Mum is the word?
WHAT Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said on Saturday about absence of a provision in the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 on trial of Jamaat-e-Islami is right. This law says nothing about punishment to an organisation found guilty of committing crimes against humanity during the 1971 Liberation War. She supported law minister Anisul Haq's statement that he made last Thursday, and said that he was correct on legal grounds.
The government cannot avoid responsibility for the loophole in the law, which was detected at least a year ago, because it willingly did not make changes to it. Rather, her government was compelled by the huge protests staged by youths at Shahbag and elsewhere in the country to bring about the amendments. The youths had taken to the streets because death sentence was not awarded to Jamaat leader Abdul Quader Mollah by a war crimes tribunal. But the legal provisions at that time did not empower the government to file appeal against the tribunal's verdict. Therefore, the youths had demanded amendment to the law empowering the government to file appeal against Quader Mollah's conviction and also authorising the tribunals to try Jamaat for its crimes against humanity in 1971.
But the government did the job halfheartedly. The bill placed in parliament had proposed introduction of a provision for empowering the government to file appeal against the tribunals' verdicts. The original bill did not have proposal for empowering the war crimes tribunal to hold trial of organisations for committing crimes against humanity. However, during passage of the bill, a ruling alliance MP had proposed an amendment to the bill for inclusion of a provision to empower the tribunals to this effect, which was accepted. But the proposal did not say anything about punishment to an organisation found guilty. Thus, the bill was passed with the loophole in it. Over the past one year, the Sheikh Hasina-led government has not made any move to remove the loophole in the law.
War crimes investigators completed a probe into Jamaat's alleged involvement in crimes against humanity in 1971 and, in March this year, handed over the report to the prosecution for bringing formal charges. The issue of the loophole then came to the fore again. The government had remained silent until last Thursday, when the law minister spoke about the lack of the provision in the law. Here, the crucial questions are: Is it very difficult to amend the law to remove the loophole? Does the government sincerely want to hold trial of Jamaat?
The premier's remarks on trial of Jamaat are, however, confusing. She said a case on Jamaat's registration is pending with the higher court and “the government has nothing to do until judgement of the case is delivered. Two similar cases cannot run simultaneously.” But the two issues are completely different in nature and consequence. The High Court, in August 2013, declared Jamaat's registration with the Election Commission illegal for violation of the criteria for registration. Jamaat has filed an appeal with the Appellate Division challenging the HC verdict. If Jamaat loses the case, its registration with the EC will be cancelled, and it will be unable to contest the parliamentary elections. This will in no way impose a ban on Jamaat's politics. The party will be able to carry out its political programmes. But if Jamaat is banned following conviction by the war crimes tribunal for its crimes against humanity, the party will lose its right to carry out political activities. Its registration with the EC will be automatically cancelled. According to legal experts, there is no bar to bring Jamaat to trial on charge of crimes against humanity. The premier's remarks, however, have added fresh fuel to the speculation that the government wants to keep getting political mileage out of the issue of trail of Jamaat. She seems to be against the demand for the trial of Jamaat now because she said: “There is no reason to create a hullabaloo over the matter.”
Her criticism of the outcry against the purchase of subpar crests awarded to foreign friends and organisations for their contribution to the country's Liberation War is also shocking and ridiculous. Did the media and the people make a mistake by exposing and protesting against the fraudulence which has undermined Bangladesh, not Hasina's government alone? So, the scandal triggered huge outcry. This forced the government to form a probe body that found the media reports to be true. In its report, the committee said the government was robbed of around Tk. 7.04 crore through the forgery. It held former state minister for Liberation War Affairs Ministry A.B. Tajul Islam and 12 others of the ministry responsible.
But, on Saturday, the premier blamed the media. She said: “You will damage your own image by making a hue and cry over the issue. You will establish yourselves as thieves. It will earn the country no honour.” Her accusation is really interesting and reflection of the traditional policy of whipping the whistleblowers. We had witnessed such incidents in the past. Whenever the media exposed corruption and wrongdoings of the people in the governments, the prime ministers and the ministers of the successive governments accused the media of undermining the country's image abroad. All that gave the impression that those who had engaged in misdeeds had not undermined the image of the country. This time, the incumbent premier went further than her predecessors. She said: “They [those who protested the forgery in the crests] are questioning the quantity of gold [in the shields] …. I think this is to bring it [the initiative to honour foreign friends] into question. Just like the Jamaat does not support our independence … .This is similar.”
This is really puzzling -- if you criticise the government's failure or wrongdoing, you may be either branded as anti-liberation force or be likened to the anti-liberation forces. So, should the media and the people keep mum for the sake of the country's image? We leave it to the readers' judgement.
The writer is Senior Reporter, The Daily Star.
Comments