Former IGP Chowdhury Abdulllah Al Mamun has โconfessedโ to the Jamaat-controlled International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh (ICT-BD) regarding his and othersโ role during the July-August violence last year. However, these confessional โstatementsโ need to be handled with extreme caution.
Credibility Issues
A) Motive to Lie or Shift Blame: The witness may falsely implicate others to reduce their own sentence, avoid punishment entirely, and gain benefits such as immunity or plea bargains. This is exactly what happened in the case of former IGP Mamun, who has received a โconditional pardon under Section 15(1) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.
ICT-BD: Awami League condemns indictment of Sheikh Hasina
ICT-BD: Prosecution failed to provide evidence of genocide, says state defense
B) Bias in Favour of Prosecution: Since they are cooperating with the state, their testimony might be tailored to support the prosecutionโs case. This also seems to be applicable in the case of Mamun; during press briefings, the Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam is repeating everything the former police chief is saying as if they are undisputed facts.
Legal Standards for Accomplice Testimony
It should be noted that most legal systems, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), treat accomplice testimony as “tainted evidence”. Courts often require corroboration, without which, a conviction based on such testimony alone may be overturned during appeal. Some jurisdictions have even specific legal provisions explicitly stating that accomplice evidence cannot be the sole basis for conviction. In Lubanga (2012), the ICC emphasised the importance of corroboration, especially when witnesses had personal stakes or motives. At the trials currently underway at the ICTBD, it appears that former IGP Mamunโs so-called confessions are not supported by other evidence, except for questionable call recordings.
Lack of Cross-Examination by the Other Accused
Since the other two accused in the case against former IGP Mamun, namely, Awami League president and five-time Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asduzzaman Khan Kamal, are being tried in absentia, they cannot challenge or cross-examine the witness Mamun and cannot provide competing testimony or evidence in real-time.
This raises due process concerns, particularly under international human rights standards (e.g., ICCPR Article 14). This is especially alarming since ex-IGP Mamun has so far maintained that all the blame for the orders to shoot etc., should lie with the former Prime Minister, former Home Minister, and everybody else other than himself – a classic case of a โcut-throat defenceโ.ย ย
Under the Rome Statute, when one accused cannot cross-examine the accomplice, the ICC considers this a violation of the principle of โequality of armsโ under Article 67(1)(e). Such evidence is heavily discounted unless the defense for the absent accused has had an opportunity to challenge the testimony or there is very strong independent corroboration. In Bemba et al. (Witness Tampering Case, 2018), the ICC held that evidence from incentivised witnesses must be approached with particular caution, especially when others cannot contest it.
Arafat explains Sheikh Hasinaโs stance in July riots, bins BBC, Al Jazeera documentaries
Media Trial: Why BBC documentary violates objectivity and reflects bias
Awami League slams BBC for biased reporting on police action against anarchists
Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam has already indicated that the final disposal of several ongoing cases against Sheikh Hasina at the ICTBD will be delivered before February 2026, before the next national election. And it appears that Mamunโs dangerous accomplice testimony, coupled with questionable call recordings, is the main evidence that the prosecution has built its case around.
Earlier, Tajul admitted proceeding with the trial against Sheikh Hasina and other top leaders as a revenge for the prosecution of Jamaat leaders for the 1971 war crimes. During the case proceedings, he, however, corrected the widely circulated genocide as crimes against humanity of protesters.
Moreover, the ICT-BD is not considering any of the admission of crimes, including police massacre, use of snipers to kill protesters and arson attacks, made publicly by some student coordinators, leaders of Jamaat-Shibir, Hefazat-e-Islam and BNP. It is relying on the propaganda documentaries released by the BBC and Al Jazeera as part of the deep stateโs prescription.
Under the circumstances, the Awami League insists that there is no scope for an impartial trial at the ICT-BD and urges the rights activists to raise their voices.
English