The confessional statement made by former Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chowdhury Abdullah Al Mamun regarding his alleged involvement in the violence that took place in July-August of the previous year raises several legal and ethical concerns. While Mamun’s testimony before the Jamaat-controlled International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh (ICT-BD) may appear to hold significant weight, a deeper analysis reveals serious flaws in its credibility and legality. These issues, ranging from possible motives for false testimony to the lack of due process, should caution all stakeholders before drawing definitive conclusions based solely on his statements.
Credibility Concerns: Motive and Bias
One of the primary issues with Mamun’s testimony is the potential for self-serving motives. Under Section 15(1) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, Mamun has received a conditional pardon. Such a deal typically involves individuals providing incriminating testimony in exchange for leniency or immunity from prosecution. This raises a significant concern: Mamun could have an incentive to shift blame onto others, especially higher-profile figures, such as former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asduzzaman Khan Kamal, in order to minimize his own culpability. The likelihood that Mamun’s testimony is designed to safeguard his own interests rather than provide an honest account of events cannot be ignored.
The issue of bias is equally concerning. As Mamun is cooperating with the prosecution, his testimony could be tailored to support the state’s case. The Chief Prosecutor, Tajul Islam, has repeatedly echoed Mamun’s statements in public briefings, presenting them as irrefutable facts. This blind reliance on Mamun’s testimony raises doubts about the fairness of the trial, particularly in a political environment where the stakes are incredibly high.
The Problem with Accomplice Testimony
International legal standards generally regard testimony from accomplices—individuals who are themselves implicated in the alleged crimes—as inherently unreliable. Legal systems, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), mandate corroboration of accomplice testimony, warning that convictions based solely on such evidence are highly vulnerable to appeal. In the case of Mamun’s statements, there is a lack of independent corroborating evidence to support his claims. The key evidence consists primarily of controversial call recordings, which, on their own, do not meet the required standards of proof.
The case of Lubanga (2012) in the ICC highlighted the need for corroboration, particularly when witnesses have personal stakes in the outcome. Mamun’s testimony, without adequate support from independent sources, falls into the category of “tainted evidence,” which courts typically scrutinize more rigorously.
Due Process Concerns: Lack of Cross-Examination
Another significant flaw in the trial process is the lack of cross-examination of the other accused parties. Since Sheikh Hasina and Asduzzaman Khan Kamal are being tried in absentia, they cannot directly challenge Mamun’s testimony. This denial of the right to cross-examine a key witness is a clear violation of the principle of “equality of arms,” as enshrined in the Rome Statute, under Article 67(1)(e). This principle guarantees that all parties in a trial have equal opportunities to present and challenge evidence.
The inability to cross-examine Mamun exacerbates concerns that his testimony could go uncontested, allowing the prosecution to build an unfair case. In the Bemba et al. case (2018), the ICC emphasized the need for caution when dealing with evidence from incentivized witnesses, especially when such testimony cannot be challenged by the defense.
The Political Context: A Prejudiced Trial
The political backdrop surrounding the ICT-BD adds further complications. The Awami League has raised serious questions about the tribunal’s impartiality, accusing it of being influenced by political agendas rather than upholding the principles of justice. The prosecution’s reliance on questionable testimonies and call recordings, combined with the admission of crimes by opposition leaders, has led many to believe that the ICT-BD is serving a political purpose rather than conducting a fair trial.
Furthermore, the role of the media in shaping public perception of the case cannot be understated. Documentaries from the BBC and Al Jazeera, often cited by the prosecution, have been criticized for their alleged bias and lack of objectivity. These sources have been used to bolster the narrative of the prosecution, despite their questionable reliability.
Conclusion: The Need for Impartial Justice
Given the numerous issues with Mamun’s confessional statement—ranging from potential motives for dishonesty to procedural flaws in the trial process—it is imperative that all stakeholders exercise caution before drawing conclusions. The trial, as it stands, appears to be deeply flawed, lacking the impartiality and due process required for a fair judicial proceeding. The ICT-BD’s reliance on dubious testimonies and the absence of the accused in court are serious violations of international human rights standards.
The Awami League’s calls for an impartial trial should be taken seriously. If the ICT-BD is to maintain any semblance of credibility, it must ensure that its proceedings adhere to the principles of justice and fairness. Only then can the public trust that the truth will prevail, and that justice will be served—regardless of political affiliation or power.
