Sunday, December 9, 2012

Comment from Toby Cadman on Economist article

I just managed to get this quote from Toby Cadman, who is a British barrister that is involved in assisting all of the Jamaat leaders accused of international crimes, in response to today's Economist article
"I find the whole situation rather disturbing. If it is established that there was an improper relationship between the Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin Ahmed then that is worrying as it may impact on the entirety of the proceedings. Without wishing to prejudge the proper response that will have to be taken, it is my view that this necessitates a fully independent and impartial inquiry on the international level. The United Nations must be called upon to fully engage on this issue as a matter of urgency."


  1. Hardly a unexpected comment from Cadman.

    From my understanding, the ICT has provision for solicitating outside advice. And Dr Ziauddin's Ahmed's consultations are well within the law and the regulations of the ICT. However, if the Economist decides to publish material gained by illegal means then that will be interesting from a British legal point of view, given the finding of the Leveson Inquiry, now not even a few weeks old.

  2. As Mandy Rice Davis once said "Well he would say that wouldn't he?"

    Given that the Chairman's past affiliations and friendship in this case were in the public domain, I think it would be hard for the defence to argue that there is some new court bias revealed by the fact of these private conversations during the hearings.

    As to the question of whether discussing the content of the illegally recorded recordings is in the public interest - well this may be a moot point now that there is some publication by a Bangladeshi newspaper and the Economist's Banyan blog (which had over 1000 comments today) suggests the paper is looking to publish extracts/commentary.

    Whilst I agree with this blogs previous comments that it is reasonable to believe that the Economist did not solicit the recordings and would not normally devote any investigative resource to Bangladesh which is a country it only sparsely covers, the Banyan blog does assert that the 'tribunal has questions to answer' which is arguably belligerent given that surely the first cause for concern should be how, where and who systematically did the illegal hacking in the first place.

    I'd suggest (assumming that the Defence is not disputing the initial composition of the Court again) that an important question is not what the chair discussed or who with, but whether the rules totally prohibit such discussions and/or there is a lack of transparency in procedure by the Chair. (His personal views and that of his friend as a campaigner for war crime trials ought to be irrelevant and/or were already known.)

    This is all rather curious - and depressing. I don't look forward to the next instalment, but welcome this Blogs attempts to record the process. Many thanks David.

    {In case anyone cares, my personal view is that the most important war crime trials (Bhutto, Kissinger and the Pakistani Generals who went onto 'respectable' retirements) unfortunately never happened - for explainable realpolitik reasons - and that this places more moral pressure particularly after such a long period of time for Bangladesh's war crimes trials of 'lesser criminals’ to meet the most exacting international standards including not having a death penalty (which is one of the considerations that the Economist takes into regard .)
    It is more important for the Bangladeshi people to have the moral high ground and to have a government support understanding of the truth in order to help combat the longstanding fundamentalist brainwashing and propaganda that certain premeditated atrocities did not occur etc, than it is to give any appearance of ‘revenge’/’political motivations’ and other such terms that have been bandied about.

    This blog has fairly noted concerns and issues which might undermine the tribunals proper role as facilitator of justice - yesterdays admission by the Economist that it has been sent recordings and is perusing them - raises questions about dirty tricks on the other side of the argument.
    SO again I say whilst all this is interesting, it is rather depressing given that victims have waited so long for these trials to take place at all, that any such concerns should occur.}

  3. Hi,
    I do agree that the Chairman of ICT can take advice from outside specialist but a couple of questions arise:
    1. The youtube video (if they are authentic) shows that Mr Ziauddin has a close connection with Mr Ziad al Malum , the chief prosecutor and Mr Ziauddin also works as a specialist for the prosecution team. Now, can the same person work with the prosecution and as well for the judge at the same time for the same case?
    2. Mr Nizamul Hoque also be informed that Mr Ziauddin works with the prosecution, then is it legal for him to take advice from such a person?
    3. If the judge need special advice from the academic specialist why he did not declare that publicly before hand?

  4. Thanks to the Economist for exposing the conspiracy of this kangaroo tribunal and the government. The Chairman of the ICT must resign. The international community must stand against this injustice before too late.