Media gag will serve no purpose

We are somewhat taken aback at the International Crimes Tribunal's decision to direct Bangladeshi media, both print and electronic to refrain from covering the controversy of the “Skype” conversation between a judge and a lawyer. The feeble excuse that accompanies the directive that it will adversely affect justice is amusing, especially in light of the fact that the piece of news was published in full on the internet over a week ago and which has been distributed over innumerable websites and blogs online, cannot be contained through the gag order.
Precisely what is the purpose of issuing such a directive? Those who have internet access have already read the contents of the conversation in print format and online, and photo copies are also easily available. There is no doubt in the public mind about its genuineness since both the principal actors in the conversation have admitted that they have been communicating. Indeed Justice Nizamul Huq felt obliged to step down, which was the most appropriate thing to do given the public exposure. The issue at hand is whether the public is better served by their knowledge of the incident. We think they are. An informed public is the backbone of democracy. This ban goes against the fundamental “Right of the Public to Know.” While the Court states it as a private conversation, we beg to differ on the grounds that the matter of war crimes is of great public import. The government is pledge bound that the tribunal's activities are conducted in the most appropriate manner, so that the country and people earn due international respect. It is to punish the war criminals through a due process of law that we need to adhere to the highest standard of our own laws.
The fundamental issue is that the Chair of the tribunal acted improperly. This improper act would not have come to light had the hacking incident not occurred. Though hacking is not proper behaviour, we think the holding of a proper trial is the issue at hand, and this act has helped in that case. We do not share the view of those who say that because the tribunal head has stepped down, it has called into question the legality of the process itself. The trial of war criminals is in the national interest and has been the government's pledge. It is something we believe should continue but a gag order at this stage will be counterproductive.