Home
+
Published : 19 Apr 2026, 03:02 PM
British journalist and human rights activist David Bergman has warned that the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) risks losing legitimacy if cases linked to the July 2024 killings are seen as being driven by politics rather than evidence.
In a Facebook post on Saturday night, he said there were growing signs that some prosecutions were becoming “politically – rather than evidentially – driven”, even though others appeared stronger on the facts. “There are signs that we are moving in that direction,” he wrote.
Following the July-August 2024 uprising, the ICT was repurposed from trying 1971 war crimes to handling cases over alleged crimes against humanity linked to the crackdown on protesters. It is now hearing cases against senior political and law enforcement figures, including former prime minister Sheikh Hasina.
Bergman wrote that “the deterioration has been gradual rather than sudden”, although some prosecutions still appeared more evidentially satisfactory than others.
Bergman also said that there had long been concern that the tribunal’s proceedings could lose “overall legitimacy” if politicisation overtook evidence-based prosecution.
He cited the case against former Awami League MP Fazle Karim Chowdhury as an example, questioning whether investigators and prosecutors had enough evidence to justify pursuing him in connection with killings in Chattogram in July 2024.
Chowdhury, a former MP from Raozan, was arrested in February 2025.
In his post, Bergman said the key issue for investigators and prosecutors should be whether there was evidence to justify prosecuting Chowdhury for crimes against humanity over the July killings.
He wrote that Chowdhury had recently been charged over killings on Jul 16 and Jul 18 in Chattogram City, where Awami League activists allegedly opened fire on protesters.
But Bergman emphasised that Chowdhury represented Raozan, not Chattogram City, that there were no killings in his own constituency, and that he fell outside any alleged Awami League chain of command for the city.
He also wrote that there was “no photograph, video, or audio recording placing him at the scene or linking him to any order or instruction”.
“On that evidentiary basis, it is very hard to see how investigators and prosecutors could reasonably conclude they have a case that allows them to initiate a prosecution,” Bergman added.
He suggested the explanation for Chowdhury’s inclusion in the chargesheet lay elsewhere, alleging that a student grouping centred on the Raozan-based religious-political organisation Muniria Jubo Tabligh, along with other pro-July Uprising groups, had been pressing for his prosecution.
According to Bergman, investigators may have felt unable to leave Chowdhury’s name out of the investigation report, while prosecutors may have felt equally unable to drop him from the chargesheet.
“Whether anyone has conducted a genuine, dispassionate assessment of the evidence against him is doubtful. No person should be prosecuted in such a scenario.”
The post also referred to a separate controversy involving one of the prosecutors linked to the case.
Bergman wrote that it emerged last month that a prosecutor handling the matter had allegedly sought money from Chowdhury’s family in exchange for facilitating bail.
He said the matter only came to light after the family produced recordings of conversations, prompting the ICT to set up an investigation committee. Bergman added that it was “surely not tenable” for the tribunal to press ahead with the prosecution while the corruption allegation remained unresolved.
He noted that the case would soon come before the tribunal, which under the law may frame charges only if it finds “sufficient grounds to presume that the accused has committed an offence”.
“One should keep an eye out for how the Tribunal goes about making this decision,” Bergman wrote.
