Here is the latest information about Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.
Since his 2005 release from prison, Shoaib has been forced to attend regular court appearances at the rate of approximately one every month. It has been an emotionally and financially draining experience. Most of those appearances have bee perfunctory--nothing really happens, but Shoaib is forced to wait at the courthouse the entire day. Periodically, the judge and prosecutor will attempt to circumvent Bangladeshi law by trying to re-incarcerate Shoaib or forcing a quick and pre-determined trial; even though his pending appeal before the Bangladeshi Supreme Court renders the latter illegal. There have been at least five attempts to revoke his bail and otherwise re-incarcerate him; and we were successful in preventing all of them. Fortunately, there are a number of Bangladeshi officials who are becoming more and more aware of the damage this admittedly false prosecution is doing to their nation.
On August 6, 2008, Shoaib arrived at the courthouse expecting yet another perfunctory court date. Instead, he was told that his trial would commence that afternoon. At first, that gave us all cause for concern, but on closer examination it might have been a more hopeful sign. In the months leading up to this turn of events, Shoaib had been required to return to court at ever shrinking intervals; but was told to return in a month at the previous one. Moreover, within that period, one of his appeals was rejected (neither a surprise nor a devastating blow), another was first scheduled to be held then not, then to be scheduled again but only after being rejected by the lower court. As such, the status of the appeal on August 6 was not entirely clear; perhaps allowing this unexpected legal move by the government. Additionally, the regular prosecutor (who had become ever more positive toward Shoaib) was not in attendance. He was replaced by an "Additional Public Prosecutor" who was downright hostile. This individual is also a member of the BNP, the party that arrested and tortured Shoaib on charges it knew to be false. He shoed Shoaib from the courtroom and made him wait outside in the corridor for the several hours until the trial would begin. He did this even though there were no seats and Shoaib was running a fever. Shoaib phoned or texted me at least once an hour, and each succeeding text showed increasingly more worry, anger, and even despair. But he always maintained faith in his many supporters. I asked Shoaib if his attorney objected to the trial starting, based on Bangladeshi law, and Shoaib said he did but was overruled. In one text, Shoaib said that the court "seemed desperate to start the trial." Between Shoaib and his brother Sohail, I got a very nasty feeling all night (Chicago is eleven hours behind Dhaka) that the government was determined to get this matter over with and convict Shoaib of these charges. Having spoken with Shoaib for quite some time after the court appearance, I do not believe the situation is so clearly negative.
The judge called the first witness (Officer in Charge at the time of his arrest, Abdul Hanif), about whom we had been hearing for the past four years as the prosecution’s big gun. According to Shoaib, he testified to the usual falsehoods (named me as Shoaib's collaborator--not the first time). He then mentioned a non-existent article, "Hello Tel Aviv," which he and others allege that Shoaib wrote for USAToday. We have been hearing about it for years, and it is here when things got interesting. Hanif continued that Shoaib (in 2003) sent faxes and made calls to Israel; but no such communication between those two countries exists. He accused Shoaib of being anti-Islamic, of praising Jews and Christians (evidently a terrible offense), and calling Bangladesh "a breeding ground for jihadists." At that point, the judge turned to the witness and very pointedly asked him if he had any evidence for this. The officer responded that he conducted an investigation, but the judge would have none of it. That is not evidence, he said, it’s “bulls**t,” in Shoaib's words. No doubt, that’s a rather loose translation, but Shoaib was attempting to convey something about the judge's attitude. The judge concluded with the witness by admonishing him that he was not interested in anything for which there was no concrete evidence.
The judge then called Shoaib to the bench (something evidently as rarely done in Bangladeshi courts evidently as in our own). He asked him about the notorious "Hello Tel Aviv," and Shoaib said that no such article exists. The judge told him--in a voice that others could hear—that if the prosecution cannot produce the article that alone would cause him to dismiss the case. Shoaib also mentioned that the previously hostile prosecutor "fell silent" after he saw the judge's attitude.
The second day of the trial was rather brief and consisted of Shoaib’s new co-counsel cross-examining the witness. The witness will offer his responses at the next court date, August 31.
So a potentially disastrous event might turn out to be a good one. Now, to be sure, Shoaib is still quite anxious about this--and with good reason. As he said, this is the trial and we do not know for certain how it will end. By the same token, the events do seem to bear out our ongoing efforts and projections as Shoaib never received that level of judicial propriety under the previous government. We will know better as we move into the next round of court dates whether or not our optimism is justified.
Good news? Bad news? Both, really. It's going to be a day-to-day matter, and we must stay on top of things even between court dates—something I am doing on a daily basis.
On the second day of the trial, there was a frightening incident at Shoaib’s residence, which I have been assured is being investigated. But it underscores Shoaib’s courage in that even if the government obeys its own national laws, there remains danger from rogues and scoundrels at every turn. See Threats against Muslim Hero all too Common
Shoaib returned to court on August 31 for the trial's third day. The government witness was to give his response to questions posed on cross examination. He did not show, and the prosecution filed a "time petition": more time for the witness to respond. We should hope after five years of supposedly having the answers, three weeks plus was enough time. I urged that defense to oppose the move, but I am not sure what happens. Also, it is possible that the government wants to bend over backwards to show that it is not pushing the acquittal but if it comes, acquittal will be the result of the Bangladeshi law. Still, more time seems highly improper given all the time that has passed already.
The witness did show the next day, and the cross examination proceeded. The defense asked a number of questions that were designed to impeach the witnesses credibility. The questions focused on matters of fact that have been alleged, and the witness was unable to respond knowledgeably to any of them. On a matter critical to the prosecution's case, the defense asked the witness for examples of words by Shoaib that "hurt the image of Bangladesh," as he alleged in his previous testimony. He was unable to do so--which makes sense given the fact that Shoaib has not hurt the image of Bangladesh, that the nation's Army Chief and others have stated publicly that there is a problem in the country of radical Islamist terrorists, and that the witness has been sent to parrot a series of false and unsupportable charges against Shoaib.
The trial has been going so well, and the judge has been quite professional throughout that Shoaib contacted me and expressed his happiness at the trial's impartiality thus far. His attorneys also feel confident that the case is going very well according to Bangladeshi law. In fact, as I told several key individuals in the US and Bangladesh; an acquittal a this point only vindicates the Bangladeshi judiciary and indicates that it will continue to handle these cases with impartiality and professionalism. It is also becoming clear that this government offers far more in the way of justice than either of its political predecessors, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party or the Awami League.
Shoaib returned to court on October 5. His attorney (specifically S N Goswami, Secretary General of the Bangladesh Minority Lawyers Association, peppered prosecution witness and plaintiff, Abdul Hanif who was the officer in charge when Shoaib was arrested in 2003. For Shoaib, the most disturbing part of the proceedings when Hanif claimed that Israel was "an enemy state" of Bangladesh. He was concerned that Hanif's statement reflected the position of the government. At this point, we cannot confirm that, but it is something we are investigating.
More importantly, the defense again showed that Hanif had not evidence for his allegations against Shoaib. He still has not produced the alleged "Hello Tel Aviv" article, something the judge said on the trial's first day would be sufficient to find for the defense. According to Shoaib, the judge was clearly impressed by Brother Goswami's effort, which also included his narrative of the brutal treatment Shoaib suffered in prison, including attempts on his life.
Shoaib's next court date was October 30. Shoaib and his attorney arrived, but the government witness did not. The government's witness has failed to show for the trial repeatedly. In most societies, judicial standards would lead the court to order the prosecution to proceed without the absent witness; but not so in Bangladesh. The court simply continues the case without so much as an admonition or a directive to show at the appointed date or forfeit his testimony. To make matters worse, the case was continued to January 15, 2009!
This is extremely disturbing for several reasons and places in doubt government assurances of its desire to end the matter during its term. It has scheduled elections for December, which means that it has no intention of bringing the issue to an end. Thus far, the judge also has made it clear that the government has not produced a scintilla of credible evidence. Yet, the case continues to drain Shoaib of financial, emotional, and personal resources. At what point does the process itself become persecution of a dissident?
Perhaps we have reached that point, and I communicated my anger to the government of Bangladesh. I do not expect it to act on my anger but on the principles of good jurisprudence and human rights that demand fairness in this case. I also have contacted Professor Irwin Cotler to see if there are any judicial principles that legitimately challenges what the government is doing.
To continue Click here.
Since his 2005 release from prison, Shoaib has been forced to attend regular court appearances at the rate of approximately one every month. It has been an emotionally and financially draining experience. Most of those appearances have bee perfunctory--nothing really happens, but Shoaib is forced to wait at the courthouse the entire day. Periodically, the judge and prosecutor will attempt to circumvent Bangladeshi law by trying to re-incarcerate Shoaib or forcing a quick and pre-determined trial; even though his pending appeal before the Bangladeshi Supreme Court renders the latter illegal. There have been at least five attempts to revoke his bail and otherwise re-incarcerate him; and we were successful in preventing all of them. Fortunately, there are a number of Bangladeshi officials who are becoming more and more aware of the damage this admittedly false prosecution is doing to their nation.
On August 6, 2008, Shoaib arrived at the courthouse expecting yet another perfunctory court date. Instead, he was told that his trial would commence that afternoon. At first, that gave us all cause for concern, but on closer examination it might have been a more hopeful sign. In the months leading up to this turn of events, Shoaib had been required to return to court at ever shrinking intervals; but was told to return in a month at the previous one. Moreover, within that period, one of his appeals was rejected (neither a surprise nor a devastating blow), another was first scheduled to be held then not, then to be scheduled again but only after being rejected by the lower court. As such, the status of the appeal on August 6 was not entirely clear; perhaps allowing this unexpected legal move by the government. Additionally, the regular prosecutor (who had become ever more positive toward Shoaib) was not in attendance. He was replaced by an "Additional Public Prosecutor" who was downright hostile. This individual is also a member of the BNP, the party that arrested and tortured Shoaib on charges it knew to be false. He shoed Shoaib from the courtroom and made him wait outside in the corridor for the several hours until the trial would begin. He did this even though there were no seats and Shoaib was running a fever. Shoaib phoned or texted me at least once an hour, and each succeeding text showed increasingly more worry, anger, and even despair. But he always maintained faith in his many supporters. I asked Shoaib if his attorney objected to the trial starting, based on Bangladeshi law, and Shoaib said he did but was overruled. In one text, Shoaib said that the court "seemed desperate to start the trial." Between Shoaib and his brother Sohail, I got a very nasty feeling all night (Chicago is eleven hours behind Dhaka) that the government was determined to get this matter over with and convict Shoaib of these charges. Having spoken with Shoaib for quite some time after the court appearance, I do not believe the situation is so clearly negative.
The judge called the first witness (Officer in Charge at the time of his arrest, Abdul Hanif), about whom we had been hearing for the past four years as the prosecution’s big gun. According to Shoaib, he testified to the usual falsehoods (named me as Shoaib's collaborator--not the first time). He then mentioned a non-existent article, "Hello Tel Aviv," which he and others allege that Shoaib wrote for USAToday. We have been hearing about it for years, and it is here when things got interesting. Hanif continued that Shoaib (in 2003) sent faxes and made calls to Israel; but no such communication between those two countries exists. He accused Shoaib of being anti-Islamic, of praising Jews and Christians (evidently a terrible offense), and calling Bangladesh "a breeding ground for jihadists." At that point, the judge turned to the witness and very pointedly asked him if he had any evidence for this. The officer responded that he conducted an investigation, but the judge would have none of it. That is not evidence, he said, it’s “bulls**t,” in Shoaib's words. No doubt, that’s a rather loose translation, but Shoaib was attempting to convey something about the judge's attitude. The judge concluded with the witness by admonishing him that he was not interested in anything for which there was no concrete evidence.
The judge then called Shoaib to the bench (something evidently as rarely done in Bangladeshi courts evidently as in our own). He asked him about the notorious "Hello Tel Aviv," and Shoaib said that no such article exists. The judge told him--in a voice that others could hear—that if the prosecution cannot produce the article that alone would cause him to dismiss the case. Shoaib also mentioned that the previously hostile prosecutor "fell silent" after he saw the judge's attitude.
The second day of the trial was rather brief and consisted of Shoaib’s new co-counsel cross-examining the witness. The witness will offer his responses at the next court date, August 31.
So a potentially disastrous event might turn out to be a good one. Now, to be sure, Shoaib is still quite anxious about this--and with good reason. As he said, this is the trial and we do not know for certain how it will end. By the same token, the events do seem to bear out our ongoing efforts and projections as Shoaib never received that level of judicial propriety under the previous government. We will know better as we move into the next round of court dates whether or not our optimism is justified.
Good news? Bad news? Both, really. It's going to be a day-to-day matter, and we must stay on top of things even between court dates—something I am doing on a daily basis.
On the second day of the trial, there was a frightening incident at Shoaib’s residence, which I have been assured is being investigated. But it underscores Shoaib’s courage in that even if the government obeys its own national laws, there remains danger from rogues and scoundrels at every turn. See Threats against Muslim Hero all too Common
Shoaib returned to court on August 31 for the trial's third day. The government witness was to give his response to questions posed on cross examination. He did not show, and the prosecution filed a "time petition": more time for the witness to respond. We should hope after five years of supposedly having the answers, three weeks plus was enough time. I urged that defense to oppose the move, but I am not sure what happens. Also, it is possible that the government wants to bend over backwards to show that it is not pushing the acquittal but if it comes, acquittal will be the result of the Bangladeshi law. Still, more time seems highly improper given all the time that has passed already.
The witness did show the next day, and the cross examination proceeded. The defense asked a number of questions that were designed to impeach the witnesses credibility. The questions focused on matters of fact that have been alleged, and the witness was unable to respond knowledgeably to any of them. On a matter critical to the prosecution's case, the defense asked the witness for examples of words by Shoaib that "hurt the image of Bangladesh," as he alleged in his previous testimony. He was unable to do so--which makes sense given the fact that Shoaib has not hurt the image of Bangladesh, that the nation's Army Chief and others have stated publicly that there is a problem in the country of radical Islamist terrorists, and that the witness has been sent to parrot a series of false and unsupportable charges against Shoaib.
The trial has been going so well, and the judge has been quite professional throughout that Shoaib contacted me and expressed his happiness at the trial's impartiality thus far. His attorneys also feel confident that the case is going very well according to Bangladeshi law. In fact, as I told several key individuals in the US and Bangladesh; an acquittal a this point only vindicates the Bangladeshi judiciary and indicates that it will continue to handle these cases with impartiality and professionalism. It is also becoming clear that this government offers far more in the way of justice than either of its political predecessors, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party or the Awami League.
Shoaib returned to court on October 5. His attorney (specifically S N Goswami, Secretary General of the Bangladesh Minority Lawyers Association, peppered prosecution witness and plaintiff, Abdul Hanif who was the officer in charge when Shoaib was arrested in 2003. For Shoaib, the most disturbing part of the proceedings when Hanif claimed that Israel was "an enemy state" of Bangladesh. He was concerned that Hanif's statement reflected the position of the government. At this point, we cannot confirm that, but it is something we are investigating.
More importantly, the defense again showed that Hanif had not evidence for his allegations against Shoaib. He still has not produced the alleged "Hello Tel Aviv" article, something the judge said on the trial's first day would be sufficient to find for the defense. According to Shoaib, the judge was clearly impressed by Brother Goswami's effort, which also included his narrative of the brutal treatment Shoaib suffered in prison, including attempts on his life.
Shoaib's next court date was October 30. Shoaib and his attorney arrived, but the government witness did not. The government's witness has failed to show for the trial repeatedly. In most societies, judicial standards would lead the court to order the prosecution to proceed without the absent witness; but not so in Bangladesh. The court simply continues the case without so much as an admonition or a directive to show at the appointed date or forfeit his testimony. To make matters worse, the case was continued to January 15, 2009!
This is extremely disturbing for several reasons and places in doubt government assurances of its desire to end the matter during its term. It has scheduled elections for December, which means that it has no intention of bringing the issue to an end. Thus far, the judge also has made it clear that the government has not produced a scintilla of credible evidence. Yet, the case continues to drain Shoaib of financial, emotional, and personal resources. At what point does the process itself become persecution of a dissident?
Perhaps we have reached that point, and I communicated my anger to the government of Bangladesh. I do not expect it to act on my anger but on the principles of good jurisprudence and human rights that demand fairness in this case. I also have contacted Professor Irwin Cotler to see if there are any judicial principles that legitimately challenges what the government is doing.
To continue Click here.