BOYCOTT BANGLADESH

Shoaib Choudhury’s Hearing January 15, 2009

Mr. Choudhury arrived at the Court of Metropolitan in Dhaka on January 15, 2009. This time there was a new judge. The previous judge, Azizul Huq, has been promoted to the Bangladesh Supreme Court. The new judge is Bashir Ullah.

The court, as usual, kept Shoaib waiting for most of the day until the judge was ready for the hearing. The Public Prosecutor, Ehsanul Huq Shomaji, told the court that the ‘witness’ could not appear - as usual in this fraudulent process. The new judge wanted to know the background of the case. The Public Prosecutor informed him that it was a very sensitive case related to religious sentiment of the people of Bangladesh, because Shoaib attempted to travel to “forbidden state of Israel.” He also told the court that Shoaib has “hurt the religious sentiment of Muslims through his writings “against Islam” and madrassas.”

[Shoaib is a devout Muslim who loves his faith has been defending it his whole life. He objects only to the radical Islamist terrorists who have taken over his country and have driven it into near-extinction. Madrassas - where terrorist clerics encourage their flock to violence.]

The court was also told that Charge Sheet of the case was produced before the court after ‘extensive investigation.’

The court then set February 15, 2009 for yet another hearing. As usual.

Excerpted from InterfaithStrengh.com:

“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.”