that it is free from political influence; and yet, there have been numerous statements made that would suggest the complete opposite.

As noted earlier, following the execution of Abdul Quader Mollah, Sheikh Hasina publicly declared that she had been put under significant pressure by the international community to commute the death sentence, yet her response to the public in Bangladesh that only she was strong enough to resist this pressure, and that only she was strong enough to execute Mollah. This contradicts statements that the judiciary is acting independently.

The Awami League Government has consistently made wildly inappropriate comments about the trial, some of which may constitute incitement, and others which evidence the clear political motivation of the trials, and yet the laughable position is still maintained that politics has no part to play in the work of the Tribunal.

The question however, is why; given the previous cases before the courts, and given the courts previous reluctance to adhere to any recognised rules of evidence or procedure, the court should allow an appeal in part and commute the death penalty. If the evidence was so weak as is the defence position then the accused should be acquitted and not just a reduction in sentence. We can only surmise as to the courts reasons from moving away from its prior pre-determined practices, however, I would offer a possible explanation.

In dealing with any case before a court or group of cases, it would ordinarily sound absurd to characterise the Sayedee trial as ‘the most flawed’, however, with the Tribunal, all of the cases are absurd, and it is merely a question of degree.

The Sayedee trial can be given this dubious mantle for two reasons. The first being that for at least one of the crimes for which he stood trial, the central prosecution witness who made the complaint of murder was not even called to give evidence by the prosecution despite her being known, and available to be present. This witness is important insofar as although Sayedee was charged and then convicted of the murder of members of her family, when she made her original complaint she named the individuals responsible, and Sayedee was not one of them. The second reason, as already mentioned, is that a central defence witness who was originally a prosecution witness but had recanted his statement, was abducted by the Bangladeshi security services from the steps outside the court, held in custody for weeks, tortured, and then deposited over the border in India where he was duly arrested and imprisoned and where he remains to this day. This witness was to give evidence in support of Sayedee. Damning evidence indeed.

Like all the cases before the Tribunal, the trial and subsequent judgment were internationally condemned due to the established and widely reported levels of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct and persistent intervention by the Government of Bangladesh to ensure convictions.

The concerns regarding the tribunal and the Awami League Government’s attitude towards opposition supporters have been shared by the European Parliament in their resolution of the 18 September 2014 wherein they re-asserted their concerns about persistent clear human rights abuses. The resolution also states that “whereas there is strong and repeated criticism that the ICT does not comply with international standards (para. N)”, going on to note that it “welcomes the Supreme Court decision of 17 September 2014 to commute the death sentence handed down by the International Crimes Tribunal to [Sayedee] to life imprisonment”. Contrary to the suggestions of the Government of Bangladesh, the resolution further stated that it “emphasises the importance of an independent and impartial and accessible judicial system to enhance respect for the rule of law and for the fundamental rights of the population, and of reforming the international crimes tribunal”. This is by no means an endorsement as it recognises the need to reform the process.

Why then has the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence, is it because the Supreme Court has taken on board the comments made internationally regarding the inadequacies of the Tribunal and the processes adopted, or is it for another, more political reason? I would seek to suggest the latter, in that the appeal was allowed in part so the courts, and the government can suggest that the process is fair, and that any incorrect decision is in fact corrected on appeal, thus seeking to give the process an air of legitimacy.

The decision is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at changing the focus from the inadequacies of what is essentially a process that has become a political tool, one which is being used to undermine the political opposition rather than actually seeking to offer justice to the victims and seeking to address the wrongs of the past.

The Government and the Judiciary cannot however change the fact that there have been a plethora of problems with all of the trials, problems that have been reported in Bangladesh and the international press. Problems that have been seized upon by the Economist, Human Rights Watch, and by some of the most respected experts on international law across the globe.

This decision does nothing more than add more weight to the argument that the trials must be immediately halted. The trial process is not fair, it is not impartial, and it does not offer justice. The appellate process would appear to be simply an extension of an arm of government as are the lower courts. The only way in which Bangladesh can seek to address the crimes of the past and address those ghosts that still haunt the people of Bangladesh, is to order a fully independent and impartial tribunal, with full international oversight and focus on a long term transitional justice strategy.

During the Prime Minister’s recent address last month at the UN General Assembly in New York there was a call for international support of this process. There should be international support, not in the way the PM envisages, but by putting this back on the agenda of the United Nations to discuss the mechanism by which justice may be established in Bangladesh.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of

MuslimVillage.com.

https://muslimvillage.com/2014/10/27...-of-injustice/
Reply

Abz2000
08-27-2016, 03:51 PM
Here is a short pdf with a history of the events leading up to the 1971 war and up to the recemt events, i haven't finished reading it, however, i found the beginning to be a riveting read.

report on the international crimes tribunal of bangladesh

http://www.barhumanrights.org.uk/sit...desh_final.pdf
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Abz2000
08-27-2016, 03:58 PM
Disappearances and Unlawful Detentions in Bangladesh

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
AUGUST 23, 2016
The use of unlawful detention and disappearance has become the tactic of choice in Bangladesh for dealing with anyone deemed a threat, including political enemies of the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. These practices are a violation of due process and are a mockery of Bangladesh’s laws.

In June, nearly 15,000 people were arrested in response to attacks by militants who killed more than 40 writers, openly gay men, foreigners and members of religious minorities. The arrests, however, seem aimed less at bringing the real culprits to justice than in cracking down on Ms. Hasina’s political opponents. Her government has admitted that only some 194 of the thousands arrested were confirmed militants.

Similar motives lie behind the killing of 22 people in June “shootouts” involving Bangladeshi law enforcement. Among the victims were two student opposition political leaders.

Unlawful detentions and disappearances have become routine in Bangladesh. Authorities act with impunity even when under the international spotlight. Such is the case with Tahmid Khan and Hasnat Karim, who survived a terrorist attack at a restaurant in Dhaka on July 1 and then disappeared after being detained by authorities. The police now admit they have the two in custody, but have produced no evidence either man is guilty of involvement in the attack.

Earlier this month, two other men, Mir Ahmed Bin Qasem and Hummam Qader Chowdhury, were picked up in Dhaka by men in plainclothes, one plucked from his car, the other from his home. Authorities deny either one is in custody, but both men are sons of prominent opposition political leaders and their disappearance smacks of political vendetta.

A thorough reform of law enforcement in Bangladesh is in order. A good place to start would be to release all those detained without charge or a magistrate’s order after 24 hours, as Bangladeshi law requires. The use of plainclothes officers, in an attempt to disguise official involvement, plus a failure to punish police and intelligence officers who participate in such abuses, feeds a culture of impunity. As Ms. Hasina struggles with the militant threat, it is crucial to restore faith in the rule of law


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/23...angladesh.html
Reply

Abz2000
08-27-2016, 07:50 PM
Bangladeshi government should halt the imminent executions of two men convicted of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said Thursday. The authorities should immediately suspend the death sentences of Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid of the Jamaat-e-Islam Party and Salahuddin Qader Chowdhury of the Bangladesh National Party pending an independent and impartial review of their cases.

On November 18, 2015, the Bangladesh Supreme Court rejected review petitions by Mujahid and Chowdhury despite serious fair trial concerns surrounding their convictions. Both men were convicted of alleged war crimes during the 1971 Bangladesh war of independence in trials before the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT).

“Justice and accountability for the terrible crimes committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence are crucial, but trials need to meet international fair trial standards,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “Unfair trials can’t provide real justice, especially when the death penalty is imposed.”

The death sentences against Mujahid and Chowdhury follow a disturbing pattern from previous ICT cases. In December 2013, Abdul Qader Mollah was hanged following hastily enacted retrospective legislation prohibited by international law. Another accused, Delwar Hossain Sayedee, was convicted despite credible allegations of the abduction by government forces of a key defense witness from the grounds of the courthouse, with the ICT refusing to order an independent investigation into the charge. Mohammed Kamaruzzaman was hanged in April 2015 even though witnesses and documents were arbitrarily limited by the courts and inconsistent prior and subsequent statements of prosecution witnesses were not allowed into evidence.

The trials of both Mujahid and Chowdhury have been marred by similar complaints, with arbitrary limitations on witnesses and documents. Mujahid’s lawyers submitted 1500 names of defense witnesses. The court acted reasonably in refusing to consider all 1500, but acted unreasonably by ordering that only 3 witnesses could testify for the defense. The court did not identify the most relevant witnesses; instead, it chose this number arbitrarily. Mujahid was sentenced to death for instigating his subordinates to commit abuses, although no subordinates testified or were identified. Shortly before the hearing on the review petition, one of his lawyers had to go into hiding following a raid on his house and the arrest of another defense counsel in a related case.

In Chowdhury’s case, the court refused to accept any testimony from his alibi witnesses while still demanding that Chowdhury prove that his alibi was valid beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite allowing the prosecution to call 41 witnesses, the ICT limited Chowdhury’s defense to 4 witnesses.The authorities reportedly ordered international airlines flying into Dhaka to declare whether any of Chowdhury’s defense witnesses were booked on their flights ahead of Chowdhury’s review hearing, presumably with an eye to denying them entry on arrival.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is a party, affords the accused the right “to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him or her.”

“Treating the prosecution and defense equally is a basic fair trial principle, but the ICT has routinely ignored that principle in its seeming eagerness to convict the accused,” Adams said. “The accused in all these cases were allowed a minuscule fraction of witnesses, counsel were regularly harassed and persecuted, defense witnesses faced physical threats, and witnesses were denied visas to enter the country to testify.”


.......


Full article:

http://www.eurasiareview.com/2011201...es-executions/
Reply

Abz2000
08-27-2016, 08:18 PM
In July 2006 Sayeedi travelled to the UK to address rallies in London and Luton; his entry was cleared by the foreign office.
Many British MPs considered his admission to the country to be controversial. In leaked emails reported by The Times, an adviser, Eric Taylor, said that Sayeedi's "previous visits to the UK have been reportedly marred by violence caused by his supporters."[27]

On 13 July 2006, the British journalist Martin Bright released a documentary called Who Speaks For Muslims? It included Sayeedi and identified him as having extreme views.

On 24 July 2009, immigration officials at Zia International Airport prevented Sayeedi from going abroad.
He challenged the Government's restriction by filing a writ petition with the High Court on 27 July.
The Attorney General stated before the Chamber Judge that Mawlana Sayeedi had opposed the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. He argued that if Sayeedi was not barred from foreign travel, he might work against the government's efforts to bring justice for war crimes during that conflict.

On 12 August 2009, Manik Poshari filed a war crime case in Pirojpur against Sayeedi and four others.[30] His accusations dated to events during the 1971 Bangladeshi war of independence.

Mahbubul Alam Howladar, a former freedom fighter, and now member and deputy commander of the freedom fighters association called Zianagor upazila Muktijoddha Sangsad, filed charges against Sayeedi with the Pirojpur senior judicial magistrate's court in Zianagar.[31]

The war crime trials of Sayeedi began on 20 November 2011 at the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. The tribunal charged him with twenty counts of crimes against humanity, including murder, rape and arson, during the liberation war.[32] Some of the charges are (a) passing secret information on the gathering of people behind the Madhya Masimpur bus-stand to the Pakistan Army, and leading the Army there, where 20 unnamed people were killed by shooting; (b) abducting and killing of government officials (deputy magistrate – Saif Mizanur Rahman, sub-divisional police officer – Foyezur Rahman Ahmed, and sub-divisional officer – Abdur Razzak) of Pirojpur; (c) identifying and looting the houses and shops of people belonging to the Awami League, Hindu community, and supporters of the Liberation War at Parerhat Bazar under Pirojpur Sadar; (d) leading an operation, accompanied by Pakistan Army, to burn 25 houses of the Hindu community at Umedpur village (under the jurisdiction of Indurkani Police Station); (e) leading the group who abducted three women from the house of Gouranga Saha of Parerhat Bandar and handed them over to the Pakistan army for raping.[33][34][35][36]

Sultan Ahmed Howlader, the fourth prosecution witness in the trial, testified that, during the liberation war, Sayeedi and his associate Moshleuddin confined Bipod Shaha's daughter Vanu Shaha at Parerhat, Pirojpur district and regularly raped her.[33][36] Another witness testified that Sayeedi had organised the Razakar militia, a paramilitary force that aided the Pakistan army at Pirojpur.[37]

The trial saw 28 witnesses for the prosecution and 16 for the defence. In addition, the tribunal received 16 witness statements given to the investigator after the prosecution argued that those witnesses were either dead, or that producing them before the tribunal would incur unreasonable delay or expenditure.[22]

Controversies
On 5 November 2012, Sukhranjan Bali, a prosecution witness who instead testified as a defense witness, was abducted outside the International Crimes Tribunal allegedly by the Bangladesh Police.[38] Human rights group believed it to be a case of forced disappearance. Later, Bali was handed over to India's Border Security Force, and was sentenced to prison and tortured.[38][39] "The apparent abduction of a witness in a trial at the ICT is a cause for serious concern about the conduct of the prosecution, judges and government," said a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch.[39]

Conviction
The tribunal found Sayeedi guilty in 8 of the 20 charges, including mass killing, rape, arson, loot and force minority Hindus to convert to Islam during 1971. On 28 February 2013, the tribunal sentenced him to death by hanging for two charges among the eight committed during the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971.[7][4][3]

As per the verdict, Sayeedi was awarded capital punishment for the offenses as listed in charge Nos. 8 and 10. The court refrained from passing any separate sentence of imprisonment for the offences listed in charges Nos.6,7,11,14,16 and 19 which it said had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. At the same time, the accused was found not guilty to the offenses of crimes against humanity as listed in charges nos. 1,2,3,4,5,9,12,13,15,17,18 and 20 and was acquitted from the said charges.[40]

The Economist criticised the trial, stating that the presiding judge had resigned and Sayeedi's death sentence was handed down by three men who had not heard all the witnesses.[41] The trial was supported by European Union.[9]

The defendant's lawyers boycotted the trial and have said that the charges against Sayeedi and others were politically motivated.

Reactions
Sayeedi said the verdict was not neutral.[43]

By afternoon on the day of the protest, clashes had erupted across Bangladesh between Islamic activists and police forces. An estimated 5000 protesters were injured countrywide.[44][45][46][47] According to BBC, it marked "The worst day of political violence in Bangladesh in decades".[48]

Verdict of the appeal
On 17 September 2014, the Appellate Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court reduced the sentence of Sayedi from the death penalty to ‘imprisonment till death' for war crimes against Bengali people in Bangladesh liberation war in 1971.
Reply

Abz2000
08-27-2016, 08:42 PM
Indian preacher Zakir Naik is banned from UK - BBC News

BBC › uk › news
Jun 18, 2010 -
An Indian Muslim preacher has been banned from entering the UK for his "unacceptable behaviour", the home secretary says. Zakir Naik, a 44-year-old television preacher, had been due to give a series of lectures in London and Sheffield.

Hours before Zakir Naik's take-off, Theresa May cancelled UK visa ...
Hindustan Times › world-news › hours-b...
Mobile-friendly - Jul 12, 2016 -
One of the first acts that led to Theresa May being perceived as a tough home secretary was banning ...

Latest BAN Fashion – Dr Zakir Naik now banned in Canada too ...
www.iftikharislam.com › articles › latest-...
Mobile-friendly - As expected, the moment UK issued a ban on Dr. Zakir Naik from entering it, its allies have started to blindly follow its ...


Government set to slap terror case on Zakir Naik, ban his NGO
Times of India - July 15,2016

It has been far clear that the gothic terror by ISIS has marked the footprints over the land of India. Dhaka attack proved the connection of the terrorist's inspiration with Islamic Fanaticism Inculcator Zakir Naik.

And finally, the midst of a suddenly popped-up the large demand to have the crackdown over Zakir Naik has laid the central government down in the situation of waking up very late. When several questions arising around him like how big empire he has, who are funding his massive programs? He accepted the huge foreign funds and how did the Government remain in sound sleep? The home ministry is now acting in a paradoxical manner to take action over him.

A probe launched Home Ministry is now looking into the allegations of foreign funding to IRF being diverted into political activities. Agencies are also investigating if the NGO's funds were used to induce people towards Islam and "attracting" youths towards terror, the MHA official said to the Press. All such activities are contrary to FCRA (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act), and any violation invites punitive action.



Mumbai police report indicting Zakir Naik of 'unlawful activities' sent to Centre
The Siasat Daily - 3 days ago

August 24, 2016

Mumbai: A Mumbai Police report indicting controversial Islamic preacher Zakir Naik for alleged provocative speeches and involvement in unlawful activities has been forwarded to the Centre, a top Maharashtra government official said on Wednesday.


IS ANYBODY SEEING A PATTERN WHERE A PERSON WHO THE UK GOVERNMENT HAS AN ISSUE WITH SUDDENLY BEGINS TO GET HARASSED?
Notice that the focus on zaakir naik strengthened as soon as teresa may, the queen's new poodle came under her throne.

Chapter Name:Al-Shuara Verse No:22

وَتِلْكَ نِعْمَةٌ تَمُنُّهَا عَلَيَّ أَنْ عَبَّدتَّ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ {22
026:022 Khan
:
"And this is the past favour with which you reproach me, that you have enslaved the Children of Israel."


We should be finding out a little more about the British monarchy and their lies about leaving occupied colonies as "independent" states and not puppet proxy regimes soon InshaAllah.
Reply

Karl
08-28-2016, 11:25 PM
We should be finding out a little more about the British monarchy and their lies about leaving occupied colonies as "independent" states and not puppet proxy regimes soon InshaAllah.
Well India is a nation of mainly peasants, Babu and corrupt leaders. They have been ruled by outsiders for centuries, you can't expect them to be totally independent of the British and other warmongering Westerners. But the place seems to be breaking down into more States so maybe it will go back to being a chaotic land of many rulers fighting amongst each other like the good old days. Also the West is investing in poorer countries so their hold on India is bound to slacken.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-06-2016, 12:30 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-03-2016, 03:44 AM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-01-2013, 02:42 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 08:57 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!