Serious allegations of corruption, bribery, and manipulation of judicial proceedings have surfaced against the recently removed Chief Prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), Tajul Islam, and several of his associates. The claims were made publicly by fellow prosecutor B.M. Sultan Mahmud, who accused what he described as a “Tajul–Shishir Monir syndicate” of turning the prosecution office into a vehicle for financial gain.
The allegations emerged after dramatic scenes in court during proceedings related to a Savar body-burning case, where a convict reportedly shouted that he had been sentenced to death because he “could not pay money.” The outcry prompted renewed scrutiny of the tribunal’s transparency and integrity.
Claims of ‘Heavy Bag’ and Acquittal
In a social media post, Sultan Mahmud alleged that in late November last year, the wife of an accused named Afzal entered a room in Ashulia carrying a “heavy bag.” According to Mahmud, the bag was taken into the room of a man identified as Tamim. He claimed that he immediately informed Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam but was rebuked instead of receiving any formal response.
Mahmud further alleged that although Tamim later acknowledged the woman’s visit, no meaningful action was taken. He claimed that Afzal was subsequently turned into a state witness and ultimately acquitted—suggesting that the alleged financial transaction influenced the outcome.
Allegations Involving Former IGP
Mahmud also raised allegations concerning former Inspector General of Police Abdullah Al Mamun. He implied that large financial dealings were involved in granting him state witness status.
According to Mahmud, key decisions regarding Mamun were made during meetings at the Dhanmondi investigation office, where lawyer Shishir Monir was allegedly present during interrogation sessions. He claimed that certain senior police officers accused of serious crimes were not arrested and were allowed to evade accountability.
Questions Over Other Cases
The prosecutor further questioned decisions in several other cases:
Chankharpul murder case: Despite alleged video evidence showing an officer giving direct firing orders, the individual was reportedly made a witness instead of an accused.
Rangpur Abu Sayeed murder case: Mahmud asked why a suspect named Imran was granted exemption despite witnesses allegedly identifying him in court.
He also accused the prosecution leadership of deliberately prolonging proceedings against political figures to mislead the public.
“A Tool for Making Money”
In his remarks, Sultan Mahmud alleged that a small group of three to four individuals had been operating this network from the outset. He accused the syndicate of turning the Chief Prosecutor’s office into “a tool for making money” and said those defending the group were betraying the memory of victims.
When questioned about his own responsibility as a serving prosecutor, Mahmud responded that he had lodged complaints in various forums and stood with victims’ families but claimed no effective action had followed.
Impact on Public Trust
The allegations—coming from within the tribunal itself—have raised serious concerns about public confidence in the judicial process. Claims of bribery, manipulation of state witness status, and interference in investigations could significantly undermine the credibility of ongoing trials.
No official response from Tajul Islam or other accused individuals was immediately available at the time of publication.
