A leaked confidential conversation between International Crimes Tribunal Chairman Justice Md. Golam Mortuza Mojumdar and the state-appointed defense lawyer Amir Hossain has sparked widespread uproar in the country’s judicial and political spheres.
At the center of the leaked exchange lies a highly explosive comment from Amir Hossain—widely known as a state-appointed lawyer for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina—revealing the extreme political and judicial pressure even state-assigned defense lawyers are facing.
This leaked remark has raised serious questions about the impartiality of the nation’s judicial process. Amir Hossain essentially admitted that if he publicly expresses doubt about his client’s acquittal, it may give the impression that he himself wants the accused to face the death penalty.
Fear of being labeled as “a lawyer who wants death penalty”
In the leaked conversation, Amir Hossain clarifies his position in response to Justice Golam Mortuza Mojumdar’s concern. The judge had questioned his frequent statements to the media and his comments suggesting anticipated outcomes of the case.
In reply, Amir Hossain explained the unwritten pressure he experiences and made a remark that carries alarming implications for the rule of law and judicial neutrality, “If I say my client will not be acquitted, then the nation and the honorable court—Your Lordship—will say what kind of lawyer has been appointed by the state, that he wants the accused to be hanged. That would be worse. Bad for you, bad for me.”
This clearly indicates that the professional independence of a state-appointed lawyer is under severe constraint. If he does not publicly assert a strong defense for his client, he risks being labeled as the accused’s enemy—someone who supports the death penalty.
Judge’s concern: “There is no justice at any level”
At the beginning of the conversation, the judge expressed frustration over the lawyer’s frequent media engagement, “You say things here, then say many things to the media. This trial is meaningless—there is no justice at any stage now.”
The comment suggests the judge feels that premature public statements are exerting political pressure outside the courthouse, making the court uncomfortable. Amir Hossain defended himself, stating that expressing belief and confidence in favor of his client is part of his legal duty.
Legal community alarmed: Is the state forcing defense lawyers to advocate for death sentences?
Legal experts argue that the leaked exchange exposes a major systemic weakness. A defense lawyer expressing strong belief in their client’s innocence is normal. But if a state-appointed defense counsel fears he will be accused of supporting the death penalty simply for acknowledging weaknesses in the case, it reveals the overwhelming political influence infiltrating the trial process.
A senior Supreme Court lawyer, requesting anonymity, stated, “A state-appointed defense counsel’s role is to defend the accused—not to serve the government. But this conversation shows they are under dual pressure: to satisfy the government and to maintain public perception. If a lawyer cannot professionally present the weaknesses in the case, then it is a catastrophic failure in ensuring a fair trial.”
A disturbing example of political interference
The controversy now echoes across both judicial and political circles. The situation has escalated to the point where if a lawyer appointed under Sheikh Hasina’s government expresses even the slightest doubt about his client’s acquittal, he becomes the subject of accusations that he wants the death penalty for that same client. This represents an unprecedented example of political interference in the judicial process.
