The trial of former Major General Ziaul Ahsan before Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal has raised important questions about accountability, judicial independence and the rights of an accused person. The prosecution alleges that he was involved in enforced disappearances and killings during the Awami League government. He has pleaded not guilty. These allegations must be examined through evidence and law, and his guilt must be determined by the tribunal.
The accused is entitled to a fair trial. These principles are not contradictory. They are the foundation of a justice system that deserves public confidence.
The first question is whether the International Crimes Tribunal has the legal authority to try Ziaul Ahsan for the alleged crimes. The tribunal was originally established to prosecute crimes against humanity, genocide and other serious international crimes committed during the 1971 Liberation War.
However, its use to prosecute alleged crimes committed decades later raises important questions about the scope of its jurisdiction and the legal basis for such proceedings. Although amendments to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act were introduced in 2024, the existence of an amended law does not, by itself, settle every question of jurisdiction. The crucial issue is whether the amended provisions lawfully extend the tribunal’s authority to cover the alleged offences and whether the proceedings comply with the principles of legality, due process and the right to a fair trial. These are not merely technical legal questions. They go to the heart of whether the tribunal is exercising its powers within the limits of the law.
The tribunal must also apply the law consistently with the requirements of legality, judicial independence and a fair hearing. Its authority to try international crimes and its obligation to protect the rights of the accused must operate together.
An accused person does not lose his rights:
One troubling issue arose when the defence objected to Ziaul Ahsan being transported to the tribunal alone in a prison van. His lawyer, Nazneen Nahar, argued that the arrangement created a security risk. Ziaul himself expressed suspicion that an incident might be engineered and blamed on him. The prosecution opposed the request to transport him with other accused persons and proposed virtual attendance from prison. The tribunal had not immediately issued an order on the plea, according to the report.
His allegation about a possible incident has not been established. Nevertheless, a reasonable and specific security concern deserves consideration by the competent authorities and the tribunal. The state has a duty to protect people in its custody, including those accused of serious crimes.
The issue is not whether Ziaul Ahsan should receive special treatment. It is whether the authorities can demonstrate that the arrangements for his transport and attendance are safe, lawful and consistent with his rights.
The same principle applies to every person detained by the state. A person’s former position, political connections, public reputation or the seriousness of the allegations against him cannot determine whether his basic rights will be respected.
Fair trial is a legal obligation
Section 17 of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, as amended in 2026, expressly recognises the accused’s right to assistance from counsel, to present defence evidence, to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, and to communicate confidentially with counsel of his choosing. It also provides for trial without undue delay and protection against arbitrary detention.
These safeguards must have practical meaning. It is not enough to allow a lawyer to appear in court if that lawyer lacks adequate time, access to relevant evidence or a fair opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s case.
A fair trial also requires an impartial tribunal, a genuine presumption of innocence and reasoned judicial decisions. The defence must be able to raise legitimate objections without being treated as an obstacle to justice.
The prosecution has a duty to present admissible evidence and establish the charges. The defence has a duty to test that evidence, identify weaknesses and present its client’s case. The tribunal must assess both sides without favour or prejudice.
Accountability for any crime is essential, and no one should be above the law. But a conviction reached without adequate safeguards would invite questions about the reliability and legitimacy of the process. Justice must be based on evidence, not public anger or political expectation.
The right to effective legal representation:
The request to appoint British lawyer barrister Steven Kay KC raises a separate but important question about fair advocacy.
According to the reports, Kay agreed to represent Ziaul Ahsan and communicated his decision to the Bangladesh Bar Council. The defence subsequently petitioned the tribunal for permission to appoint him and sought a prompt response from the Bar Council.
The legal position requires careful attention. Under section 11(8) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, as amended in 2026, the tribunal may allow foreign counsel to appear, subject to prior permission from the Bangladesh Bar Council, which should not be unreasonably withheld.
Therefore, the appointment is not automatic. The statutory approval requirements must be followed. However, the provision also makes clear that permission should not be withheld unreasonably.
If the proposed lawyer satisfies the applicable requirements, the application should be assessed promptly and on its legal merits.
Where a case involves allegations of crimes against humanity, extensive documentary evidence and testimony from numerous witnesses, the quality of legal representation matters. The defence must have a genuine opportunity to understand the charges, examine the evidence and challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of events.
Fair advocacy is part of justice:
Fair advocacy does not mean helping an accused person escape responsibility. It means ensuring that the prosecution proves its case according to law and that the defence can test the evidence without improper restrictions.
The right to counsel of one’s choosing, where recognised by law, is an important part of that process. So are adequate preparation time, confidential communication with counsel and the opportunity to question witnesses.
A lawyer’s role is not to endorse the alleged conduct of a client. It is to ensure that the law is applied correctly and that the court reaches its decision on the evidence. Even an accused person charged with a serious crime is entitled to competent legal representation.
Likewise, the prosecution should not regard every defence application as an attempt to delay proceedings. Some applications may lack merit or be designed to obstruct a trial. Others may raise genuine legal questions. The tribunal must distinguish between them through reasoned decisions.
The public should be able to see that the same procedural standards apply regardless of who stands in the dock.
Threatening Defence Counsel Undermines the Right to a Fair Trial:
The reported threats by an ICT prosecutor against Ziaul Ahsan’s defence lawyer, including the alleged threat of implicating the lawyer in criminal cases and proceedings before the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC), raise serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. If established, such conduct would represent an unacceptable attempt to intimidate defence counsel and could interfere with the lawyer’s ability to represent the accused effectively. A prosecutor’s responsibility is to present the case lawfully and fairly, not to pressure opposing counsel through threats of criminal proceedings. Defence lawyers must be free to challenge evidence, raise legal objections and defend their clients without fear of retaliation. Even an accused person facing serious allegations is entitled to competent legal representation, and that right becomes meaningless if their lawyer is subjected to intimidation. The tribunal should therefore take any credible allegation of such misconduct seriously and ensure that defence counsel can carry out their professional duties independently, without fear or improper interferenWhy Is Ziaul Ahsan Being Targeted?
Why Is Ziaul Ahsan Being Targeted?
Ziaul Ahsan’s past service as an army officer and his association with the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) deserve consideration when examining the circumstances surrounding his prosecution. During his time with the force, he was reportedly involved in operations against Islamist extremist groups. This raises questions about whether his past role and professional activities have any bearing on the allegations he now faces. Since the political change in August 2024, concerns have emerged about the influence of Islamist groups in Bangladesh’s political landscape and the potential for political or ideological retaliation against individuals associated with the previous security establishment. Could Ziaul Ahsan be facing such retaliation, or is his prosecution based solely on evidence of alleged criminal conduct? These are questions that deserve careful examination rather than premature conclusions. The International Crimes Tribunal should consider all relevant circumstances while remaining firmly focused on the evidence, the law and the individual responsibility of the accused. Any genuine allegation of serious crime must be investigated, but justice must never become a vehicle for political vengeance.
Accountability and due process must go together:
Accountability cannot depend on abandoning the rights of the accused. A justice system that demands accountability from powerful officials must demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law in the way it conducts trials.
The tribunal should address legitimate security concerns surrounding Ziaul Ahsan’s transportation, decide the application for foreign counsel according to the law, and ensure that his defence has adequate facilities to challenge the evidence. These measures would not weaken the prosecution. They would help establish whether its case can withstand proper judicial scrutiny.
Ultimately, the tribunal must determine guilt or innocence on the evidence and applicable law. Neither the prosecution’s allegations nor the defence’s claims should be accepted without examination.
Justice must be done for the victims, and justice must be administered fairly to the accused. A fair trial is not a concession to a powerful defendant. It is a test of whether the rule of law applies to everyone.
Parvez Hashem, Lawyer and Human Rights Defender
COMMENTS