Chief Prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), Mohammad Tazul Islam, has stated that the 15 army officers currently in military custody must be presented before the tribunal, where they are to be tried for crimes against humanity.
He made the remarks on Sunday while speaking to reporters at the tribunal premises, a day after the Army Headquarters announced that the officers had been taken into custody.
Tazul Islam said the tribunal had not been officially notified about the army’s action. “Since no formal or documentary communication has been made to the tribunal regarding their detention, we cannot take into account what has only appeared in the media,” he said. “If we are officially informed that they have been detained, the law requires that they be produced before the court. That is the legal provision.”
Of the 25 army officers named in arrest warrants issued by the ICT on October 8 in three separate cases, 15 are still in active service. On Saturday, the army’s Adjutant General, Major General Md Hakimuzzaman, said that 14 serving officers and one on post-retirement leave (LPR) had been taken into custody.
The cases involve two incidents of enforced disappearances and torture during the former Awami League government, and one case related to killings in the Rampura and Banasree areas during the July mass uprising.
Following public debate and demands for the officers’ arrest, the Army Headquarters stated that it supports justice and that appropriate legal action will be taken against those in custody.
When asked about the legal status of the detained officers—whether they are considered under arrest—Chief Prosecutor Tazul Islam referred to constitutional and legal provisions:
“The Constitution, the ICT Act, and the Criminal Procedure Code all clearly state that any arrested person must be produced before a court within 24 hours, excluding the time required for travel. This is a constitutional obligation,” he explained.
He further clarified, “No one can be detained for more than 24 hours without being presented before the court. Only the court has the authority to decide whether to keep a person in custody or grant bail. The moment someone is arrested, the court’s jurisdiction comes into effect.”
The army had said that although the ICT’s arrest warrants were issued, they had not yet received them formally when the officers were placed under custody.
Tazul Islam added, “No one from the army has yet sought any formal explanation from us. If they do, we will certainly provide one.”
