How Successive BNP Governments Obstructed the 15th August Justice Process

Leaving aside the debate of General Ziaur Rahman’s own culpability in the events of 15th August 1975 (which requires its own article at the very least), their consecutive governments openly sheltered, protected, and rehabilitated the self-confessed brutal murderers as a matter of stated policy. They made no secret of it. This article highlights the protection and assistance the killers received in terms of not facing justice for their crimes. 

Indemnity Ordinance 

The first such overt protection came in the form of the Indemnity Ordinance, promulgated by Khandaker Moshtaque Ahmed within just forty-one days into the events. This ordinance was given constitutional cover by General Zia. The only aim of the ordinance issued on September 26, 1975 was to block any legal or other proceedings against the killers and those who were involved in proclaiming martial law on the morning of August 15, 1975. It read:

“Whereas it is expedient to restrict the taking of any legal or other proceedings in respect of certain acts or things done in connection with, or in preparation or execution of any plan for, or steps necessitating, the historical change and the proclamation of martial law on the morning of the 15th August, 1975″

Indemnity Ordinance

General Zia indemnified all activities of the post-Bangabandhu illegal regime including the killings from August 15, 1975 to April 9, 1979 by passing the Constitution Fifth Amendment Act in the second parliament, which was dominated by his party lawmakers. This amendment itself was also ruled by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh to be ‘unconstitutional’ subsequently.

It was only after Awami League came to power led by Sheikh Hasina for the first time in 1996 that the ordinance was repealed on 12 November 1996 through passing the “Indemnity (Repeal) Act”. The BNP and Jamaat-E-Islami Members of Parliament, who were/are beneficiaries of the August 1975 changeover, remained conspicuously absent from Parliament during the passage of the bill.

The Act to repeal the ordinance was challenged in the High Court by the families of two ex-army officers charged with the killings. They argued that the “Indemnity Ordinance” had become a statute of the constitution and could not be repealed by a simple majority in parliament as had been the case; but that it should have been repealed by a two-third majority as is normally required for constitutional amendments. In January 1997, the High Court rejected their arguments and their petitions.

Trial of the Century 

After the repeal of the Indemnity Ordinance, Bangladesh’s most historic trial process started with the lodging of the First Information Report (FIR), 21 years after the events took place. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID), tasked with the investigation of the crimes, submitted the charge sheet against 20 accused to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM)’s Court. The trial began on March 12, 1997, with 14 of the suspects absconding. On April 7, 1997, the court formally accepted the charges after formalities necessary for trial in absentia were completed. On April 29, 1997, the trial was adjourned because a defense counsel challenged some procedural issues at the High Court. Later, the trial court resumed proceedings on July 6, 1997, with 19 accused as the High Court relieved Zobaida Rashid of charges. After about a year and a half’s proceedings, on November 8, 1998, Judge Kazi Golam Rasul handed down death penalties to 15 accused (and acquitting four others), which occasioned the concurrent death reference and appeal hearing beginning in High Court on August 24, 2000. 

Deliberate Delays (2001-06)

In October 2001, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) came back to power. For the next five years, no progress whatsoever was made in hearing the High Court appeals of the lower court judgment. The delay principally occurred as a result of several High Court judges feeling ‘embarrassed’ in hearing the appeal. The then Chief Justice Latifur Rahman criticized the series of “embarrassments” in his book thus: 

“When most of the senior judges felt embarrassed to hear Bangabandhu killing case, it seemed to the [Supreme Judicial] Council that the judges were reluctant to hear the case and avoiding responsibilities…” 

Former Chief Justice Latifur Rahman

The hearing of the death reference finally started in the High Court on June 28, 2000, about 20 months after the verdict of the trial court and completed on April 30, 2001 after the judgment of the third judge. However, judges’ embarrassment in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court further delayed completion of the trial of the historic case. The appeal was not heard for a single day during the BNP Government’s five-year tenure due to a “lack of judges” in the Appellate Division. The fact that BNP holds full responsibility for the delay becomes clear when one looks at the suggestion made by the then Chief Justice Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury to appoint a judge to the Appellate Division on an ad-hoc basis for hearing the appeal, which was of course not heeded by the then BNP Government of Khaleda Zia. It was only after the BNP left office in 2006-07 that the rest of the appeal process was conducted and completed.