'My name is only Jehangir Hossain ... I am honest'

Today, Tuesday 11 December 2012, the Tribunal sat in the afternoon. The chairman of the tribunal, Justice Nassim was not present (it took place a few hours before he resigned). Only two judges sat.

Journalists were present to hear the court pass an order following an application by the prosecutor Haider Ali to take action against the newspaper Amar Desh that had published private conversations between the Tribunal chairman and a Belgium Based law academic, Ziauddin Ahmed. These are assumed to be the same conversations that are in the hands of the Economist magazine which in an article last week described them as raising serious concerns about the workings of the tribunal.

No order was given, but Justice Jehangir made a personal statement in court (see comments at bottom). these were in response to a section of the conversations published in Amar Desh where the chairman criticized Justice Jehangir for being 'corrupt', and also referring to him using an unflattering nickname.

He spoke in Bangla. Below is a translation of what he said, though there may be some omissions.

Haider Ali presented the news in front of us and he is not here today, and since we have a fee more queries to ask him and would be better if he was here since he placed here. Frankly let me make a few words here. What has been published there is something about me too, and it is very difficult to speak about them. Now what seems to me is that no one has a clear impression about who I am. I believe before speaking or writing about anyone they should know first about the person who they are speaking about. Also this is so dictated by our religion, Islam says that should not speak ill about anyone without knowing the exact details, but this is what so called wise people seem to like to do these days.
In my private life I have come here through a strong struggle and I understand that it will be so. My path has not been easy and still it will be difficult even in future. 

I have never tried to gain any benefits from my political acquaintances. I have never behaved badly with anyone in my professional life, but when people say lies about me, 100% lies about me, sometimes I came a bit perplexed, but I am never frustrated, because a lie is a lie and the truth will come out sooner or later. I have been given the responsibility of a great job, it is a huge responsibility and I am grateful to Allah and also to journalists who have recorded my cases when I used to be a lawyer in the high court and this much focus on my reports has never really gone down well with those who speak ill of me.  

Whatever I have been I have been honest. I am honest and will for the test of my life be honest 

The Amar Desh's editor Anti Corruption Case  had come to my court when I was a second judge in the High Court and if I had reached a decision that was beyond my oath my judgement it would have been different. My judgement would not have been in favor of his appeal for a  stay order, but I still gave it to him. 

The only thing I can say, he could have printed the material without such a big head line with my name in. He could have done with me in such a big headline. That is all I will say about it 

I want to say something here I wasn't putting ash on the mouth of people who speak ill of others.  My name is Jehangir Hossain, my certificate says Jehangir Hossain, when I was appointed it was Justice Jehangir Hossain and only Jehangir Hossain.

Since the chairman is ill today we believe he should give the order, and since we do not know whether he will come tomorrow, so we fix the date the day after tomorrow.

Comments
1. It is effectively a rebuke to the chairman.

2. It is interesting to note that he did not criticize the newspaper for publishing the article, only for printing his name in the headline.

Defence lawyers seeks ICT chairman resignation

For the purposes of comprehensiveness (and not because this blog supports its contents) posted below is the statement of Barrister Abdur Razzaq, the head of the ICT defense team given at the Bar Council premises on Monday, December 10th. Another statement was given by the vice-president of the Bar Council and this statement will be placed on this page later.

This statement was made the day before Justice Nassim resigned

Statement of the Defence in view of the revelations made in the Economist and Daily Amar Desh.

On 9 December, 2012, at about 12.15 in the morning (BST) the Economist published a report in its “Banyan” section stating that it had in its possession 17 hours of Skype conversations between the Chairman of the Tribunal-1 and Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin (a campaigner for the present trials) together with 230 emails. The Economist commented that these if genuine, would raise questions about the workings of the Tribunal.

On the same day the Daily Amar Desh published a selection of the Skype conversations. These conversations contain statements which damage the integrity of the Tribunal and include the following:-

1. The Chairman is discussing the contents and fate of the case with an outsider and taking extensive assistance from him.

2. The Chairman is telling Dr Ziauddin that the Government needs a judgment by December, 2012 and that he can prepare Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee’s judgment by such date;

3. Dr. Ziauddin is drafting a rough sketch and structure of the Judgment for the Tribunal in the case against Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee even before commencement of arguments.

4. The Chairman deciding with Dr. Ziauddin the order in which the cases should be disposed of.

5. The Chairman terming his brother Judge as having been corrupt and referring to him by a derogatory nickname.

Today, the Amar Desh published further conversations in which the Chairman and Prosecution is reported to have engaged in mock displays of arguments between them to give the impression that he does not favour the Prosecution. Dr Ziauddin is also reported to have been assisting both the Prosecution and the Chairman. Audio versions of the Skype conversations are now widely available in the internet.

The reported conversations have serious implications for the on-going trials. So far we have no reason to believe that the Skype conversations are fabricated. We are fortified in this belief, by the statements of the State Minister of Law to the BBC yesterday in which he admitted the conversations. Moreover, Dr. Ziauddin declined to comment to the BBC. The Tribunal and the Prosecution are not making any comments on the authenticity of the conversations despite their serious nature. Most revealing is the admission by the Tribunal-1 in its Order dated 6 December that such conversations indeed took place.

The above disclosures made on 9 and 10 December have seriously undermined the integrity of the entire trial process. We doubt whether the process will ever regain its credibility. The only honourable option open for the Chairman is for him to resign. This will not only be in the interests of the trial but also of the Judiciary, whom we believe he has single-handedly undermined.

Bangladesh war crimes tribunal chairman resigns

Bangladesh state minister for law, Advocate Muhammad Qamrul Islam has confirmed that the International Crimes Tribunal 1 chairman, Justice Nizamul Huq has resigned.

'He tendered his resignation at 5pm to the Secretary to the Law Ministry. He said it was for personal reasons.' 

When he was asked whether it was to do with the Economist revelations, he said:

'I don’t know what is the actual ground. Any other ground he did not express.'

When asked what will happen now to the tribunal, he said:

'We are appointing a new chairman within tomorrow or day after.

When asked whether there was a problem with the Sayedee case continuing since no judge has heard the whole case, he said:

The Sayedee case will continue. There is no problem' 

For the last three days the Bangladesh newspaper has published transcripts of the Skype conversations which the chairman had with the Bangladesh original Brussels based law academic Ziauddin Ahmed.

More to come .......

Who hacked the ICT chairman's computer?

When the UK Guardian and other newspapers first published the wikileaks material on the US embassy cables, attention was not just focused on their extraordinary content, but also on how wikileaks got the cables in the first place.

And as we all now know Bradley Manning is now detained by US authorities.

The International Crimes Tribunal recordings/e-mails are obviously not of the same import as the Wikileaks cables (though not without some significance of course in Bangladesh, and to the war crimes trials in particular). In addition, the Economist has not even yet published substantively on their content (though a Bangladesh newspaper has published transcripts of some material).

However, it is necessary to ask some questions about how confidential personal communications between a judge and a legal academic could have been recorded/hacked and how this information got in the hands of the Economist.

Of course, ones view about the person(s) responsible for the recording (as with one opinions about Bradley Manning) depends where your sympathies lie; if you are a keen supporter of the tribunals, the 'hacker' may be viewed simply as a criminal who has intercepted private communications of a sitting judge in gross contempt of court. But, for critics of the tribunal, this person may well be seen as a hero who has exposed something in the greater public interest

Here are ten initial points.

1. Security experts tend to claim that whilst e-mail communications are relatively easy to hack, Skype conversations are not. Moreover Skype conversations are not archived on either of the computers involved in the conversation, so that they any recording had to be made at the time when they were made.

2.  So in relation to the Skype calls, it appears there are the following options: (a) one/both of the computers used by the chairman and Ziauddin contained software that allowed Skype conversations to be recorded when they took place; (b) the rooms where the skype conversations occurred were bugged; (c) someone else in the room where the conversations took place was recording them.

3.  It is possible that the person responsible for the recording could well be someone trusted by the ICT chairman or Ziauddin; however it is equally possible that something more audacious has been undertaken involving more sophisticated bugging or hacking.

4. The Economist says that it did not procure or pay for this material; that the information was given to them. This must be taken at face value.

5. The person who hacked may well be different from the person who gave the information to the Economist. So the 'hacker' could have given/sold the material to a third party, who then gave it to the Economist.

6. The Economist was surely not the source for the Bangladesh newspaper Amar Desh receiving the material. There is no way that the Economist would have shared its scoop with any other media outlet, yet alone a Bangladesh one. So either the 'hacker' or a third party is the source of the information to Amar Desh.

7. What role have the defense lawyers in all this? Clearly, the 'hacking' and the material obtained very much serves their interests. Though that does not mean that they necessarily were involved in all this - at the same time it is difficult to believe that this all came as a total surprise to them. At the very least, it is reasonable to assume the material flowed through them in some way before it got into the hands of the Economist. And perhaps they were more deeply involved. They have made no comment on this aspect so far.

8. I have asked the defense lawyers a series of questions on their role if any in the 'hacking' and in providing information to the Economist, and have been told that they will respond to the queries at a later stage after the publication of the Economist article. The questions that I have asked are as follows:

- Can you comment on whether any member of the ICT defense team in Bangladesh was responsible for recording/hacking the e-mails/skype calls relating to conversations/ messages of the ICT chairman currently in the hands of the Economist? 

- If not, can you comment on whether any other member of the ICT defense team in Bangladesh knows how the material was hacked/recorded? 

- Can you comment on whether, prior to 4 December, any member of the ICT defense team in Bangladesh saw any of the material that is in the hands of the economist and if so how did that came about? 

- Can you comment on whether any member of the local or international defense team had any role in bringing the material to the attention the Economist, and if so in what way?

9. Whilst the defense may have much to gain by the publication of this material, there are at the same time significant risks. The focus could move from the content of what was recorded, onto what involvement, if any, they had in the obtaining of the confidential material.

10. The person who hacked/recorded the conversations/e-mails will likely to have committed a criminal offense under Bangladesh law as will anyone who procured the offense. Without pre-judging the situation, there are legitimate questions to be asked of the defense legal team about their involvement in all this. As lawyers, they also have a higher set of professional standards to follow which include particular responsibilities towards the tribunal.

See other posts relating to Economist story
Ziauddin Ahmed: No comment
Comment from Toby Cadman on Economist Story
Has the Economist blinked?
Bangladesh Civil Society Establishment: will the trial process continue to have its support
Would Economist publication of tribunal e-mails be in breach of Editors code
Tribunal accuses Economist over e-mail hacking

Ziauddin Ahmed: 'No Comment'

Ziauddin Ahmed, the Brussel's based international lawyer with whom the Tribunal Chairman has acknowledged in a recent court order that he has been in contact with over Skype concerning matters relating to the International Crimes Tribunal has said that he will not make any comment about the matter until it is dealt with by the Tribunal.

In a e-mail statement, he said:

'I cannot discuss anything at this stage since the matter is under consideration of the ICT and as such, sub-judice. Thank you for your understanding.'

When asked whether he was 'able to comment [on] whether or not the transcripts published this morning in Amar Desh are correct?' he said:

'I think until its resolved by the ICT I cannot make any comment. Hope you will understand.' 

His statement comes as yet another day passes without any substantive article from The Economist about the material that it has said that it is currently investigating.

In the meantime, Amar Desh has published a long transcript of a number of conversations (amounting to over 22,000 words) between the ICT chairman and Ziauddin. In addition a number of the audio tapes of these conversation are available on u-tube, and links are circulating to these.

Many are expecting that this material would be published on this blog, but it will not be at the moment for the following reasons.
- these are illegally obtained confidential material and journalistic ethics requires considerable thought before simply publishing them;
- the Economist - as far as one can guess from its recent article - is currently going through a rigorous analysis of whether the information disclosed by them is sufficiently in the public interest to merit  publication in their magazine. It seems appropriate, therefore first to wait and see what The Economist publishes;
- and, finally their publication may make me vulnerable to legal action in Bangladesh.

Once the Economist has published an article, assuming it does so - and it has given its consideration to public interest issues - this blog will consider undertaking its own analysis of what the impact of the revelations might mean for the tribunal.

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."

Has the Economist blinked?

So we now know a little bit more about what material the Economist has, though not much
[but see end of this post re Amar Desh]

The Economist has 17 hours of recorded material and over 230 e-mails between the the chairman of the international crimes tribunal and the Bangladesh legal academic, Ahmed Ziauddin.

In its article, the Economist makes the point that:

'This material is confidential and we are bound by law and the British press’s code of conduct not to reveal such information except in matters of the most serious public interest. We did not solicit the material, nor pay for it, nor commit ourselves to publish it.'

So, this confirms, as suggested by the Tribunal's order, that the material was illegally intercepted or recorded - that it is confidential - but it was not procured by the Economist. It was given to it. The article gives no indication who gave them the material or who illegally obtained it. Clearly this is a very serious issue indeed, entirely separate from the question about whether or not publication is justified.

As to what the material actually says, the Economist simply says that it:

'would indeed raise questions about the workings of the court'

It appears that the Economist does intends to publish, if their lawyers give them the green light. It says:

'Our investigations are continuing. Once they are concluded and if we consider the allegations contained in them to have merit, we will publish them.'

The article provides a little bit of color to Mr Ahmed and his relationship with the tribunal chairman.

'Mr Ahmed is an expatriate Bangladeshi who is an academic specialising in international law who lives in Brussels. The two men have known each other for 25 years, as they were human-rights campaigners and Mr Ahmed’s late brother had been a student friend of the judge. Mr Ahmed is not just an international lawyer, he is also the director of the Bangladesh Centre for Genocide Studies in Belgium, which is dedicated to ending what he has called “the ingrained culture of impunity” surrounding the war crimes in Bangladesh.'

The article ends on suggesting a discrepancy between what the tribunal chairman said in his order and what he said to the Economist on the phone. On the phone on Tuesday 4th December to the Economist, the chairman is said to have stated:

“As judges, we cannot take help from third person and outsiders,” Mr Huq said. Asked whether they sometimes exchange e-mails about the tribunal, he says “No, no, no, regarding tribunal, no talks regarding the judgment or regarding the proceedings, no.” “Later, he said, “A Supreme Court judge, we do not talk even with our wife regarding the tribunal.”

But, as the article says, the chairman's order on Thursday 6th states:

The order refers to the presiding judge of the tribunal “receiving the support [of Mr Ahmed] on the developments on International Criminal law throughout the world” and taking assistance “during the proceedings of the trial and orders”.

The other issue, the Economist raises is transparency:

On what bases did the judge select the experts who would help him? Why was Mr Ahmed’s role not revealed to the court and to the public until the tribunal order on 6th December, after we had contacted hi

I think we can assume that whether or not anything more gets published depends on the Economist's lawyers, who must be combing every word and comma. The publication of the private correspondence of a sitting judge just days before he is involved in a decision on the guilt or innocence of a person, is a matter of the utmost seriousness, and if the Economist does not get it right - and if publication does not serve, as they put it, 'the most serious public interest', the magazine will be in serious trouble indeed.

There is of course a bit of an interesting history between the Economist and the Bangladesh government There are many in the government, and amongst its supporters, who think that the Economist has it in for the Awami League government. This is principally because of an article which claimed that the Awami League government won the last elections with 'bags of Indian cash and advice' (without putting forward any evidence). It has also been consistently critical of the war crimes trials. For some this shows some kind of motivated intention, rather than critical journalism. Interestingly though, for those who with to see malice within the Economist, the magazine recently did a number of positive articles and videos on the progress of Bangladesh in achieving a number of development goals.

However, it may well be because of the Economist's consistently critical position about the international crimes tribunal from early on, that it was chosen as the berth for this illegally obtained material (in fact it is the only major international publication that has followed the tribunal at all really, with all other media effectively ignoring it).

Otherwise, the Economist is an odd choice - since it does not generally do investigative journalism as such, and has less experience than other major publications like the Guardian or New York Times in breaking stories like this.

[Having written this, just heard that pro BNP paper Amar Desh has published further details about what is supposedly in the intercepted material. I myself would rather wait for the Economist myself - but when I get a translation will post it up, if it appears reliable/appropriate]