When the trial of war crimes and crimes against humanity at the International Crime Court began in 2010 under the Awami League regime, British lawyer Toby Cadman, an expert in international crime and human rights law, questioned its transparency. Sheikh Hasina’s government banned him from entering Bangladesh in 2011 amid controversy over the tribunal. Since then, he was aware of various errors and the impartiality of the tribunal for a long time.
After the formation of the interim government in Bangladesh, Cadman is now working as the chief consultant on the legal restructuring of the tribunal. During the Awami League period, extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances by the security forces, disappearances, and particularly July-August killings are being advised.
Toby Cadman expressed concern about the role of the police in the judicial process, saying that sensitive information is being leaked after the issuance of an arrest warrant by the tribunal. Besides, he wanted structural reform of the controversial tribunal formed in the previous regime, especially the name change of the tribunal. In his voice, the importance of ensuring complete independence of judges and effective reforms in the judicial system in restoring the image and nation-building in the international world.
Besides, from being a staunch critic to a consultant, he spoke about bringing Sheikh Hasina to justice, who fled to India in the face of a mass uprising, and the Interpol red notice, the Awami League’s complaints about the tribunal, and ensuring justice according to the highest national and international standards. Interviewed by Abdul Majid Chowdhury.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: So you have been a prominent critic of the International Crimes Tribunal for Bangladesh and have previously called on the international community to take a stand against that administration. Now, as the chief advisor to the ICT, how do you feel about this shift?
Toby Cadman: Thank you. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. The first thing I’d say is that I was a critic of the process, not the institution. So I think one of the issues that Bangladesh has faced and one of the reasons why it’s confronting issues now is through a failure to confront and a failure to reconcile with its own history. There was a vacuum of accountability for a number of years. My personal view is that 1971, what happened in 1971, should have been dealt with many, many years ago. It should have been dealt with by way of an international tribunal. And then for 40, 50 years, there was no accountability. Then we have this process, which was initiated when Sheikh Hasina came to power in 2009. The International Crimes Tribunal was then inaugurated in 2010, and they initiated a number of cases against prominent political leaders from the opposition. And the criticisms that were made by me, the criticisms that were made by the United Nations, and by prominent human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, were about the process that the trials were not fair, that they were not in accordance with national and international standards, and that they were heavily criticized as a result of that.
The process. Now, obviously, we’ve seen In a very quick change since Sheikh Hasina fled, the International Crimes Tribunal has now been amended. So the legislation has been amended. I have made recommendations, along with the Chief Prosecutor, Taijul Islam, for additional changes that need to be made. I’ve met this week with the law adviser and expressed some, I won’t say concern, but there are still issues that need to be changed in the legal framework and then what needs to be done in terms of strengthening the institutional capacity of the institution. For example, one of the very strong recommendations that I’ve made is that the name of the institution needs to change because everyone will associate the International Crimes Tribunal with what happened previously, and what happened previously Was there a corruption of the process that there was a great deal of well-documented political interference in the process? And so long as it is still the International Crimes Tribunal, even if the legal framework is changed, even if the personnel are changed.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: In this case, what are your suggestions for this ICT? What will the name be?
Toby Cadman: So, so that’s not a matter for me to decide. That’s a matter for the government to decide as well. I’ve made a number of recommendations as to what it could be called. Really. It’s not of huge significance. What is called, as long as it’s called something different, can be called the International Crimes Chamber. It can be a specialist chamber for international crimes. So what it needs to represent is a break from the past. And what I have stated is a new dawn of democracy, a new dawn of the rule of law. And that is a process that I believe the interim government under Professor Yunus, under the law adviser, the attorney general, and certainly the chief prosecutor wants to see done properly. The public demands this. The student revolution demands that there be justice, that there be accountability, but that it be done properly. And so then it will stand the test of time, because what the students fought for was a democracy, the establishment of the rule of law, and to have public confidence and credibility in state institutions. And so it’s not just the legal framework that needs to be changed. It is the perception of the institution that needs to be changed.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: So in 2011, once you were not allowed by Shahjalal airport authority or the government to enter the country to assist the defence team. But almost 14 years later now. You are now part of the government, right? So would you say this is the major turning point in your career?
Toby Cadman: So first of all, I would say that Bangladesh was a significant contributing factor. In the development of my career. Prior to coming to Bangladesh, I spent a number of years prosecuting war crimes in Bosnia. But I think what I did in Bangladesh was probably one of the most significant things that I ever did. And to be clear, when I first visited Bangladesh in October 2010, I visited on four more occasions after that, and then it was on the fateful last trip, which was on the 6th of August 2011, the day before my daughter’s birthday, which I’ll never forget. And it was actually an order of the home minister at the time to bar me from entering the country. And so I was held at the airport; I was detained at the airport, and then I was deported. And it was made very, very clear that I would not be welcome back. Now, what that meant was that in order to assist the defense teams, I had an obligation to continue to represent those individuals that had requested me as their lawyer along with our colleagues. What that meant was that we would then have to assist those defense teams remotely. And so, so that’s what we did. When it was quite clear, because at that point, whilst there were criticisms made of the process, we were not aware of the level of interference, of political interference in the process.
We didn’t really become aware of that until later in 2011 and early 2012. And then we had the Skype scandal. We had the disappearance of the witness. Bali. Bali, Bali. And so? So, you know, there are a number of things that happened. So then at that point, we petitioned the United Nations. We petitioned the UK and US governments to really pay attention to what was happening, because the one thing that you have to think about is that institutions such as this do not only affect the countries in which they are based, but they affect the whole concept of international law. And when other countries are trying to set up their own systems of accountability, they’ll look to other countries for how to do it. And what Bangladesh became, unfortunately, at that point under Sheikh Hasina’s government, was an example of what never to do again. And so in international legal circles, where tribunals were discussed, Bangladesh was always left off the discussion because it was one of those examples of what not to do ever again. And you have prominent officials such as the former US ambassador at large for war crimes, Stephen Rapp, who had been very critical, and then his successor, Beth Van Schaack, who was the immediate ambassador prior to Trump taking office.
She had also been very, very critical of this process and referring to it as a missed opportunity, because what you’ve got to also think of is that at that time, dealing with crimes that had occurred 40 or 50 years earlier, memories start to fade, and evidence disappears. And so it’s very, very difficult to do trials like this after such a lengthy delay. And what you have to realize is that that was really their only opportunity to do this and to do this properly. And they failed. So what is important now is that the interim government, and of course, this is one of its priorities. And I understand the priority is to ensure that there are conditions for free and fair elections. And that has to be the ultimate objective of the interim government. But you cannot have a democracy without truth, justice, and accountability. And so that’s what it’s about. And so rather than saying it’s an incredible moment for me, I would say it’s an incredible moment for the people of Bangladesh. You know, I’m only a very small part in trying to assist the government in doing it and doing it properly. But it’s really, I mean, the people you’ve got to convince are the people of Bangladesh.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: Who made your first offer for the role of adviser to the tribunal when it resumed its restructuring process after August 5, and what was the discussion at that time?
Toby Cadamn: So I was invited fairly soon. I mean, I was in contact with a lot of people who I’d been in contact with previously. What was extraordinary for me was that along with another British lawyer, Michael Polak, I had fought for one of the disappeared, who was Mir Ahmad bin Salman, who was known as Ahmad. And the government had always denied that they had anything to do with his disappearance. And literally two days after Sheikh Hasina fled, both he and Brigadier Azmi were released. And so, at the very least, what I wanted to do was I wanted to come and see them because they’d been detained for eight years, which for me was utterly shocking. But I decided to use the opportunity to speak to the attorney general, to speak to the law adviser. And I had a meeting with Professor Yunus. Professor Yunus asked me to put my recommendations down into a report, which was a confidential report that I delivered to Professor Yunus. And as a result of that, I was then asked whether I would consider being an advisor to the chief prosecutor. And of course, as I’ve worked with the chief prosecutor previously, I knew what a strong character he was. I knew he was a highly competent lawyer. And so it was a great opportunity for me to be able to do that. And so I agreed to do it. I agreed to take on the role pro bono. So just for the sake of clarity, I don’t get paid for the role that I’m doing. And it was agreed with the government that if there is any funding for my work in the future, it has to be agreed with the government and has to be from a non-political side. So, I had agreed to do this pro bono because I thought it’s an incredibly important job to do.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: So you said for this role you approach the government. ”I am willing to do it,” right?
Toby Cadman: So, well, the discussions that took shape were that I had given recommendations of what I think should be done. It wasn’t with the intention to create a job for myself. This is what I think needs to be done in terms of the ICT. This is what I think needs to be done in terms of another big issue for the government in trying to reclaim back many of the stolen assets, money that has been stolen by a number of prominent officials. Now, of course, these are allegations that have been properly investigated. But one of the most important things is, how do you get that money back to Bangladesh? Because it’s important in order to be able to rebuild Bangladesh to be able to reclaim those stolen assets. And so in those discussions it became apparent, and I met with the chief prosecutor after he was appointed. My initial discussions with the government—they hadn’t appointed a chief prosecutor at that point. But during my second visit, which I think was probably the end of November or the beginning of December, or maybe early November, we then started to have a discussion as to whether I would be able to advise them and become an official advisor. And so then in discussions with the law advisor, I was appointed as a special advisor.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: In the past, you said the judiciary under Hasina was being used for political gain and the experience of Bangladesh would be remembered. Now you are the consultant of this tribunal. Do you see the urgency of any reformation?
Toby Cadman: The judiciary is one of the first things that goes when you break down these institutions, and you have this concept of what we call state capture. Certainly the institutions that are effectively taken over by the state and the rule of law are circumvented. Then the judiciary is one of the first to go. Now, the issue that you have is that there is, of course, a need for global reform within Bangladesh, particularly within the criminal justice system. It’s not just the ICT. Of course, the ICT represents a small part of what needs to be done more globally. But I think if you fix the ICT first, then that can then spread into a greater reform throughout the country, throughout the judicial system. Because, look, there are many, many prominent lawyers and judges in this country who are quite capable of doing their jobs without the international community. But they have got to be given the freedom to operate independently. I think the problem that we’ve had previously is that there has been this culture of fear, culture of intimidation, and culture of coercion. And so, judges have not been able to operate independently. We have to give them the tools to do that. And so I can see that this is a primary goal of the interim government. But ultimately it’s going to be something that needs to be taken on by whoever is elected. Following free and fair elections. They’ve got to understand that this is a long-term process, and Bangladesh can only grow as a country if they take these reforms seriously.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: : Okay, so a warrant for the arrest of Hasina has been issued from ICT, and all the necessary documents have been submitted. But we see Interpol has not yet issued the notice, even though India has not extradited Hasina. The significance of the Interpol notice remains crucial. So what do you think, and how confident are you that Interpol will eventually issue the red notice? And do you believe preventing this notice, there are any lobbying efforts from Awami League or India?
Toby Cadman: So Interpol obviously operates as an independent institution, as an international police network. And it is governed by its constitution. It’s governed by a statute. And one of the protections against abuse is that you cannot seek an arrest warrant for somebody on what are political crimes. So, of course, what Interpol needs to do is to satisfy itself that the allegations that are being made are credible and are based on evidence, and they are not for political purposes. So, of course, that advice has been provided by the chief prosecutor’s office through the appropriate channels, through the IGP, and through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has jurisdiction for dealing with this. And so it is, of course, a matter that Interpol needs to consider carefully. So. So that any Interpol red notice arrest warrant is issued and will stand up to scrutiny. Because once a red notice is issued, the subject of that request is entitled to file a response to try and challenge it. And of course, what you want to do is ensure that you have demonstrated that it is for non-political purposes and it is for specific crimes, as we have demonstrated to Interpol. So I do believe that Interpol will issue a red notice. The question of extradition is a much bigger issue and is.
And even if Interpol does not issue a red notice, that doesn’t mean that you cannot extradite. So the extradition is a process that works independently. Well, the red notice is for if she seeks to travel; she can be arrested on the basis of a red notice. The government of Bangladesh would be notified that she has been arrested in whichever country that might be. So let’s say she travels from India to the United Kingdom, and there is a red notice. She would be arrested on the basis of that red notice. Bangladesh would then submit their extradition request, and then the UK courts would then have to deal with that. So that’s why it is significant. But obviously the response of India in relation to an extradition request is equally significant. But even if we are moving ahead slightly, even if India was to refuse that extradition request, they may choose to protect Hasina politically. I said previously I believe that India has a choice. Or standing on the side of justice or standing on the side of impunity. I hope that they choose. They choose the side of justice. And so, even if they were to refuse to extradite her for whatever reasons they decide, that doesn’t mean that’s the end of the matter. I mean, there is still the potential of referring her case to the International Criminal Court. I’ve had discussions with the International Criminal Court or the office of the prosecutor on that basis. And there is even if the International Criminal Court doesn’t open an investigation, she can still be tried in her absence because the ICT Act permits that. So, you know, the fact that India may refuse her extradition is certainly not the end of the matter.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: ”Sheikh Hasina will come to Bangladesh, face trial, and be hanged,” said Nahid Islam, an adviser of the interim government. In the past, before the trial, Awami League leaders used to talk like this statement. Do you consider such a comment a breach of legal principles, undermining the rules of law?
Toby Cadman: Well, look, I can’t comment on what others have said. All I can say is that if she is extradited here and the government has to ensure that she has a fair trial and that she is tried in accordance with the highest national and international standards, she has the opportunity to properly defend herself. And the other point that you say is that no, it’s not appropriate for reference to be made to a person being hanged. I mean, there has to be a trial. There has to be a decision by an independent judicial body, an independent tribunal of law. And then it’s up to that body to decide what the ultimate penalty should be. Absolutely. I personally do not support the death penalty. I don’t think that. I also think that it creates difficulties for the current government in ensuring support from the international community, from the United Nations, from the United Kingdom, and from the EU. When you maintain the death penalty, ultimately it’s a matter for the judges to decide. Now, if Sheikh Hasina or any other suspect is being held or is arrested in a European country, those countries will not extradite to Bangladesh if the death penalty is maintained. So it is an important consideration to determine. But ultimately that’s the decision that has to be made here, not by me, but I make it quite clear that as a lawyer and as an individual, I do not support the death penalty.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: So the Chief Prosecutor has stated that Sheikh Hasina will be able to hire foreign lawyers to ensure impartiality and justice, with no political ambitions involved. What are the other steps you are considering to bring the tribunal’s proceeding in line with international standards?
Toby Cadman: So I think allowing foreign counsel to appear for both the prosecution and defense is not a requirement in order for trials to be fair. So otherwise, every country in the world would have a provision in their law that allows foreign lawyers to appear. So it’s not a requirement to have that in order to make the proceedings fair. But it is one of the safeguards that she would be entitled to, to have whichever lawyers she decides to choose in the same way that I will be able to be a part of the prosecution. So I think it’s important to have that. But there are a number of amendments to the ICT Act that are required in order to bring it in line with the fair trial guarantees, such as being able to challenge decisions of the tribunal, that there has to be what’s called a process of interlocutory appeal, and there have to be effective rules of evidence. The absolute independence of the impartiality of the judges has to be maintained so that there is no possibility of any political interference with the process. So these are some of the aspects of a fair trial that we take for granted in our systems. But it needs to be made clear within the trial process and within the legal framework.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: So the victim seeks significant progress in the prosecution of those involved in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance. Furthermore, the world is closely observing the direction Bangladesh is taking after the student-led July-August Uprising. So what is your observation regarding this?
Toby Cadman: So I think it’s very, very important to ensure that victims, their families, and civil society generally play a very active part in the entire process. We’ve seen it in a number of other situations around the world where victims do play a very, very active part in the process. Of course, you have to ensure the proper engagement of civil society, and civil society needs to feel as though they are engaged in the process because they are ultimately the judges of whether the process is legitimate or not. So I think it is very important for that. I think it’s important for the chief prosecutor and his team and for me more generally to engage with civil society. But ultimately it is the chief prosecutor and the office of the chief prosecutor that have to make decisions as to who is charged and what they are charged with, and that can only be done based on the evidence. So I think whilst it is important to engage with civil society, it is also equally important to ensure that it is not controlled by those elements. You know, they have to work very, very closely with the prosecution, but ultimately it’s the prosecutors that have to make very difficult decisions.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: Will you seek the cooperation or advice of the United Nations or European Union or international human rights organizations, particularly those who have raised concerns about the crime tribunal previously under the Hasina regime?
Toby Cadman: So again, it is very, very important that the process is properly supported by the international community. The United Nations has a very specific role to play with a very specific mandate. And of course, as we know, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was here, has conducted its own investigations into the July attacks, and will be presenting its report to the government. I believe they’re publishing their report on the 12th of February. And of course, that will spell out what they are expecting the government to do, what they are expecting the international community to do, and effectively what role the UN plays in that. So I think it is very important for the UN to engage, and certainly the European Union has an effective mechanism for providing support to state institutions. I know from my own discussions with the UK and the US embassies, for example, they want to see this process done, and they want to see this done properly. So I think that there will be full engagement by the international community. But of course, you also have to recognize that that engagement will require the process to be done in a particular way to ensure that it’s transparent and that it meets basic fundamental standards. And so that is effectively one of my responsibilities, working with the chief prosecutor to ensure the international community understands that this process is being done in accordance with the highest international standards.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: Police assistance is crucial for the progress of a judicial process despite the issuance of an arrest warrant. The prosecution team has already raised concerns about the failure of apprehended accused. Many police officers and security officers from the Hasina regime are currently on trial in the tribunal. Are you receiving full cooperation from the police department and other security departments?
Toby Cadman: So I know that the prosecution has expressed some concern, and certainly the warrants that were applied for recently, and I was honored to have been part of the prosecution team appearing before the tribunal. That was my first actual appearance before the tribunal. Last month or so or earlier this month. The warrants were applied, and the proceedings were dealt with anonymously to prevent the leakage of any critical information. And I know that there have been concerns expressed that the information is leaked and these individuals are allowed to flee the jurisdiction or to go into hiding. That is a difficulty that needs to be addressed.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: Do you think there is any gap between ICT, government, or law advisors to apprehend the accused?
Toby Cadman: Well, look, first of all, it’s not the responsibility of the office of the chief prosecutor. So the ICT prosecution has the responsibility to submit requests for the issuance of arrest warrants to the tribunal. It is then the responsibility of local law enforcement to carry out those arrests. Now, if there are problems associated with that, those problems need to be addressed. It’s not for me to say whether different parts of the government should be intervening. It is a very simple process. The ICT issues, the warrants. Local law enforcement has to carry them out. If there is information to suggest that those warrants are not being carried out, or if there is evidence to suggest that certain identified police officers are leaking that information, then that constitutes obstruction. And those officers who are obstructing the process should be properly investigated. And if there is evidence of a charge, I think the only way to prevent the leakages in the future is to take a very firm position that if there is obstruction, there have to be consequences in those offices that have to be faced. At the very least, they have to be suspended pending an investigation. And if there is evidence to show that they have intentionally leaked information, then they have to face the consequences, which is prosecution, except for fleet.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: And this is, do you think there is any failure on the part of the government?
Toby Cadman: No. Again, you can’t blame the government for. For what? For what law enforcement is doing or not doing. I appreciate that. It’s a common theme here that we seem to blame the government for anything in the system that doesn’t work properly. Of course, there are responsibilities within the appropriate ministries to ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen and that these kinds of matters are properly investigated. But again, pointing the finger at the government for the activities of individual police officers, I would say, would be highly irresponsible.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: Do you have any engagement with a law adviser regarding the extradition issue or others who are now under trial?
Toby Cadman: So obviously, my appointment as an advisor to the chief prosecutor is with the law advisor. So, it was Dr. Asif Nazrul who effectively appointed me as an advisor to the chief prosecutor. I have advised my, my responsibility is, is to advise on a daily basis on all of the investigations. So not just looking into the case of Sheikh Hasina, but looking into all of the cases in which there is evidence for individuals to be prosecuted. Of course, the extradition comes under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Ministry. And so that is their responsibility. And of course, there is an interplay between the law ministry and the foreign ministry in terms of how extradition requests are carried out. But of course, what you have to understand is that extradition is partly legal and partly political and diplomatic. So it’s a diplomatic process.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: The Awami League has claimed that the chief lawyer for the ‘war criminals’ has been appointed as the tribunal’s chief prosecutor. And you were previously linked up with legal advocacy for BNP and Jamaat leaders accused of war crimes. How do you see this development, and what impact do you think it will have? What is your reaction to this?
Toby Cadman: Well, it’s not an unexpected accusation to be made, as we know that a great deal of effort is being put into, I would have to say, peddling propaganda. Now, as a barrister, as a member of the Bar of England and Wales, I occasionally prosecute, I occasionally defend, and I act on different sides of different situations. The fact that I acted as a defense lawyer before this court and now as a prosecutor in entirely separate matters, because the one thing that you’ve got to understand is that the investigations that are ongoing now are completely separate from the cases that were done previously. So they have no connection to 1971 at all. That the first set of proceedings were all about what happened in 1971. And I represented the defense. I was critical because there was a level of political interference with the process. I am now advising the prosecution in what are entirely different matters now. As a member of the English Bar, I am required to uphold certain standards, such as ensuring independence, ensuring that I approach my responsibilities with a level of impartiality, providing objective advice, and ensuring that there is no conflict of interest. So because the matters are so different, then I don’t see, and I have considered it; I don’t see that there is any conflict in the work I do, but I do expect, and I acknowledge that there will be criticisms both on my appointment and the appointment of others. It is to be expected.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: So there is an ongoing discussion about the national election within the next 1 or 1.5 years among political parties, and many parties and individuals are calling for justice before the election. From the tribunal, do you have any plans in this regard?
Toby Cadman: So first of all, it is going to be a decision of the interim government and a decision of the people of Bangladesh for when the elections take place. elieve that the elections will take place when there is a safe and secure environment to hold elections,, and elections can be free and fair. Those are the only considerations that matter. Of course, there is a sense that those perpetrators of the attacks on civilians in the summer of last year must be held accountable. And whilst I appreciate that there is a desire for these matters to be dealt with swiftly. As I have advised and as I have said publicly, these are not matters that can be rushed. These are matters that take time. They have to be done carefully and deliberately, and they have to be done in a way that ensures the trial rights of the accused. That means you can’t just rush into these processes. And so whilst I do believe that trials will start under the current interim government, I cannot say for certain, and no one can say for certain, whether they will be concluded whilst the interim government is still in power, because you have to recognize that due to the scale of the atrocities, it’s not just what happened last summer. You know, we’ve acknowledged there are matters that need to be investigated over a prolonged period of time with tens of thousands of disappearances, arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial killings, and torture in custody. All of these matters need to be properly investigated, and the perpetrators held accountable. That’s not going to be done in six months. And I think if I can say any message to the people of Bangladesh, it is that justice cannot be rushed. By the same token, what you cannot have is a process that is based on revenge. It has to be a process that is based on justice. And I think that’s what we’re trying to do.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: Do you face any hurdles or obstacles to operating your work or any kind of engagement?
Toby Cadman: I would say the most significant hurdle that I encounter on a daily basis here is traffic. Getting from meeting to meeting with the current chaotic traffic situation in Dhaka, I think, does make things very difficult. Other than that, no, I’m not experiencing any obstacles. What I have experienced since I arrived here is a very warm welcome. The greatest level of support from the prosecution, from the law ministry, from the attorney general’s office, and from other members of the interim government that I’ve met. I think people recognize that I’m here to help, not hinder.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: You know, history tends to repeat itself even after a hundred years. And in terms of ensuring impartiality, transparency, and timely proceedings while avoiding any political influence to uphold justice. Do you think this is an opportunity for Bangladesh to set an example for the world, demonstrating a commitment to truth, justice, and reconciliation, especially given the international backing of the current government?
Toby Cadman: Yes, I do. I think it’s a huge opportunity for Bangladesh now. I say that this is possibly one of the first truly student revolutions. And I know that the term revolution may be a term that is not always used in what happened since July. But I think this is, this is a movement that is aimed at achieving the right results. So as you say, the history of the cycle of violence continues. If you do not have a basis or a process that is based on transparency, fairness, accountability, and reconciliation, I mean, the one thing that we have to think about here very carefully is that it’s not just about holding people accountable in a criminal justice process. The other thing, which is absolutely essential, is that there is a process aimed at reconciling communities because there is still so much division within Bangladesh, which has existed since its birth, that has been politicized by all political parties. And I’m not advocating for one or the other. All political parties have politicized the division and have politicized the history of Bangladesh. That has to end now. I spent a number of years in Bosnia, an equally divided nation, divided following its own declaration of independence that still suffers from divisions because of its inability or refusal to reconcile with the past. One of the points that I put in my original recommendations to Professor Yunus was that that is one thing that they have to think very, very carefully about, because the greatest fear here is that all of the good work that is being done now and will be done next year, and hopefully over the next four years under an independently elected government, could quite easily be undone when there is a change in government. And I think what you need to do now is to build credible institutions that the public has confidence in, to eradicate as much as you can, levels of corruption that prevent any future government from undoing the good work that is being done. Now. That is without a doubt the hardest thing to do.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: You talk about credible institutions, but after the July-August uprising, we see that people still have concerns about the police. Also, the police are not getting the morale to go to the doorsteps of the people. How to eliminate this concern?
Toby Cadman: What I would say, first of all, is don’t expect things to change overnight because they can’t, and don’t think that you’re alone in this because there are other nations that have gone through, you know, we can place Colombia, like Guatemala. Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Bosnia. I mean, there’s a long list of places that have gone through similar crises in the past, and they have been able to reconcile the past and build for the future. But you’ve got to understand that it takes a complete commitment by the people of Bangladesh to support those institutions. And of course, the biggest issue, and I know this is a very big issue for Bangladesh, is we would call the vetting process or the lustration of law enforcement and the army, because there are obviously still factions within law enforcement and the army that are still supportive of the previous regime. But the other thing that I wanted to say, perhaps as an almost normal comment, is that these institutions have to be built up, and this process has to be established not for the prosecution of one party or one group of people. Anyone who commits a criminal offense that falls within the jurisdiction of these courts and tribunals must be subject to their jurisdiction. That means whether it is Awami League, BNP, Jamaat, or whichever party it is, if they have committed criminal offenses, they have to face justice. Because. Because if it is a selective process, if it is a selective use of jurisdiction, then nothing will change. And we’re only talking about a new government coming in and everything being undone.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury: Thanks for your time and consideration and for giving me the opportunity to have you in my interview. Very grateful for your time.
Toby Cadman: My pleasure. Thank you very much.
Abdul Majid Chowdhury, known at work as AMC Shahriar, is currently working for Daily Jugantor as a Sub Editor in its International Desk.
Leave A Reply