Latest Court Appearance puts Government Incompetence in International View

by Dr. Richard Benkin
August 20, 2009

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/263/latest-court-appearance-puts-government

Weekly Blitz editor and publisher Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury was back in court on August 12, 2009. Two witnesses appeared for the government, and according to witnesses, their testimony (such as it was) was essentially "dictated by the government" perhaps in the form of extremely leading questions and canned answers. Moreover, Shoaib Choudhury complained that the "prosecution side did not properly allow my lawyers to cross examine these fake witnesses." It all was rather irregular and inconsistent with recent trends and statements by the court. It also contravened even basic standards of justice under both Bangladeshi and international law.

What does it mean? First, it appears that Shoaib Choudhury's supporters might have been incorrect recently and at other times to believe the Bangladeshi government had any sort of coherent plan or even the vaguest idea of what to do about this man. He will remain a mystery to them because he has consistently stood on principle despite "incentives" not to do so.

Contrast that with the government's inconsistent and morally bereft actions. First through various officials, it claimed interest in his work--then, arrested him. The government at first refused to charge him with any crimes, continuing to hold him nevertheless—then charged him with capital offenses. The government first was adamant in refusing to let him out on bail because the case was "too sensitive" and he "dangerous" to the nation; but then let him out anyway. Representatives from the highest levels in the last four Bangladeshi governments said they would drop the charges—which they admitted were false and radical-inspired—then, they said they would not drop them and called demands to do so unwarranted interference . Even in my first meeting at the Bangladeshi embassy in Washington, one embassy official told me that he researched the case extensively, "but could not find anything wrong except that some people do not like him [Shoaib]."

"And is that a reason to imprison a man in Bangladesh?" I asked.

Evidently it is, because the government later assured members of the United States Congress and others that it would not put him on trial—and did so numerous times; but eventually it did. "Don't worry," government officials told me and US officials. "There is no evidence against him, and he will be acquitted in a trial." But as perfunctory court dates came and went, the government refused to call any witnesses or present any arguments but somehow kept getting new court dates.

I also made it clear to government officials on several occasions that, as Shoaib's prosecution violated Bangladesh's own law, dropping the charges would only affirm Bangladesh's commitment to the rule of law. In an amicus curae and elsewhere, internationally-acclaimed human rights attorney and Canadian Member of Parliament Dr. Irwin Cotler, whose clients have included Nelson Mandela, identified at least 18 violations of Bangladeshi law and additional violations of international law in Shoaib's prosecution.

Whether it was the BNP, civilian caretaker, military-backed caretaker, or now Awami League government, the actions and fabrications were the same. People have long ago noticed that, too, which is why Bangladesh has been stymied in its attempts to gain legitimacy as a partner with western nations in the war against extremism—the same Islamist extremism that set off bombs in the Bangladeshi capital and elsewhere. But successive government have place political expediency above the people's interest by maintaining a case they admit to be baseless.

In fact, the Public Prosecutor in the case was recently overheard telling others that despite the lack of evidence and the prosecution's poor showing in the courtroom, he expected a conviction based, not on the law and evidence, but on politics.

Let us hope he is incorrect again. For with every turn away from justice, one could see the hand of Islamist puppet masters pulling the government's strings--over and over again—and becoming the primary obstacle to Bangladesh's success in convincing others that it is a "moderate Muslim nation."

The government changed its position again this year and finally called a witness--but when the defense challenged him to provide evidence to support his allegations (and the judge supported the defense), he never returned to the courtroom. For months, he simply refused to show for court. In civilized nations worldwide where the rule of law exists, the court would have dropped the charges in the face of such legal irregularities. In fact, had the defense simply refused to show, there can be no doubt but that the court would have ordered the re-incarceration of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury; and the government would have explained it to the US and others on the basis of the law. Yet that same law is not applied equally in Bangladesh and certainly not to the government. For in the face of such contempt of the court, the government received more court dates; no reprimand, no demand to produce their witness. Recently, the prosecution changed up again by calling more witnesses; and Shoaib's attorney was convinced that the government was looking to end their ordeal. Yet, the next court date was another one in which government witnesses did not show and the prosecution was awarded yet another continuance.

Those witnesses who did testify talked about all sorts of things but did not offer any evidence that Shoaib committed a crime. In some cases, they made general allegations without even offering any evidence to support them; and when the judge asked for some, neither witness nor prosecutor offered any. In others, they spoke of general matters unrelated to the facts of Shoaib's case. At one point, even the presiding judge seemed to recognize the farce and said that Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury "deserved to be honored not harassed" for exposing the rise of radicals in his country. Yet, that same judge presided over the legal irregularities of the most recent courtroom debacle.

For some, the case of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury involves securing justice for one journalist—and, in fact, it does. Even beyond that, however, what happens in that case will determine the fate of a nation. An acquittal signals Bangladesh's return to the rule of law and a commitment to opposed radical Islamists. A conviction signals the world that Bangladesh has chosen to side with the radicals against civilization. Which will it choose? The world is watching.

Related Topics:  Bangladesh News receive the latest by email: subscribe to weekly blitz's free mailing list