Facebook Feud Flares Between Anu Muhammad and Asif Nazrul Over War Crimes Verdicts
A Facebook post by Professor Anu Muhammad questioning the nature of war crimes trials during the Awami League regime has drawn strong reactions from Legal Adviser Dr. Asif Nazrul, who expressed “surprise” at the professor’s remarks.
Responding both in the comment section and in a separate Facebook post, Dr. Nazrul stated, “During the Awami League era, the trials at the tribunal were largely conducted under the dictates of a movement demanding capital punishment. The question of whether the accused were guilty, or if so, the degree of punishment they deserved, was not determined following due process and principles of justice. As a result, the tribunal failed to definitively establish whether those convicted were indeed guilty of crimes against humanity.”
Earlier, Anu Muhammad had posted: “Asif Nazrul is wrong. The 2024 mass uprising was against misrule, the mockery of elections used to cling to power, brutal repression, unprecedented corruption, plundering, wealth smuggling, unbridled arrogance, and, finally, indiscriminate killings and tyranny. The uprising created a collective aspiration for democratic transformation free from discrimination. People did not sacrifice their lives to re-establish an ‘order-driven judiciary,’ nor to rehabilitate or promote war criminals, mobs, misogynists, extortionists, or land grabbers. The movement saw participation from people of all walks of life, many of whom had long fought for war crimes trials and against social and religious oppression. Asif’s portrayal of the uprising is a distortion of history and an insult to the sacrifices and hopes of countless people. I protest it.”
In response, Dr. Nazrul wrote, “I deeply respect Anu Bhai. But I’m astonished by the way he has responded.”
“First, the causes he listed for the mass uprising are also what I’ve always stood for over the last 15 years, and continue to advocate. In the posts I wrote after the uprising, I stated those same objectives in simpler language. But Anu Bhai, my post wasn’t about the overall goals of the uprising—it was about the war crimes tribunal.”
He continued, “He surely knows how the tribunal operated during the Awami League era. A Jamaat leader, Mr. Azhari, was recently acquitted based on observations by the Supreme Court. Like many verdicts in the last ten months, this ruling has exposed the judicial shortcomings of the Awami League’s tenure. Without the July uprising, this outcome might not have been possible. But that doesn’t mean the sole aim of the uprising was to bring about this verdict.”
“Second, without providing any evidence, Anu Bhai has termed the judiciary under the leadership of a highly respected Chief Justice as ‘order-driven.’ I assure you, Anu Bhai, there was no directive from the government behind this verdict. Instead of making sweeping statements, you—or anyone else—should analyze the judgment to find evidence of any such directive or miscarriage of justice,” he concluded.
