On 23 November 2025, an incident at the International Crimes Tribunal has raised serious concerns about the state of justice in Bangladesh. During a hearing involving Major General (Retd.) Ziaul Ahsan, defense lawyer Naznin Nahar was allegedly threatened and verbally abused, first by Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam and later by dismissed Lieutenant Colonel Hasinur Rahman.
Reports indicate that banks were approached for details of the personal accounts of Naznin Nahar soon after her appearance at the International Crimes Tribunal.
This timing cannot be viewed in isolation. When financial scrutiny follows immediately after a lawyer performs her professional duty in court, it raises a legitimate concern about motive. Regulatory actions must be grounded in clear and independent cause, not triggered by courtroom advocacy.
If a defense lawyer becomes the subject of personal investigation for representing a client, it sends a troubling signal to the entire legal community. The consequence is not limited to one individual. It risks creating an environment where lawyers hesitate, self censor, or withdraw from sensitive cases. That outcome is incompatible with the basic guarantee of a free and fair trial. If these reports are accurate, the implications go far beyond a single courtroom exchange. They strike at the core of fair trial rights, legal ethics, and the credibility of the justice system itself.
The Right to Defense Is Not Optional
A fair trial begins with one basic principle: every accused person has the right to legal representation without fear or intimidation. This is not a technicality. It is a cornerstone of both domestic constitutional law and international human rights standards.
When a defense lawyer is told to “stay silent” or threatened with being made an accused, it sends a chilling message. It suggests that the role of defense is tolerated only when it is convenient. That is not justice. That is control.
If lawyers cannot speak freely in court, then the accused effectively loses their voice. And when that happens, the idea of a fair trial becomes hollow.
Courtroom Conduct and Abuse of Authority
The alleged warning by Tajul Islam is particularly troubling because it comes from the Chief Prosecutor, a figure expected to uphold the highest standards of legal conduct. Prosecutors are not just advocates; they are ministers of justice. Their duty is not to secure convictions at any cost, but to ensure that justice is done fairly.
Similarly, the reported threat by Hasinur Rahman—“I will tear you apart”—if true, crosses a line that no courtroom should ever allow. A courtroom is not a space for intimidation. It is a space governed by law, restraint, and respect.
Interrogation, Transparency, and Due Process
The incident reportedly began when Naznin Nahar raised concerns about being denied access to her client during interrogation at a so-called “safe house,” and about alleged illegal recording. These are not minor procedural complaints.
Access to counsel during interrogation is a fundamental safeguard against abuse. If a lawyer is prevented from attending, questions arise about coercion, transparency, and the reliability of any statement obtained. In international legal standards, such practices can undermine the admissibility of evidence altogether.
International Standards and Bangladesh’s Obligations
The tribunal was established to address grave crimes and deliver justice of the highest standard. That responsibility carries weight. Proceedings must not only be fair—they must be seen to be fair.
Under international law, including principles reflected in instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Bangladesh is obligated to ensure:
- Equality of arms between prosecution and defense
- Freedom from intimidation for legal counsel
- Public confidence in judicial independence
Any deviation from these principles risks damaging both the legitimacy of the tribunal and Bangladesh’s standing in the global legal community.
The Role of Witnesses and Observers
It is notable that journalist David Bergman was reportedly present and assisted in escorting the lawyers out of the courtroom. The presence of independent observers often acts as a safeguard. But the fact that such intervention was needed raises an uncomfortable question: where was the institutional protection that should have been automatic?
Justice Must Be Seen to Protect, Not Intimidate
Courts exist to protect rights, not to suppress them. Every accused person, regardless of the charge, is entitled to a meaningful defense. Every lawyer, regardless of the client, is entitled to safety, dignity, and the freedom to act without fear.
When a courtroom becomes a place where defense counsel face threats from prosecutors or witnesses, and even personal financial scrutiny for simply representing a client, the danger extends beyond one case. It strikes at the integrity of the judiciary itself. Justice cannot function in an atmosphere of intimidation.
The recent concerns surrounding proceedings at the International Crimes Tribunal must therefore be treated with urgency and seriousness. A credible and transparent response is essential. Silence or inaction in the face of such allegations only deepens doubt and weakens public confidence.
Writer: Parvez Hashem, Lawyer and Human Rights Defender
