Jail killing case
The observance of Jail Killing Day raises once more certain fundamental questions around the murder of four national leaders in Dhaka Central Jail on November 3, 1975. The pioneering roles that Syed Nazrul Islam, Tajuddin Ahmad, M. Mansoor Ali and AHM Quamruzzaman played in the liberation of Bangladesh through setting up the Mujibnagar government in April 1971 are now part of history. Without these men taking such a step, the history of this nation could well have been different. In these three decades and more since they were assassinated, barely three months after Bangabandhu and most of his family were wiped out in August 1975, the nation has looked forward to justice being done. Despite the fact that three of the accused in the jail killing case were sentenced to death, a number of questions have remained as to whether we as a people will be able to put the case behind us and move on.
The questions we speak find an echo in Advocate Anisul Haq's assertion that he had to resign from his position as chief public prosecutor in the case because of what he thought was interference in the trial proceedings by one of the accused. Three accused were sentenced to death while fifteen others were awarded other forms of punishment. Since no evidence of their involvement in a conspiracy was found, twenty of the accused were relieved of conspiracy charges. It may be mentioned here that dissatisfaction with the trial was expressed soon after the judgement was delivered. Indeed, all these years after November 1975, it is only natural to ask how such a gruesome act as the assassination of the four leaders could have been carried out without any overall plan behind it. Neither the families of the dead nor public opinion has felt comfortable with the state of the jail killing case. And, of course, over the last three years, since the case moved to the High Court, not much progress has been made.
The people of Bangladesh will be better served if the jail killing case reaches a definitive, legal conclusion. Considering the immense gravity of the case, and tremendous public interest in seeing it expeditiously resolved, we urge the High Court to take up the matter earlier than currently seems likely.
Comments