A Petition, a principle, and an Unsettling Aftermath
On 1 March 2026, lawyer Naznin Nahar stood before International Crimes Tribunal-1 and submitted what should have been an unremarkable request on behalf of Major General (Retd.) Ziaul Ahsan, who faces charges of enforced disappearance and murder as crimes against humanity. She asked the bench led by Justice Md. Golam Mortuza Mozumder to ensure that her client is shown due respect as an accused person until a verdict is delivered. The request was grounded in one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of law anywhere in the world: that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty.
What happened shortly afterwards was far less routine. Reports emerged that letters had been sent to various banks requesting information about Naznin Nahar’s personal bank accounts. The timing of this action, coming so soon after she had appeared in court on behalf of her client, has raised deep concern among legal observers. The question being asked is whether a lawyer was being subjected to financial scrutiny not for anything she had done outside her professional role, but simply because she had done her job inside the courtroom.
Words Spoken in Court That Should Not Be Forgotten
To understand why these developments are so troubling, one must go back to 24 November of last year. During a hearing at the tribunal, a tense exchange reportedly took place between the then Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam and Naznin Nahar. According to reports of the incident, the Chief Prosecutor told her to be quiet, warned her not to speak, and added that she could be made an accused. He also stated that complaints were being received about her from various sources.
These words, if accurately reported, are extraordinary. In any functioning legal system, it would be considered deeply inappropriate for a chief prosecutor to warn defense counsel in open court that she might herself be made an accused. The implicit message such a remark carries is impossible to ignore: argue too hard for your client, and you may find yourself on the wrong side of the dock. That is not the atmosphere in which justice can be properly administered.
Why an Independent Defense Bar Is Not a Luxury
It is worth being clear about what is at stake here, because public debate on this issue is sometimes muddled by a misunderstanding of what defense lawyers actually do. Representing an accused person is not an expression of sympathy for that person’s alleged acts. It is the fulfilment of a legal and constitutional obligation that every accused individual be given the opportunity to answer the case against them. Without that, there is no trial. There is only a verdict that has been decided in advance.
A fair trial rests on several guarantees that cannot be selectively applied. The presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation, equality of arms between prosecution and defense, and the freedom of lawyers to advocate without fear of retaliation are not optional features that can be switched off when the accused is sufficiently unpopular. They are the architecture of justice itself. Remove any one of them and what remains is a structure that may look like a court but does not function like one.
The Broader Atmosphere Facing Defense Counsel
The pressures facing defense lawyers in politically sensitive cases extend well beyond any single courtroom exchange. In Bangladesh today, lawyers representing accused individuals at the International Crimes Tribunal may find themselves navigating a hostile public climate, online campaigns, and social pressure from various quarters. The cases before the tribunal carry enormous historical and political weight, and public sentiment in such cases runs strong. That is entirely understandable.
What is not acceptable is for that public sentiment to translate into official action against lawyers for simply performing their professional duties. If a lawyer fears that taking on a case could expose her to financial investigation, threats from prosecutors, or public vilification with no institutional protection, many able lawyers will simply decline to represent accused persons in such cases. The result would be a justice process in which the accused is, for all practical purposes, without meaningful legal representation. That outcome would weaken not just the defense side of proceedings, but the credibility of every verdict the tribunal produces.
The Tribunal’s Credibility Is Its Most Important Asset
International observers, human rights organizations, and the families of victims all have a stake in the integrity of these proceedings. Any perception that defense lawyers are being intimidated, financially scrutinized in connection with their professional work, or warned off in open court risks damaging that integrity in ways that cannot easily be repaired. The strength of a conviction delivered by a court that operated fairly is immeasurably greater than that of one delivered under a cloud of procedural doubt.
What Accountability for the Justice System Looks Like
The rule of law is not simply a collection of statutes and courts. It is an atmosphere, a set of conditions in which all participants in the justice process, judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers alike, can perform their roles independently and without fear. Creating that atmosphere is the responsibility not just of individual officials but of institutions, and ultimately of the state itself.
There should be a clear, transparent account of why letters were sent to banks enquiring about Naznin Nahar’s accounts, and whether that action had any connection to her professional role as defense counsel. The remarks attributed to the then Chief Prosecutor should be formally addressed, and norms of conduct in court should be enforced consistently for all parties. Defense lawyers in sensitive proceedings should receive clear institutional assurances that their professional work will not expose them to personal investigation or harassment.
The Measure of a Justice System
It is a familiar observation, but it bears repeating here because the events described in this article make it urgent. The strength of any legal system is measured not by how it treats those with power or public sympathy, but by how faithfully it protects the rights of those who stand accused and those who stand beside them in court. Ensuring that a defense lawyer can do her job without pressure, threats, or undue interference is not a concession to the accused. It is a protection for justice itself.
From the beginning, the trial related to the July movement at Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal has been questionable. Concerns have been raised about its jurisdiction, transparency, and the overall trial process, all of which appear to fall short of established legal standards.
Whether the tribunal fulfills its potential now depends on the decisions being made right now in courtrooms, in prosecutors’ offices, and in the institutions that are meant to safeguard the integrity of the process. Transparency, fairness, and equal treatment before the law are not mere slogans. They are the only foundation upon which a legitimate verdict can stand.
Parvez Hashem, Lawyer and Human Rights Defender
