Anu Muhammad, Asif Nazrul at odds over statement regarding the release of ATM Azhar

Noted economist Prof Anu Muhammad has criticised Law Adviser Asif Nazrul for his statement regarding the Supreme Court verdict that acquitted Jamaat leader ATM Azharul Islam's release after his acquittal in a case regarding crimes against humanity committed during the 1971 Liberation War.

On 27 May, Asif Nazrul wrote on a Facebook status, "The Supreme Court's Appellate Division, led by the chief justice, unanimously granted his review petition. Today's verdict overturns both the original judgment by the International Crimes Tribunal, which had sentenced Azharul to death, and the subsequent Appellate Division ruling that had upheld the sentence."

"The credit for creating the opportunity to establish this justice goes to the fearless leadership of the July mass movement," he added.

In reaction to Asif Nazrul's status, Anu Muhammad said, "Asif Nazrul is wrong. The uprising of 2024 was against misrule, the mockery of elections, the forcible retention of power, brutal oppression, unprecedented corruption, looting and plundering, the smuggling of national wealth, limitless arrogance, and finally, indiscriminate and brutal killings and repression.

"The uprising carried the hope of ending such governance and transforming the country into a just and democratic society," he added in a Facebook status.

Anu Muhammad said people did not sacrifice their lives to reinstate a judiciary that follows orders. The uprising was not to rehabilitate or recreate the conspirators of 1971, fascists, misogynists, extortionists, and land grabbers.

He continued that the 2024 uprising was joined by people from all walks of life — many of whom had fought for the trial of war criminals, and who have long been involved in the struggle to build a society free from class, gender, ethnic, and religious oppression and discrimination.

"The way Asif portrayed this uprising is a gross distortion of history and a disgrace to the significant achievements built upon the lives, energies, efforts, and aspirations of countless people. I protest this misrepresentation," he added.

Later, Asif Nazrul replied to Anu Muhammad's status in a comment saying, "I have deep respect for Anu Bhai. But I am truly surprised by the way he has responded in this instance."

"Firstly, the reasons he cited for the mass uprising — I acknowledge those as well. In fact, I have been consistently vocal on those very issues over the past 15 years and still remain so. Whatever I've written following the uprising reflects exactly those same goals, just in slightly simpler language," said Asif Nazrul.

"However, Anu Bhai, my post wasn't about the overall objectives of the mass uprising. It was specifically about the issue of the International Crimes Tribunal. Surely, he is aware of how those trials were conducted under the Awami League government — largely under the dictate of movements demanding the death penalty. The verdicts were not determined by adhering to due process and the principles of justice — whether the accused were actually guilty or not, or even if guilty, what degree of punishment was warranted," said the law adviser.

This very deficiency in justice has now been reflected in the observation of the Supreme Court, leading to the release of Jamaat leader Azhar, added Asif Nazrul.

The adviser continued that, like many other verdicts over the past 10 months, this ruling has exposed the flaws in the judicial process during the Awami League era. Without the July uprising, such an opportunity may never have arisen. But that does not mean that the sole purpose of the July uprising was this issue.

Secondly, without any evidence, Anu Muhammad has referred to this judgment — led by a renowned chief justice — as a case of "judiciary reinstated by orders from above," said Asif Nazrul.

"Anu Bhai, I want to assure you: no directive from the government was involved here. Instead of making sweeping accusations, you or anyone else should review the judgment and point out where there are signs of external orders or instances of injustice," he added.

Asif Nazrul said, "You [Anu} wrote 'The way Asif presented this uprising is a gross distortion of history and a disgrace to a major achievement built on the lives, efforts, and hopes of countless people.' That sentence has deeply alarmed me. If someone like you can make such a broad generalisation, what can we expect from others?"