Justice vs judgment – The Hindu

Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal has gone through three different phases in the last 55 years. In the first phase, it was conceived under the rule of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as Bangladesh was trying to achieve justice for the 1971 genocide. In the second phase, his daughter Sheikh Hasina won the 2008 elections by promising to use the court to punish the 1971 collaborators. In the third phase, the same court is now being used to deliver justice for those who lost their lives or were injured during Ms Rahman’s crackdown. Hasina’s government in July-August 2024.

With the fall of Mrs. Hasina, it became clear that ICT would also undergo changes to suit the demands of anti-Hasina forces currently in power in Dhaka. Although described as necessary by the interim government, these changes exposed the court to allegations of political bias. In October 2024, the interim government brought retired judge Golam Mortuza Mazumdar to the International Crimes Court.

Last year, the leading name in ICT was Mohammad Tajul Islam, a firebrand lawyer who handled several high-profile cases.

The court is divided into two wings: Court 1, led by Justice Golam Mortuza Mozumdar, and Court 2, headed by Nazrul Islam Chowdhury, who took over in May 2025. Court 1 hears cases against Ms. Hasina, while Court 2 hears cases against Ms. Hasina’s colleagues accused of complicity in violence.

ICT’s impending decision is not without a sense of irony. Although established in 1973, the court could not function under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as Mujib began normalizing relations with Pakistan in 1974 after attending the Lahore Islamic Summit where he met Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. This meeting softened calls for justice in the newly liberated Bangladesh. ICT lost some of its urgency in the years under Ziaur Rahman, Abdus Sattar and General Ershad.

The issue of justice resurfaced during the 2007-2008 interim government, when Ms. Hasina campaigned to provide justice to survivors of the 1971 violence and revived the 1973 ICT Act. The court later sentenced several Jamaat leaders to death. Gholam Azam, the most senior leader of Bangladeshi Jamaat, was also convicted.

The court’s anti-Hasina stance is further sharpened by the fact that Attorney General Tajul Islam accused both Gholam Azam and other Jamaat leaders between 2013 and 2016, when most of the death sentences were handed down.

The dilemma continues

As the ICT prepares to announce its decision on November 17, its dilemma remains the same as in 1973 and 2013-2016. ICT is designed to ensure justice within the national legal framework for crimes defined as heinous in international law. An international perspective was necessary because the planners of the 1971 genocide were located outside Bangladesh, in Pakistan. Similarly, between 2013 and 2016, the ICT did not handle cases involving Pakistani nationals while punishing Jamaat leaders in Bangladesh. In 2025, although most of the main defendants, including Ms. Hasina, are outside the country, some of the defendants in the disappearances of political opponents and human rights defenders remain in custody and will likely be tried under Trial 2.

While the ICT has framed the crimes committed in the final weeks of Ms. Hasina’s administration within international law, this is unlikely to be seen as a purely domestic practice in Bangladesh. Official sources in India have already stated that they view ICT as a domestic legal mechanism and not as an international platform. They also point out that the court did not give key defendants equal hearing opportunities.

In recent written interviews, Ms Hasina has described ICT as “politically motivated”. However, the interim government rejected these claims, insisting that ensuring justice for victims of the violence in July-August 2024 was a separate issue.