Mutiny verdicts in Bangladesh: Was trial fair?

The sentencing of 152 people for a 2009 rebellion has been criticized as an affront to international legal standards.

A.M. Ahad/AP
A Bangladeshi border guard shouts slogans as he leaves a special court after a verdict in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2013. A Bangladesh court sentenced 152 people to death Tuesday for a 2009 mutiny by disgruntled border guards who killed dozens of military commanders during a brutal, two-day uprising.

A trial that has ended with a record number of death penalty verdicts is raising questions about how well justice has been served in the aftermath of a military mutiny that rocked Bangladesh.

A special court in Dhaka gave the death penalty to 152 people for a 2009 rebellion in the ranks of the Bangladesh Rifles that killed 74 people, including 57 Army officers. The court sentenced 262 others to life and 161 to varying terms. Overall, nearly 6,000 soldiers were convicted for mutiny in at least 11 special courts, with 823 soldiers and 23 civilians being singled out for criminal charges. Some 271 were acquitted.

While relatives of those killed lauded the outcome, others have expressed dismay over what they say were sweeping and harsh verdicts. The sentences have also fueled concerns of added tension in the South Asian country – home to 160 million people – as it faces national protests against the prime minister ahead of a January election.

“Trying hundreds of people en masse in one giant courtroom, where the accused have little or no access to lawyers, is an affront to international legal standards,”  Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement last week.

The mutiny was triggered by anger over poor pay and treatment for the members of the Bangladesh Rifles, a paramilitary force, who were tasked with guarding national borders. But it quickly devolved into a violent two-day uprising in which victims were killed and their bodies dumped in sewers and mass graves, which were discovered in the days after the mutineers surrendered their arms following a series of negotiations and discussions with the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

“I am sure the family members of the victims will have satisfaction that the killers involved in the heinous act were brought to justice,” says Maj. Gen. Aziz Ahmed, chief of the Border Guards Bangladesh, as the paramilitary force is now known.

Mr. Ahmed says that the accused have been tried following the laws of the land, and that the verdict would help restore the reputation of the border guards, a group first founded 218 years ago.

Concerns have also been raised about what initially sparked the mutiny. Security experts in Dhaka told the Monitor that “there is a lot of opacity behind why such mayhem occurred at the first place.”

“The verdict is a step forward, but many questions remain unanswered,” says Maj. Gen. A.N.M Muniruzzaman (retd), president of Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies. “The master minds of this carnage have not yet been identified, so the real story and the culprits are still free. Unless that is done, the actual closure to the case will not come.”

“A verdict of its kind is expected in [a] case of such chaos, insurgency, and massacre in a state where the highest penalty constitutes capital punishment,” says Anis Pervez, a social scientist and former professor at the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh in Dhaka.

Mr. Pervez points out that the nation has history of coups, including the killing of military ruler Gen. Ziaur Rahman in 1981 and another coup in Bangladesh Air Force in September 1977, the origins of which are still not known. “Looking at it from a historical perspective, we cannot feel secure despite the verdicts,” he says.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Mutiny verdicts in Bangladesh: Was trial fair?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today