Mail on Sunday refuses to publish facts on Bangladesh and International Crimes Tribunal
On Sunday 14 April 2013, the Mail on Sunday repeated serious and unsubstantiated allegations against Chowdhury Mueen Uddin made by the Bangladeshi government. This was an almost word-for-word rehash of the same article it published 14/10/12. Then, as in now, the paper's reporter, one Mr Abul Taher, failed to publish the full response from Chowdhury Mueen Uddin's lawyer, Toby Cadman, or the full facts surrounding of the controversial International Crimes Tribunal.
Mr Cadman's full response is outlined below for the interest of fair-minded and objective readers:
"Dear Mr. Taher,
In response to your e-mail request I am happy to respond on behalf of my client, Mr. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin as follows.
As I am sure you are aware, my client, who holds dual British and Bangladesh citizenship, has never been prosecuted, charged nor arrested in any country in connection to the unfounded allegations contained in your request. The Bangladesh authorities have never sought to question my client nor have they, to the best of our knowledge, made any proper request through official channels in connection with these matters.
In the absence of any proper, contemporaneous, admissible evidence and in the absence of that evidence being properly put to my client and his being given a proper opportunity to respond, there can be no real justification for your newspaper to contemplate publishing any allegation which in any way purports to link or implicate my client in the atrocities of the 1971 War of Liberation in East Pakistan or even to suggest that he is to be suspected of any involvement. Should you do so, and should you fail to publish a balanced account, I anticipate being instructed to bring proceedings for libel without further notice to you or your employers.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that on 12 October 2012 I issued a statement on behalf of my client in response to statements issued by representatives of the Government of Bangladesh and the International Crimes Tribunal that were in breach of the presumption of innocence as guaranteed under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a State Party. Such statements are inappropriate and will only serve to prejudice the fairness of proceedings and may amount to an abuse of process if continued. The practice of repeating declarations of guilt before trial and creating an atmosphere of hostility directly impacts on the fairness of proceedings and should cease immediately. The politicization of these trials will only impact on the integrity of the process and the law must be allowed to take its course in a courtroom and not in the media.
I must reiterate that no charges or allegations have been formally put to my client about the events of 1971. Last year, you told your readers that my client would be charged “in the next few days” following your interview with official representatives of the Tribunal and Government. Nothing was forthcoming. In that story, you referred to wholly unsubstantiated allegations made by Bangladeshi officials. You are now using your interview with members of the Bangladeshi ruling party to repeat these allegations again. There is absolutely no public interest in simply regurgitating grave, yet false allegations made by politicians acknowledged to pursue vendettas against political opponents.
Let me make my client’s position absolutely clear. My client rejects all these allegations in their entirety. The statements set out in your e-mail are grossly defamatory to my client, wholly untrue and refited in their entirety. I will repeat that as no formal charges have been put to my client, he is not in a position to comment on the substance of the allegations.
I can say however that the conduct of the International Crimes Tribunal, set up by the current Bangladeshi government, has been subject to widespread and detailed criticism by international jurists and human rights organisations. In your previous article you failed to allude to any of the concerns raised by the United Nations and a number of reputable human rights NGOs. Since the publication of your previous article, the US and UK governments and the European Parliament have also voiced significant concerns about the Tribunal. And last December, the Economist magazine exposed collusion between the State, a Tribunal judge, prosecutors and activists. The judicial process is such that defence witnesses have been abducted and the government has amended legislation retrospectively to ensure death penalties are imposed on the accused.
You should also be aware that The Guardian previously published an apology to my client in December 2009 in relation to its publication of similar allegations to those you have already made. You are kindly reminded that you have a duty to report accurately and fairly and to respect the ethical conduct that your profession dictates. Any departure from this accepted rule will be responded to appropriately.
In your e-mail you appear to be in possession of statements made by the Additional Attorney General of Bangladesh, M. K Rahman, a leading prosecutor, Saiful Islam, that my client is to be charged imminently with genocide and war crimes. I find this statement highly disturbing considering that no official request has been made to put these allegations to my client. You also state in your e-mail that the Foreign Minister, Dipu Moni, has declared that Bangladesh will definitely seek to extradite my client. These are all highly inappropriate and deeply provocative statements from members of the Government and Tribunal that have shown a complete disregard for the rule of law and due process.
As regards the question of extradition I need not remind you, as I did in October 2012, that there is no extradition treaty with Bangladesh and under the Extradition Act 2003 the Courts of England and Wales are prohibited from extraditing to countries that practice the death penalty and where there is a real risk that the person in question would not receive a fair trial. It is clear that my client would not receive a fair trial and would be at risk of facing the death penalty.
It is important to note that, despite the public bold statements emanating from the Foreign Minister, the Government of Bangladesh has thus far not submitted a formal request. If the Government of Bangladesh submits a request then it will be contested.
The situation at the Tribunal is dire. I do not consider that these trials have anything to do with justice. The trials are hugely politicized involving instances of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct bordering on a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that judges, in previous cases, have colluded with prosecutors, members of the government and external advisors. There is evidence of prosecution witnesses having been prepared by persons advising the judges and such conduct amounts to criminal perjury.
Over a year ago I warned the international community that unless some urgent action was taken in relation to these trials there was a grave risk of civil unrest. There is no dispute that the events of 1971 saw some of the worst atrocities encountered in modern history. There are comparisons to be drawn with Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia etc. However, that being said, bringing an end to a culture of impunity that has pervaded Bangladesh politics for several decades cannot be used as a tool for state sponsored extra-judicial executions. There is a need for a proper judicial process based on the rule of law.
As a responsible journalist writing for one of the most popular Sunday papers in the country you have a duty to report responsibility and not focus solely on sensationalism. The Tribunal, and the manner in which it has been manipulated by the Government, is a travesty of justice. The public interest demands that you act responsibility and respect the rights of my client."
Mr Cadman's full response is outlined below for the interest of fair-minded and objective readers:
"Dear Mr. Taher,
In response to your e-mail request I am happy to respond on behalf of my client, Mr. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin as follows.
As I am sure you are aware, my client, who holds dual British and Bangladesh citizenship, has never been prosecuted, charged nor arrested in any country in connection to the unfounded allegations contained in your request. The Bangladesh authorities have never sought to question my client nor have they, to the best of our knowledge, made any proper request through official channels in connection with these matters.
In the absence of any proper, contemporaneous, admissible evidence and in the absence of that evidence being properly put to my client and his being given a proper opportunity to respond, there can be no real justification for your newspaper to contemplate publishing any allegation which in any way purports to link or implicate my client in the atrocities of the 1971 War of Liberation in East Pakistan or even to suggest that he is to be suspected of any involvement. Should you do so, and should you fail to publish a balanced account, I anticipate being instructed to bring proceedings for libel without further notice to you or your employers.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that on 12 October 2012 I issued a statement on behalf of my client in response to statements issued by representatives of the Government of Bangladesh and the International Crimes Tribunal that were in breach of the presumption of innocence as guaranteed under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a State Party. Such statements are inappropriate and will only serve to prejudice the fairness of proceedings and may amount to an abuse of process if continued. The practice of repeating declarations of guilt before trial and creating an atmosphere of hostility directly impacts on the fairness of proceedings and should cease immediately. The politicization of these trials will only impact on the integrity of the process and the law must be allowed to take its course in a courtroom and not in the media.
I must reiterate that no charges or allegations have been formally put to my client about the events of 1971. Last year, you told your readers that my client would be charged “in the next few days” following your interview with official representatives of the Tribunal and Government. Nothing was forthcoming. In that story, you referred to wholly unsubstantiated allegations made by Bangladeshi officials. You are now using your interview with members of the Bangladeshi ruling party to repeat these allegations again. There is absolutely no public interest in simply regurgitating grave, yet false allegations made by politicians acknowledged to pursue vendettas against political opponents.
Let me make my client’s position absolutely clear. My client rejects all these allegations in their entirety. The statements set out in your e-mail are grossly defamatory to my client, wholly untrue and refited in their entirety. I will repeat that as no formal charges have been put to my client, he is not in a position to comment on the substance of the allegations.
I can say however that the conduct of the International Crimes Tribunal, set up by the current Bangladeshi government, has been subject to widespread and detailed criticism by international jurists and human rights organisations. In your previous article you failed to allude to any of the concerns raised by the United Nations and a number of reputable human rights NGOs. Since the publication of your previous article, the US and UK governments and the European Parliament have also voiced significant concerns about the Tribunal. And last December, the Economist magazine exposed collusion between the State, a Tribunal judge, prosecutors and activists. The judicial process is such that defence witnesses have been abducted and the government has amended legislation retrospectively to ensure death penalties are imposed on the accused.
You should also be aware that The Guardian previously published an apology to my client in December 2009 in relation to its publication of similar allegations to those you have already made. You are kindly reminded that you have a duty to report accurately and fairly and to respect the ethical conduct that your profession dictates. Any departure from this accepted rule will be responded to appropriately.
In your e-mail you appear to be in possession of statements made by the Additional Attorney General of Bangladesh, M. K Rahman, a leading prosecutor, Saiful Islam, that my client is to be charged imminently with genocide and war crimes. I find this statement highly disturbing considering that no official request has been made to put these allegations to my client. You also state in your e-mail that the Foreign Minister, Dipu Moni, has declared that Bangladesh will definitely seek to extradite my client. These are all highly inappropriate and deeply provocative statements from members of the Government and Tribunal that have shown a complete disregard for the rule of law and due process.
As regards the question of extradition I need not remind you, as I did in October 2012, that there is no extradition treaty with Bangladesh and under the Extradition Act 2003 the Courts of England and Wales are prohibited from extraditing to countries that practice the death penalty and where there is a real risk that the person in question would not receive a fair trial. It is clear that my client would not receive a fair trial and would be at risk of facing the death penalty.
It is important to note that, despite the public bold statements emanating from the Foreign Minister, the Government of Bangladesh has thus far not submitted a formal request. If the Government of Bangladesh submits a request then it will be contested.
The situation at the Tribunal is dire. I do not consider that these trials have anything to do with justice. The trials are hugely politicized involving instances of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct bordering on a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that judges, in previous cases, have colluded with prosecutors, members of the government and external advisors. There is evidence of prosecution witnesses having been prepared by persons advising the judges and such conduct amounts to criminal perjury.
Over a year ago I warned the international community that unless some urgent action was taken in relation to these trials there was a grave risk of civil unrest. There is no dispute that the events of 1971 saw some of the worst atrocities encountered in modern history. There are comparisons to be drawn with Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia etc. However, that being said, bringing an end to a culture of impunity that has pervaded Bangladesh politics for several decades cannot be used as a tool for state sponsored extra-judicial executions. There is a need for a proper judicial process based on the rule of law.
As a responsible journalist writing for one of the most popular Sunday papers in the country you have a duty to report responsibility and not focus solely on sensationalism. The Tribunal, and the manner in which it has been manipulated by the Government, is a travesty of justice. The public interest demands that you act responsibility and respect the rights of my client."
