BDINN Newsletter / October 26, 2015

Death Sentence of Jamaat Leader  

Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid  

How Just is that? Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid is the Secre‐

tary General of Bangladesh Jamaat‐e‐Islami 

and former Social Welfare Minister of the 

Government of People’s Republic of Bangla‐

desh. He has gained huge reputa on for his 

transparency, honesty and corrup on free 

life. He also played outstanding role for the 

establishment of democracy, rule of law and 

human rights in Bangladesh. The na on ad‐

mired him for his sincere role in all the demo‐

cra c and an ‐autocra c movement. 

The incumbent government in Bangladesh is 

extremely envious of his popularity. They are 

also in fear witnessing the growing ac‐

ceptance of Bangladesh Jamaat‐e‐Islami. To 

resist this expanding force, they ini ated a 

tribunal just immediate a er coming to the 

power in order to prosecute the opposi on 

Islamist forces. As the government did not 

find any misdeeds or corrup on in the previ‐

ous record of these leaders, they had ini at‐

ed the trial implica ng them with some 

offences which had been commi ed 44 years 

back, during the war of independence in 

1971. In the name of trying the war criminals, 

the government started a new conspiracy 

against the opposi on leaders, par cularly 

against the leaders of Jamaat‐e‐Islami includ‐

ing Mr. Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid. 

The Government of Bangladesh has established an 

interna onal crimes tribunal in 2010 to prosecute 

the leaders of Bangladesh Jamaat‐e‐Islami . Though 

it is interna onal in name, but actually it is a do‐

mes c court. All the judges and prosecutors are lo‐

cals, even with some ruling party connec ons. No 

foreign lawyers and interna onal observers are al‐

lowed to witness this trial.  

In past couple of years, many interna onal organi‐

za ons like UN, European Union, Human rights 

watch, Amnesty Interna onal, Interna onal Bar As‐

socia on and many dis nguished personnel around 

the world raised ques ons and expressed concern 

over the standard and par san ac vi es of the tri‐

bunal. Terming the court as a government’s tool of 

repression, they asked the government to halt the 

trial process.  

But ignoring all the recommenda ons, the govern‐

ment con nued the trial and already executed two 

top leaders of Jamaat‐e‐Islami namely martyr Abdul 

Quader Molla and martyr Muhammad Kama‐

ruzzaman and now Mr. Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mu‐

jahid is apparently going to accept the same fate. 

The trial court (Interna onal Crimes Tribunal)

merged charge number one (the murder of

journalist Shirajuddin Hossen) into charge

number 6 (criminal offence in Mohammadpur

Physical Training ins tute) and awarded death

sentence to Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid.

The Appeal court has acqui ed him from

charge number one and maintained the death

penalty for making conspiracy to conduct intel‐

lectual killing.

The lawyers of Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid

filed the review pe on in the concerned sec‐

on of the Supreme Court on 14th October,

2015 at 10 am. In the 38 pages of the pe on

the lawyers have included 32 grounds. Some of

those are as follows:

‐ In support of the intellectual killing allega‐

ons, the prosecu on brought two witnesses.

One is Rustom Ali Molla who was 14 in 1971

and the second one is Jahir Uddin Jalal who

was just 13 during the 1971 war. Rustom Ali

Molla claimed himself as eyewitness though

there are severe discrepancies in his statement

while Jalal has appeared as a hearsay witness.

‐ Rustom Ali Molla did not see Mujahid to plot

conspiracy or to design planning with the sen‐

ior army officers. He claimed to see Mujahid at

the gate of the Mohammadpur Physical Train‐

ing ins tute 3/4 months a er the war begins.

He further admi ed that he did not know Mu‐

jahid. The security guards who were working

over there, they were talking about the arrival

of Ghulam Azam, Nizami and Mujahid at the

Mohammadpur Physical Training ins tute and

then he came to know Mujahid. It becomes

crystal clear from Rustom’s tes mony that he

knew none of these aforesaid 3 persons. No‐

body has introduced him with Mujahid specifi‐

cally as well. Then naturally the ques on

comes up, without any prior knowledge about

the face or the iden ty of Mujahid, how did

Rustom recognize him? However, if it is taken as

assumable truth, thus it proves that Mujahid

plo ed conspiracy or designed planning for

these killings with the army officer?

‐ Jahir Uddin Jalal stated in his tes mony that

Rustom Ali Molla informed him about the fre‐

quent movement of Nizami, Mujahid at the

Mohammadpur Physical Training Ins tute. But

the inves ga on officer clearly denied such

claim and said Rustom had never told him that

he had knew Jalal before. So the claim of Jalal in

this regard is being proved false.

‐ Raham Ali Molla, the father of Rustom Ali Mol‐

la was the security guard of Mohammadpur

Physical training ins tute in those days of war.

Inves ga on officer admi ed in the cross exami‐

na on that Raham Ali Molla is alive now but the

prosecu on did not produce him as witness. The

then Principal of the Physical training ins tute

Mohibbullah Khan Majlish and his son and cur‐

rent principal Tareq Iqbal Khan Majlish (who was

a student of class 8 in 1971) were not produced

as witness as well. Moreover the inves ga on

officer did not talk to anyone who had been

working in the Mohammadpur Physical Training

ins tute in 1971 or any staffs who had resided

inside the ins tute or even the IO did not pro‐

duce any of them as witness. Ignoring and defy‐

ing the availability of the senior and credible

persons of those incidents, the prosecu on

brought an immature man of that me and

based on his false and contradictory statement,

the death penalty of Mr. Mujahid is maintained.

‐ It has been alleged that Mujahid had hatched

conspiracy with the army officials for commi ng

intellectual killing. But the prosecu on failed to

reveal that how, when and with whom he had

made this conspiracy. Even, the prosecu on

u erly failed to produce any evidence to prove

that who had been murdered for this alleged

conspiracy.

Secretary General of Bangladesh Jamaat‐e‐Islami and former Social Welfare Minister and pop‐

ular leader Mr. Ali Ahsan Mujahid is held cap ve in prison unlawfully for last 5 years. He is a 

vic m of poli cal vengeance of the ruling government in Bangladesh. Government in order to 

kill him has conspired to convict him through the false accusa on and cases of crime against 

humanity and false witnesses given by party men guided by the blueprint design of the govern‐

ment. The allega ons brought against him are totally fabricated and staged drama.  

What are the allega ons against him? ‐ Though the prosecu on brought allega on

of killing a specific intellectual namely Shi‐

rajuddin Hossen, a renowned journalist

against Mr. Mujahid, but the appellate divi‐

sion has acqui ed him from the charge.

‐ Mr. Mujahid has been convicted and sen‐

tenced as a commander of Al Badar (An

auxiliary force of the Pakistani Army). But

the prosecu on failed to address following

burning ques ons in this regard

‐ Who and when appointed Ali Ahsan Mo‐

hammad Mujahid as the commander of Al

Badar force?

‐ Was he the first and last commander of Al

Badar? Who had discharged this duty before

and a er his office?

‐ According to the prosecu on, Al Badar was

formed in Jamalpur district with the ini a‐

ve of one Pakistani officer Major Riaz.

Mujahid was the President of Dhaka district

Islami Chhatrashangha at that me. How he

became the chief of the force staying in

Dhaka while the force was established in

some other parts of the country?

‐ In the book ‘The Vanquished Generals’

edited by noted academician Professor

Muntasir Mamun, two top generals of the

Pakistani Army Rao Forman Ali and AAK

Niazi admi ed that Al Badar was operated

under the command and control of the

Pakistani army. Being a student, how Mr.

Mujahid became the chief of such a para‐

military force. We have submi ed this book

as the ‘Fresh Evidence’ along with our re‐

view pe on.

‐ During the trial, the inves ga ng officer of

the case categorically admi ed that during

his two yearlong inves ga ons, he did not

find out the name of Mujahid in any list of Al

Badar, Al Shams, Razakars or peace com‐

mi ee. Then how did the court convict him

as the commander of Al Badar?

‐ Immediate a er the war of independence

(17th December to 1972), many news had

been published in the then dailies about the

atroci es and crimes of Al Badar which also

asked the countrymen to assist in process of

arres ng the people who had involved with

How biased and poli cized was the court?

Though the government and ICT have 

stated that jus ce was the priority, 

opposi on par es Jamaat‐e‐Islami and 

the BNP accused the prime minis‐

ter Sheikh Hasina of using the tribunal 

to persecute them.  

In December 2012, conversa ons and

emails between the judge and a Brussels‐

based lawyer were published, which according

to The Economist revealed that the govern‐

ment wanted a quick verdict from

the Interna onal Crimes Tribunal.

Following the revela ons, the controversial

chief Jus ce Nizamul Huq resigned from the

post and Fazle Kabir was appointed there.

It was absolutely clear, from the very begin‐

ning, that these courts are merely kangaroo

courts, where standards of law and jus ce are

blatantly disregarded and the verdicts have

already been decided before the trials have

begun. Several key incidents made this obvi‐

ous:

As revealed in #SkypeGate, the judges of this

mockery of jus ce were directed by Ziauddin

Ahmed, a member of a notorious an ‐Jamaat

group. He was not an official of the court and

yet, like a Czar, he controlled every aspect of

the tribunal. On many occasions, he has

wri en orders that were handed down by the

court as‐is. He has also designed a guideline

for the judges and a basic structure for all the

verdicts to come, way before the trials com‐

pleted.

A number of the Tribunal members par cipat‐

ed in the so called Gana Adalat Commission (or

People’s Court) that prejudged these cases in

the early 1990s. Indeed the former Chairman

of the Tribunal is listed as a member of the

Secretariat of the Commission.

There was clear evidence of collusion between

the Tribunal, the prosecu on, and members of

an an ‐Jamaat organiza on during the trial

process. The prosecutor and judges would

meet regularly in secret and decide how they

would act in unison against the defense.

Former Chairmen of the ICT‐1, Jus ce Nizamul

Huq, admi ed that a state minister, Quamrul

Islam, pressured him for quick verdicts and a

judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme

Court, Jus ce SK Sinha, offered him promo on

in return.

On  several  occasions,  the  judges  de‐

clared that they have a par cular view 

of  the events of 1971 and  they would 

never change that view  irrespec ve of 

whatever evidence or witness tes mo‐

ny are presented before them. 

those crimes. But no news is found men oning the

name of Mujahid. If he really was the commander

of AL Badar, then immediate a er independence,

why did the people fail to blame him for any

offence?

‐ In connec on with the intellectual murder, 42

cases had been filed under the collaborator act in

1972. The prosecu on did not submit the docu‐

ments of those cases during the trial of the instant

case. But it is truly ques onable that a er 42

years, the liabili es of all those murders are being

imposed upon a single man, Mujahid.

‐ A 7 member inves ga on commi ee led by re‐

nowned film maker Zahir Raihan had been formed

on 29th December, 1971 for probing the intellectu‐

al murder. Veteran lawyer Barrister Amirul Islam

and Barrister Maudud Ahmed were also included

as a member in this commi ee. The prosecu on in

the case against Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid

did not submit the findings of that inves ga on

commi ee or not even discussed the ma er with

any of the commi ee members. Why the prosecu‐

on did not disclose the report of this probe com‐

mi ee before the na on?

The honorable Appellate Division did not 

award death sentence to Ali Ahsan Mo‐

hammad Mujahid for any specific murder 

or offence. Simply based on assump on, 

they have made Mujahid liable for 

plo ng the conspiracies of the intellectu‐

al murder as a whole. There is no prece‐

dence in the 400 hundred year long histo‐

ry of judiciary that, a man is being sen‐

tenced with death penalty for his role as a 

conspirator even a er his physical in‐

volvement is not confirmed. 

Actually, this is not a trial. This is simply a 

game of the current government with the 

public sen ment about the war of libera‐

on. This is a strategy of repression which 

has been adopted by the ruling authority 

to destroy the possible rising opposi on 

forces. 

Who is Mujahid? 

Mr. Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid is the Secretary General of 

Bangladesh Jamaat‐e‐Islami, a party in opposi on in Bangla‐

desh. He also served the na on as the Social Welfare Minister 

from 2001‐2006. He has played pivotal role in all the previous 

movement against the autocracy to restore democracy in the 

country. But simply out of poli cal vende a, the present gov‐

ernment brought some false and concocted charges against him 

as they failed to tackle him poli cally.  

Mujahid was sentenced to death in 2013 in line with the allega‐

on of commi ng crimes against humanity during the libera‐

on war of 1971, charges which had never been heard in last 44 

years. 

Mr Mujahid was a student leader in 1971 and among those who 

supported a unified Pakistan. 

He later became social welfare minister in the Bangladesh Na‐

onalist Party‐led government from 2001‐2006. 

He is highly regarded for his oratory and organiza onal skills. 

On 22th Oct, Advocate Asad Uddin, who is making regular

effort in the Appeal prepara on of Jamaat leaders has been

picked up by the law enforcing agencies while going to his

na ve district Sirajganj and taken into an unknown place.

Police also raided into the house of Advocate Mohammad

Shihir Monir that evening. Shishir Monir is one of the key

members of the defence team and he is engaged now at the

prepara on of the review pe on hearing of Jamaat’s Secre‐

tary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid. The date of the

review hearing of Mr. Mujahid is fixed at 2nd November.

Police is crea ng obstruc on in his professional ac vi es by

conduc ng raid into his house. Harassment of the lawyers is

somehow similar to create obstruc on in the judicial process.

Earlier, the defence team members had faced similar harass‐

ment and police raid in their houses and chambers. Subse‐

quently the defence team had filed an applica on in the

interna onal crimes tribunal seeking protec on. Later, the

tribunal ordered not to harass or arrest the members of the

defence team. That order of the tribunal is s ll valid.

Just before the appeal hearing begins, such harassment, raid

and abduc on of the defence lawyers from the vehicle is

amount to create obstruc on in providing the legal assis‐

tance. The lawyers are being regarded as the officers of the

court. So by harassing them, actually the government is ham‐

pering the judicial procedure.

Commen ng on this unjust situa on son of Mujahid, Ali Ah‐

mad Mabrur, said:

“We have been taking prepara on maintaining the legal and

approved course of ac ons. Already our lawyers have sub‐

mi ed the review pe on as per the Supreme Court’s rules

and it is ready for hearing. Then why our lawyers are being

harassed? The people who are talking about rule of law,

would they kindly explain that why our lawyers are being

obstructed in performing their du es? Why the lawyers, the

officers of the court are being barred?”

“We do not know that whether we would get jus ce or not,

but are we going to lose our minimum right to face the case

legally?”

We are condemning such role of the government and calling

upon the concerned authori es to stop the harassment of

the lawyers and to assist them in discharging their profes‐

sional du es properly.

Law enforcers have been

harassing the defence

lawyers of Mujahid.