Chittagong tragedy of July violence: Fake accused, fabricated complaint, accused even from abroad

Chittagong Correspondent

Serious questions have been raised about the impartiality of the cases filed in connection with the July-August 2024 violence in Chittagong. A sensational investigation has revealed that several people, despite being outside the country at the time of the incident, have been indicted on charges of directly participating in armed attacks on the streets. On the other hand, several police officers have been left out of the final list of the International Crimes Tribunal despite video evidence of them publicly firing in their own name.

 

Not only that, but evidence is now in the court records that the names of politically influential people were included in the complaint without the knowledge of the victim’s family. The release of this information has sparked new debates and questions across the country about the transparency and impartiality of the trial process in the July violence incidents.

 

The top 5 shocking inconsistencies revealed in the investigation

 

1. Wasn’t in the country at the time of the incident, yet accused of assault with a weapon!

A review of the documents shows that former MP Mohiuddin Bachchu and councilor Shoibal Das Sumon have been charged in a murder case in connection with the violence that took place in Bahaddarhat and Panchlaish areas on July 16 and 18, 2024. The complaint claims that Shoibal Das Sumon opened fire indiscriminately on July 18 with a rifle and a firearm.

​Real picture: According to passports and travel documents, Shaibal Das Suman was in the United States from July 5 to July 22 and Mohiuddin Bachchu was in Canada from July 13 to July 25. The investigation report does not provide any good answers as to how they directly participated in the armed attack on the streets of Chittagong while staying on foreign soil.

 

2. “I don’t know, who put my name in the complaint?”— Explosive confession of the plaintiffs

The plaintiffs in the Omar Faruk and Hridoy Chandra Tarua murder case (the father and friend of the deceased) have stated in an affidavit in court that they do not even know former Chittagong City Corporation Mayor AJM Nasir Uddin, nor did they give his name in the complaint!

• Azizul Haque, the plaintiff in the Hridoy murder case, said that a person outside the police station handed him a pre-typed paper and asked him to simply sign.

• Similarly, the plaintiffs in 8 to 10 cases have filed an affidavit in court claiming innocence of former mayor AJM Nasir and requesting his release from the cases.

 

3. The police officers who fired shots in public have disappeared!

A list of 77 accused was submitted to the International Crimes Tribunal’s investigation agency in the Faisal Ahmed Shanto murder case. It included the names of several police officers, including then IGP Chowdhury Abdullah Al Mamun and Deputy Police Inspector Dipan Dewan, who were accused of direct firing during the clashes on July 16 and 18, and video footage of them.

But although the number of accused was reduced from 77 to 22 in the tribunal’s final charge sheet on January 11 of this year, the names of all the police officers on the list were mysteriously omitted!

 

4. The plaintiff in the case is a political leader, not a relative of the deceased.

​In the Faisal Ahmed Shanto murder case, the Ameer of Panchlaish Police Station Jamaat, Mohammad Mahbubul Hasan, filed a case (Case No. 9/12/24) as the plaintiff, excluding the parents or close relatives of the deceased. The issue of a political party leader becoming a direct plaintiff has raised questions about whether it is an attempt to achieve political objectives by overriding the fair trial process of the conflict.

 

5. Police’s ‘final acquittal’ of Dhalao accused

On July 17, the day after the violence, the police filed a case at Panchlaish Police Station accusing 6,000 to 6,500 unidentified people. However, investigation officer MA Sufian Kutubi recently submitted a final report recommending the release of more than 200 arrested people as no concrete evidence was found in the lengthy investigation.

 

Questions from lawyers and the general public

Legal experts fear that if the trial of the families of victims of incidents like the July violence becomes a tool for intentional personal enmity, false information, or political calculations, the real perpetrators will get away with it.

 

The big question now is whether this two-pronged policy of excluding those against whom there is direct evidence and photographs, and accusing those who were not in the country on the day of the incident as ‘armed persons’, will ultimately turn the trial into a farce.