Ghulam Azam was ‘lighthouse’ for war crimes

The prosecution said on Monday that Jamaat-e-Islami guru Ghulam Azam was like a “lighthouse” for war crimes and atrocities during the 1971 Liberation War.

Tureen Afroz, a newly appointed prosecutor, presented elaborate arguments before the first war crimes tribunal of Bangladesh to establish the former Jamaat chief’s superior role and responsibility during the war.

The three-judge International Crimes Tribunal-1, set up to try crimes against humanity during the nine-month War of Independence in 1971, indicted Ghulam Azam for five war crimes charges including complicity, incitement and conspiracy.

The tribunal is in the middle of closing arguments of Azam’s defence but had allocated an hour to hear arguments of both sides regarding the former Jamaat chief’s role and responsibility.

With only one junior lawyer present from the defence, the tribunal allowed a petition for a two-day adjournment for a cost of Tk 5,000.

Tribunal Chairman Justice A T M Fazle Kabir fixed the next date on Mar 20 and said that this amount and a previously imposed cost of Tk 1,000 must be paid on that day. “Or we will call the argument to a close,” said the tribunal chief addressing the junior defence lawyer.

Citing war crimes laws from tribunals of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, as well as the Rome Statute, Afroz said that ‘mens rea’ — meaning criminal intent — constituted an essential element of superior role and command responsibility. All three required the prosecution to show a higher degree of criminal intent.

Presenting her arguments with the aid of a laptop computer — a first at the tribunal — she said that the prosecution, however, was only obligated to prove their case as far as the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act of 1973 required.

Afroz explained that the law under which crimes against humanity were being tried in Bangladesh touches upon four aspects — direct participation of a superior officer, indirect participation through subordinates, failure to prevent and failure to punish, control or supervise the subordinates.

At this point Justice Kabir asked, “Does it not appear that this provision has been included keeping military officer in mind?”

Afroz said it did not. “Any commander or superior officer,” she said citing the first few words of the provision, “could mean any civilian holding a high office.”

She explained that ‘superior officer’ allowed the inclusion of civilian superiors under command responsibility. Furthermore, there is no difference of liability between military or civilian superiors.

She also said that this provision did not require the prosecution to show criminal intent as do the other statutes.

First, Afroz said, the prosecution would have to prove that the alleged crime had indeed been committed and second, it would have to prove the criminal liability of the superior.

In showing criminal liability, the prosecution would have to show that the accused, Ghulam Azam, indeed had an effective role over his subordinates. Then the prosecution would have to show that Azam had failed to prevent or punish his subordinates.

Tureen Afroz then referred to prosecution documents and witness testimonies that showed Ghulam Azam indeed held an office of influence during the war.

As regards the crimes committed, the prosecutor said the perpetrators were either the vigilante militia groups or Pakistani occupation army.

Afroz said the Razakar, Al Badr or Al Shams were all manned by “Jamaat members, or its student cadres”.

She said, “By the first week of April 1971, Jamaat-e-Islami had transformed into an armed group. They took up arms to fight as members of a militia or paramilitary group.”

That Azam had an effective superior role as the party chief is only evident. But Afroz also said that Ghulam Azam exercised a role of authority over the occupation army. “He was the one giving directions and identifying whom to attack.”

Afroz said that Ghulam Azam was in direct communication with his subordinates. “He was giving public speeches all over the country. He gave speeches over radio, had meetings with the government.”

Azam also decided on the future course of action and all the propaganda and information were issued from him, said the prosecutor.

“He even urged the government for arming the Razakars and funds were collected under his name. The receipts bore his signature as our exhibit before this tribunal shows.”

Thus, Afroz said, Ghulam Azam could not evade criminal liability for the atrocities committed by either the vigilante militia groups as well as those by the Pakistani Army.

The prosecutor concluded saying that Azam had guided these forces to commit war crimes. “He was like a lighthouse, guiding war crimes and atrocities. His directives were like the guiding beacons to ships.”

The tribunal asked the prosecutor for a written copy of her submissions, which the junior defence lawyer also echoed. Tureen Afroz said it would take her a couple of days to get that ready.

2 day adjournment at cost

The tribunal then took up the adjournment application of Ghulam Azam. The defence, like previous times, refrained from attending the proceedings on account of the countrywide general strike enforced by the opposition.

The tribunal asked why Imran Siddiq, who was supposed to reply to Tureen Afroz, was not present. The junior lawyer, Raihan Uddin, said the application citing ‘personal difficulties’ was not just for Mizanul Islam but also for Siddiq, son of Jamaat’s chief defence counsel Abdur Razzaq.

The tribunal said, “We understand that Mr Mizanul Islam cannot come on such days but what of the others? The defence is in the middle of its closing argument and not a single lawyer comes in?”

The tribunal then said that the adjournment was allowed at a cost of Tk 5,000.

Justice Kabir said the previous Tk 1,000 imposed for another adjournment and this amount had to be paid by the next date, Mar 20.

Jamaat Guru in ICT-1

On Dec 12, 2011, the prosecution brought a 52-point charter of charges against Azam and appealed for his arrest. Later, following the tribunal order, charges were re-arranged and presented to the tribunal on Jan 5.

He was produced before the tribunal on Jan 11 and sent to jail the same day. Since that evening, the 90-year old former Carmichael College professor has been kept at the prison cell of the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University for better treatment considering his delicate health.

Ghulam Azam’s indictment hearing began on Feb 15 and the court charged him on May 13.

A former chief of Jamaat-e-Islami, arguably the largest Islamist organisation in the subcontinent, Azam is allegedly among the key people who pioneered anti-liberation efforts in 1971 colluding with the Pakistani military junta of that time.

He is widely perceived to have been among core group of right-wing supporters of the Pakistani Army, who came out strongly in support of a united Pakistan.

Ghulam Azam, then chief of Jamaat, was instrumental in setting up the infamous Peace Committee at the national level. The Razakars, an auxiliary force set up mainly to actively thwart the liberation forces, are said to have been mobilised through the Peace Committees across Bangladesh.

Among the most notorious vigilante militia are the Al Badr, whose membership is said to have been mainly dominated by the Jamaat's student wing called the Islami Chhatra Sangha at that time.

The Al Badr is alleged to have spearheaded execution of the intellectual elites of Bangladesh just days before the victory on Dec 16, 1971.

Azam also spoke in favour of Pakistan to the Middle Eastern countries during the war, according to the prosecution.

He stayed in London for seven years after 1971 and returned to Bangladesh in 1978 during BNP founder Ziaur Rahman's rule. Having led Jamaat for long, Azam retired from active politics in 1999.

His party remains a key ally of the main opposition BNP. Two Jamaat leaders, also behind bars for war crimes charges, have even served as ministers during the BNP's last tenure in government between 2001 and 2006, when Azam's party was part of the ruling coalition.

Azam was indicted on five charges — 61 counts — including incitement, conspiracy, planning and complicity on May 13, 2012.