Here is the latest information about Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.
Shoaib’s first court appearance in 2009 was also his first appearance during the reign of the new Awami League government. Two things give us cause to be hopeful: the charges against Shoaib were brought by Awami’s arch rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party; and the new government has promised that it will make a clean break from Bangladesh’s recent past marred by corruption, Islamist sponsorship, and minority persecution. Our long experience with the government of Bangladesh has made us extremely cautious with any optimism. The January 15 court appearance confirmed the importance of that caution.
First, the judge who had been presiding over the trial has been promoted. The new judge had no experience with this case and at least claimed that he knew nothing about. So he asked the Public Prosecutor to brief him about the case. The Public Prosecutor, of course, provided him with a biased view of the case to support his own efforts. He said it was "a very sensitive case" that inflames the "religious sentiments of the people of Bangladesh." He said that Shoaib's tried to visit the "forbidden State Israel." And no doubt, as he did, also threw in some choice comments about the current situation there. He told the judge that the crux of the case is that Shoaib has hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims with his writing, his support of Israel, and his criticism of madrassas. Odd though it seems no one had a problem believing that Shoaib’s life should hang in the balance for that. The prosecutor gave the judge the original charge sheet, which is terribly flawed, inflammatory, and replete with outright falsehoods. And as he did, he made a point of telling the judge that it was produced after "extensive investigation." The judge did not give the defense an opportunity to provide any information on the case.
All of this happened after the prosecutor announced that the witness (the state’s only witness thus far) was not going to be available to testify that day. This is becoming numbingly familiar, and the witness’s unavailability seems to come on the heels of effective questioning by defense counsel. But—unlike what we might expect in the court of any nation where justice and the rule of law prevail—the court did not even flinch, let alone safeguard the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. (The charges against Shoaib were brought five years ago!)
These events should make it clear to everyone that the previous "assurances" we were given than the case would run a speedy course and that the verdict will be based on the law and confirmed evidence are worthless. Clearly, the Bangladeshis are sending up a trial balloon that if allowed to fly will let them string us--and more importantly Shoaib--along indefinitely via this ruse. I think we've all seen sufficient evidence of dissembling and delaying tactics by the Bangladeshis to expect that our passivity in the face of this sort of thing will never bring Shoaib justice.
We also see that there is no let-up in picturing Shoaib as an enemy of Islam. The judge was not shocked by the portrayal, nor did he ask for any clarification. He merely accepted the statement; just as he merely accepted the fact of the government witness not showing for court. At least the previous judge demanded evidence; so far, this one is not so discerning.
The court is allowing the government to proceed even though its (tainted) witness does not show up on scheduled court days. I doubt it would be so generous if Shoaib did not show.
Shoaib's next court date is a month from now, February 18. As we can see, the court is all too happy to prolong Shoaib's harassment and drain his emotional and financial resources. Will the witness be a no-show again and get another pass or try to push through the same faked testimony, devoid of evidence? Will this judge demand a measure of legal principle if he does testify? Will it be clear again that they intend to keep this Sword of Damocles over Shoaib's head indefinitely? Clearly, they need to know that this sort of activity brings dishonor to their country and, I expect, some pretty nasty consequences.
Shoaib was back in court on February 18. Was what transpired new and promising or more of the same? Well, both. The new presiding judge, Mohammed Boshir Ullah asked the Public Prosecutor why the case was brought in the first place. Before he could answer, however, one of Shoaib's longtime attorneys, Advocate Govinda Chandra Promanik, answered that the former BNP government brought the charge because Shoaib forecasted the rise of Islamist radicals in Bangladesh. "My client is a well known journalist in Bangladesh defending human rights and rights of religious minorities as well as promoting culture of peace," he added.
The judge responded that Shoaib should be "rewarded" and not "harassed" for exposing the radicals.
Great, huh? But immediately after that, he set March 31 as the next court date "to hear witnesses"; that is, to maintain the status quo and the charges against Shoaib Choudhury. Does that sound like a reward? It is possible that the judge's words signal a new attitude on the part of the recently elected Awami League government, but his actions indicate just the opposite. Are we to conclude that Awami is no different than the caretaker/military or the BNP? In the same vein, the government is still refusing to issue a visa allowing me into the country so I can see Shoaib and advocate for him. That makes four times out of my last five attempts, if anyone's counting.
What are we to make of these confusing signals? Pretty much what we have concluded before: that the only measure of the Bangladeshis' sincerity is ACTION; and they have taken some positive action in this case over the past several years, just not enough for us to consider Bangladesh a nation of laws.
The government witness did not show--again--at the March court date, and the government merely set a new date, May 26. The court made no mention of the witness's and prosecution's disregard for the court's authority by his time after time thumbing his nose at the court and just not showing up. Imagine if Shoaib acted that way even once! It does not look as if the Bangladeshis, and specifically the so-called democratic Awami League government--wants to do anything until they size up the ease with which the current administration will allow them to get what they want without taking any action on their human rights problems, such as Shoaib's case.
The May 26 court appearance only confirmed the growing realization that the Bangladeshis have no intention of ending Shoaib's persecution until they realize that their commitment to injustice hurts their people more than their attempt to appease Islamists (who brought the false case) helps them. They are violating their moral and constitutional duty to place the needs of their people first. "Today nothing significant happened. Only I was standing in the court for hours, witness did not come and the judge gave another new date," Shoaib told me shortly after leaving the courtroom. Nations committed to the rule of law guarantee their citizens rights to a speedy trial and to confront their accusers; but Bangladesh is evidently not a nation of laws. For in civilized countries, when the prosecution's only witness refuses to show up to testify--again and again and again--courts understand that the prosecution has no case and dismiss it. But evidently, Bangladesh is not a civilized country. The United States and other countries must realize that Bangladesh is not their ally; is not a country committed to freedom; is a nation so morally bankrupt and aware that it supports injustice and radicalism, that it is not worthy of aid or trade. Its treatment of this one man is a crime unto itself; but it is even more damning for what it reveals. For if Bangladesh can do this to Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, it can do the same to any citizen; it can justify its consistent failure to stop its slaughter of Hindus and other minorities; especially if the world does not make it take responsibility for its morally bereft actions; and the time for that is arriving: perhaps a suit in the International Criminal Court in The Hague; perhaps in a consistent effort to convince large American importers to cut back even further on their imports from Bangladesh; perhaps by bringing actions that will disqualify Bangladesh from participating in UN peacekeeping missions (the real cause of the 2007 military coup). Regardless of which action or actions we take, the time for inaction has drawn to a close.
Shoaib was ordered to return to court again on June 17; and not surprisingly, there was nothing different about this ridiculous government demand than all the others: he was forced to wait for hours to be called into court and told the government witness did not show, that the case was continued until July 15. By now, even the dullest wit in South Asia would realized that this witness will never show unless they are able to fabricate some false evidence against Shoaib. Thus, the government's continuances only confirm the conviction by many that the Bangladeshis have made "the process the punishment" and that the Awami League is no different than the BNP or military rulers. It might be worse because it pretends to offer something different, which resulted in some westerners and pro-minority advocates waiting for it to act. Now, it is clear that they will do nothing to erase corruption, suppression of dissidents, and oppression of minorities in Bangladesh.
To continue Click here.
Shoaib’s first court appearance in 2009 was also his first appearance during the reign of the new Awami League government. Two things give us cause to be hopeful: the charges against Shoaib were brought by Awami’s arch rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party; and the new government has promised that it will make a clean break from Bangladesh’s recent past marred by corruption, Islamist sponsorship, and minority persecution. Our long experience with the government of Bangladesh has made us extremely cautious with any optimism. The January 15 court appearance confirmed the importance of that caution.
First, the judge who had been presiding over the trial has been promoted. The new judge had no experience with this case and at least claimed that he knew nothing about. So he asked the Public Prosecutor to brief him about the case. The Public Prosecutor, of course, provided him with a biased view of the case to support his own efforts. He said it was "a very sensitive case" that inflames the "religious sentiments of the people of Bangladesh." He said that Shoaib's tried to visit the "forbidden State Israel." And no doubt, as he did, also threw in some choice comments about the current situation there. He told the judge that the crux of the case is that Shoaib has hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims with his writing, his support of Israel, and his criticism of madrassas. Odd though it seems no one had a problem believing that Shoaib’s life should hang in the balance for that. The prosecutor gave the judge the original charge sheet, which is terribly flawed, inflammatory, and replete with outright falsehoods. And as he did, he made a point of telling the judge that it was produced after "extensive investigation." The judge did not give the defense an opportunity to provide any information on the case.
All of this happened after the prosecutor announced that the witness (the state’s only witness thus far) was not going to be available to testify that day. This is becoming numbingly familiar, and the witness’s unavailability seems to come on the heels of effective questioning by defense counsel. But—unlike what we might expect in the court of any nation where justice and the rule of law prevail—the court did not even flinch, let alone safeguard the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. (The charges against Shoaib were brought five years ago!)
These events should make it clear to everyone that the previous "assurances" we were given than the case would run a speedy course and that the verdict will be based on the law and confirmed evidence are worthless. Clearly, the Bangladeshis are sending up a trial balloon that if allowed to fly will let them string us--and more importantly Shoaib--along indefinitely via this ruse. I think we've all seen sufficient evidence of dissembling and delaying tactics by the Bangladeshis to expect that our passivity in the face of this sort of thing will never bring Shoaib justice.
We also see that there is no let-up in picturing Shoaib as an enemy of Islam. The judge was not shocked by the portrayal, nor did he ask for any clarification. He merely accepted the statement; just as he merely accepted the fact of the government witness not showing for court. At least the previous judge demanded evidence; so far, this one is not so discerning.
The court is allowing the government to proceed even though its (tainted) witness does not show up on scheduled court days. I doubt it would be so generous if Shoaib did not show.
Shoaib's next court date is a month from now, February 18. As we can see, the court is all too happy to prolong Shoaib's harassment and drain his emotional and financial resources. Will the witness be a no-show again and get another pass or try to push through the same faked testimony, devoid of evidence? Will this judge demand a measure of legal principle if he does testify? Will it be clear again that they intend to keep this Sword of Damocles over Shoaib's head indefinitely? Clearly, they need to know that this sort of activity brings dishonor to their country and, I expect, some pretty nasty consequences.
Shoaib was back in court on February 18. Was what transpired new and promising or more of the same? Well, both. The new presiding judge, Mohammed Boshir Ullah asked the Public Prosecutor why the case was brought in the first place. Before he could answer, however, one of Shoaib's longtime attorneys, Advocate Govinda Chandra Promanik, answered that the former BNP government brought the charge because Shoaib forecasted the rise of Islamist radicals in Bangladesh. "My client is a well known journalist in Bangladesh defending human rights and rights of religious minorities as well as promoting culture of peace," he added.
The judge responded that Shoaib should be "rewarded" and not "harassed" for exposing the radicals.
Great, huh? But immediately after that, he set March 31 as the next court date "to hear witnesses"; that is, to maintain the status quo and the charges against Shoaib Choudhury. Does that sound like a reward? It is possible that the judge's words signal a new attitude on the part of the recently elected Awami League government, but his actions indicate just the opposite. Are we to conclude that Awami is no different than the caretaker/military or the BNP? In the same vein, the government is still refusing to issue a visa allowing me into the country so I can see Shoaib and advocate for him. That makes four times out of my last five attempts, if anyone's counting.
What are we to make of these confusing signals? Pretty much what we have concluded before: that the only measure of the Bangladeshis' sincerity is ACTION; and they have taken some positive action in this case over the past several years, just not enough for us to consider Bangladesh a nation of laws.
The government witness did not show--again--at the March court date, and the government merely set a new date, May 26. The court made no mention of the witness's and prosecution's disregard for the court's authority by his time after time thumbing his nose at the court and just not showing up. Imagine if Shoaib acted that way even once! It does not look as if the Bangladeshis, and specifically the so-called democratic Awami League government--wants to do anything until they size up the ease with which the current administration will allow them to get what they want without taking any action on their human rights problems, such as Shoaib's case.
The May 26 court appearance only confirmed the growing realization that the Bangladeshis have no intention of ending Shoaib's persecution until they realize that their commitment to injustice hurts their people more than their attempt to appease Islamists (who brought the false case) helps them. They are violating their moral and constitutional duty to place the needs of their people first. "Today nothing significant happened. Only I was standing in the court for hours, witness did not come and the judge gave another new date," Shoaib told me shortly after leaving the courtroom. Nations committed to the rule of law guarantee their citizens rights to a speedy trial and to confront their accusers; but Bangladesh is evidently not a nation of laws. For in civilized countries, when the prosecution's only witness refuses to show up to testify--again and again and again--courts understand that the prosecution has no case and dismiss it. But evidently, Bangladesh is not a civilized country. The United States and other countries must realize that Bangladesh is not their ally; is not a country committed to freedom; is a nation so morally bankrupt and aware that it supports injustice and radicalism, that it is not worthy of aid or trade. Its treatment of this one man is a crime unto itself; but it is even more damning for what it reveals. For if Bangladesh can do this to Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, it can do the same to any citizen; it can justify its consistent failure to stop its slaughter of Hindus and other minorities; especially if the world does not make it take responsibility for its morally bereft actions; and the time for that is arriving: perhaps a suit in the International Criminal Court in The Hague; perhaps in a consistent effort to convince large American importers to cut back even further on their imports from Bangladesh; perhaps by bringing actions that will disqualify Bangladesh from participating in UN peacekeeping missions (the real cause of the 2007 military coup). Regardless of which action or actions we take, the time for inaction has drawn to a close.
Shoaib was ordered to return to court again on June 17; and not surprisingly, there was nothing different about this ridiculous government demand than all the others: he was forced to wait for hours to be called into court and told the government witness did not show, that the case was continued until July 15. By now, even the dullest wit in South Asia would realized that this witness will never show unless they are able to fabricate some false evidence against Shoaib. Thus, the government's continuances only confirm the conviction by many that the Bangladeshis have made "the process the punishment" and that the Awami League is no different than the BNP or military rulers. It might be worse because it pretends to offer something different, which resulted in some westerners and pro-minority advocates waiting for it to act. Now, it is clear that they will do nothing to erase corruption, suppression of dissidents, and oppression of minorities in Bangladesh.
To continue Click here.