Azad’s 13-year-late appeal puts Hasina’s war crimes case in legal spotlight

The Supreme Court is weighing whether former Jamaat-e-Islami leader Abul Kalam Azad can appeal his 2013 death sentence for crimes against humanity, more than 13 years after the statutory deadline expired.

The case could have wider implications for how appeals by fugitives convicted by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal are handled.

The Appellate Division on Tuesday adjourned the hearing on whether Azad’s appeal can be admitted, with proceedings expected to resume after the Supreme Court’s vacation, which runs until October 24.

A four-member bench headed by Justice Md Rezaul Haque passed the order.

The case has drawn particular attention because the legal question could extend beyond Azad. Chief Prosecutor Md Aminul Islam has argued that the same 30-day appeal deadline applies to every person convicted by the tribunal, explicitly citing ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina as well as Azad.

Azad, widely known as “Bachchu Razakar,” was the first defendant convicted after the Awami League government established the tribunal to prosecute crimes committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War.

The then International Crimes Tribunal-2, headed by Justice Obaidul Hasan, sentenced him to death on January 21, 2013, following a trial held in his absence.

He faced eight charges involving murder, rape, abduction, detention, arson and looting in Faridpur during the war and was convicted on seven. Tribunal records said he was responsible for killing 14 people, rape, abductions and detention, as well as burning and looting homes.

Azad had already fled Bangladesh before his arrest warrant was issued. According to the Rapid Action Battalion at the time, he left Dhaka on March 30, 2012, travelled to Hili in Dinajpur and crossed into India on April 2, a day before the tribunal issued the warrant.

RAB said Dr Abu Yusuf, a former National University teacher, drove Azad towards Hili, while others were accused of assisting his escape.

Azad remained a fugitive throughout his trial and for more than a decade after his conviction.

Following the political change brought about by the July 2024 uprising, Azad sought relief from the interim government. On October 22, 2025, the Home Ministry, acting under presidential authority, suspended his death sentence for one year under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The suspension was conditional on his surrendering before the court and pursuing an appeal.

Azad surrendered before the ICT-2 on January 21 this year, exactly 13 years after his conviction. The tribunal subsequently ordered that he be provided certified copies of the judgment and other documents needed to approach the Appellate Division and allowed him to remain at liberty pending an appropriate order from the appellate forum.

The central question now is whether the Supreme Court can entertain that challenge despite the deadline set by the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.

Section 21(3) requires an appeal against a tribunal conviction or acquittal to be filed within 30 days. Aminul has argued that, as the ICT Act is a special law, its deadline cannot be overridden by ordinary criminal procedure or an executive order.

He said Monday that the interim government had the legal authority under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to suspend Azad’s sentence, but not to create a fresh right of appeal after the statutory deadline had expired.

“There is no scope for an executive order to supersede the International Crimes Tribunal Act,” Aminul said, calling the portion of the government order allowing Azad to surrender on the condition that he appeal “illegal and unlawful.”

Azad’s lawyer, Barrister Ehsan A Siddiq, has argued that the Appellate Division nevertheless has the constitutional authority to hear the case, relying in part on Article 104 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division to issue orders necessary for doing “complete justice” in matters before it.

The defence has also challenged the reliability of the proceedings that produced Azad’s conviction, arguing that the tribunal under the previous Awami League government was politically influenced and pointing to controversies surrounding its proceedings, including the so-called Skype scandal.

Azad’s lawyers have further cited the case of ATM Azharul Islam, whose conviction and death sentence were overturned by the Appellate Division, as evidence that earlier tribunal findings cannot necessarily be treated as beyond judicial reconsideration.

They have also disputed crucial aspects of the case against Azad, arguing that he was an intermediate student at Faridpur’s Rajendra College in 1971 and was too young to have occupied the senior Al-Badr and Al-Shams command role attributed to him. They also point to the absence of his name from proceedings under the post-independence Collaborators Order of 1972.

Attorney General Barrister Ruhul Quddus Kajal has declined to state his position outside court, saying he would make his submissions before the Appellate Division.

The dispute has meanwhile prompted concern about its possible implications for other ICT convictions involving defendants tried or convicted while absent.

Former ICT Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam said he supported Azad’s release but warned against creating a legal route that could subsequently benefit Hasina or others convicted by the tribunal.

“At this moment, I want Abul Kalam Azad to be released,” he said. “At the same time, I also want to ensure that this does not open any door through which criminals such as fascist Sheikh Hasina can flee or escape justice.”

Pro-Awami League lawyer Kumar Debol Dey raised a similar concern, arguing that admitting Azad’s appeal could provide Hasina and other defendants sentenced to death by the ICT with grounds to seek the same legal treatment.

Aminul, however, has argued that the existing statutory deadline applies equally to Azad, Hasina or any other convicted person, whether they are fugitives or in custody. Once the 30-day period has expired, he said, the ICT Act provides no further opportunity to appeal.

Azad’s long period as a fugitive also became intertwined with allegations involving his family. His sons Faisal Azad and AQM Mushfiq Billah were detained in 2012 after their father disappeared, with RAB at the time saying they had been held over allegations of helping him flee Bangladesh. 

The family has subsequently alleged that the two were subjected to enforced disappearance and torture and that Faisal died following severe abuse by law enforcement personnel.

The Appellate Division had initially been expected to issue an order on Azad’s case on September 7, but the matter could not be taken up because another case occupied the court. It appeared on Tuesday’s cause list before the court adjourned the hearing until after its vacation.

The eventual ruling will determine not only whether Azad can challenge a death sentence imposed more than 13 years ago, but also how strictly Bangladesh’s highest court interprets the ICT Act’s 30-day limit when a convicted defendant remained outside the judicial process for years.

—