A country’s legal system needs to be strengthened by certain rules and regulations for it to be sufficiently empowered as well as not to be hazarded in the delivery of justice. Worldwide, with a few exceptions may be, the principle is actively sought to be upheld, enforced or promoted that the judicial system must feel unencumbered or not interfered with while deciding on the merit of a case presented to it in accordance with the prevailing laws and jurisdiction of the court. Any outside attempt to bring pressure, overt or covert in its operation , thus, is anathema to the legal philosophy and rules likely to cause miscarriage of justice.
In our legal system, laws are specifically in force to assure about the unchallengeable aspect of a court’s decision by individuals or organizations except through the due legal courses for doing so. Ordinarily, the verdicts of courts are considered as unassailable and individuals or organizations are neither legally permitted to challenge them except through due procedures stated in the relevant laws such as through appeals, pleading for retrial, etc.
Thus, anyone or organization noted as ignoring these legally permissible procedures for seeking a review of a decision and rebuking, maligning or harshly criticizing any aspect of a legally constituted court’s verdict or casting aspersion on judges issuing verdicts, he or she or the organization becomes eligible for consideration as having committed offences generally categorized as ‘contempt of court.’
In this context, one cannot help but ask how far the gatherings, demonstrations and expression of views at a busy intersection of Dhaka city some years ago for rejecting the verdict of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), were in harmony with the laws in force in the country.
The outpourings of wrath, emotions and impatience at Shahbag Square were nothing to be misunderstood or taken as deliberately malevolent. Probably, the ones engaged in these rallies and sit-ins were not fully aware or conversant with the laws in these matters. The abundance of their patriotism and love for what they perceived as true justice not being carried out, also cannot be taken lightly.
However, the same also do not mean that the legal requirements or the need to submit to a society based on the rule of law or its indispensable fundamentals, could be waived selectively from application in cases or incidents related to them.
With due care and consideration for the sincere emotions of the demonstrators, it may be emphasized that they were legally under an obligation to give vent to the same in the legally approved manner. A court’s decision may be disliked or even resented. In that case, those who are seized by such feelings and wanting to have further legal developments in the matter as they see it, they have recourse to certain legally allowed procedures such as appealing against a verdict, seeking retrial, etc. But we just cannot have a court’s decision wilted or replaced or changed through the dictation of a crowd however righteous or inspired the ones in it may feel.
If verdicts are to be changed, then persuasion or moves to that end also need to be pursued through the permitted legal courses. In a non revolutionary society governed by law, none has any right to build a confrontation with the legal system.
According to media reports, the ICT gave its verdict against the alleged criminal against humanity, Kader Mollah, for multiple murders, rapes, arson, etc. But according to the reports, it could not be proved absolutely or even partially in any case that the accused directly or personally killed, raped or set fire to houses.
He was, thus, only sentenced for his presumed criminal offence on grounds of abetting or perhaps giving his consent to such misdeeds. It could be that the ICT did not give him the death sentence considering that it could not be proved before it that he was directly the offender in relation to the mentioned crimes. But the ICT delivered the other capital punishment of life imprisonment against him. Thus looking at it dispassionately, the ICT’s verdict should have been found reasonably satisfactory by diverse sections of people.
The instances of the ICT verdict on Kader Mollah are discussed above particularly for the reasons that recently tendencies have been seen for quarters basing their thinking and feelings on presumptive grounds who tend to create commotions in society that indirectly create pressures on the unfettered operation of the courts or the legal system. Sometimes such tendencies were noted for vain attempts to actually challenge the unfettered operation of the court. Needless to say, in light of the above, such direct or indirect pressures or activities against the courts and the legal system are completely inadmissible and tantamount to the freedom of the judiciary as a whole. Thus. such tendencies must be nipped at the bud ; the same must be absolutely crushed ‘legally’ before the same can gather any justification for them.