ICT-2 orders to provide Azad documents for his appeal

Abul Kalam Azad alias Bachchu, who was sentenced to death in 2013 for crimes against humanity committed during the 1971 Liberation War, surrendered before the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) yesterday after more than a decade as a fugitive.

The three-member ICT-2, led by Justice Md Nozrul Islam Chowdhury, ordered that Azad shall be “at liberty to remain as he is” until the appellate forum passes an appropriate order. 

It also directed the authorities to provide him with certified copies of all case documents to enable him to file an appeal against his death sentence.

After the hearing, Azad left the tribunal premises in a car.

Azad was convicted in absentia in a case filed in 2012. The tribunal found him guilty of abduction, torture, rape, and mass killings of unarmed civilians, particularly members of the Hindu community, during the Liberation War, as well as of collaborating with the Pakistan occupation forces and local auxiliary forces.

Before proceedings resumed in a separate case linked to the July uprising against former minister Hasanul Haq Inu, Prosecutor Gazi Monawar Hossain Tamim sought permission to place Azad’s petition before the tribunal. The chairman said the matter would be taken up later.

When the hearing began around 3:30pm, Azad appeared before the tribunal and sat in the dock. 

His lawyer, Md Mosiul Alam, said the home ministry had suspended Azad’s death sentence for one year in October last year, prompting the tribunal chairman to question whether the government had the authority to issue such an order.

The defence cited section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), but the tribunal noted that the CrPC does not apply to proceedings under the International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973, as per section 23 of the act. 

Prosecutor Tamim said the government may not be bound to execute a tribunal order.

The tribunal then stated categorically that the government does not have the authority to suspend a sentence passed by the tribunal, noting that such powers rest with the president and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

Seeking clarity, the tribunal chairman asked what relief the defence was seeking. 

The defence replied that by surrendering, Azad only wanted certified copies of the case documents so that he could move the Appellate Division against the 2013 verdict.

At one stage, the defence counsel said the government had already issued the suspension order and asked whether the tribunal could simply disregard it. The chairman observed, “We are not bound to carry out the government order.”

Later, the defence said, “Where will I go? Please return my documents and I will go to the Appellate Division.”

The tribunal then ordered that certified copies of the necessary papers be supplied to Azad. Initially, it said the convicted petitioner would remain in custody until filing the appeal and advised the defence to approach the Appellate Division expeditiously.

Both the defence and Prosecutor Tamim later informed the tribunal that the home ministry’s order had been issued following a presidential directive, backed by a gazette notification. 

The defence also said Azad is around 80 years old and requires assistance from two people to move.