Are Human Rights Activists Above the Law?

 

The case of Adilur Rahman Khan, the secretary of the human rights organization Odhikar, and ASM Nasiruddin, the director of Odhikar, has garnered significant attention. A Dhaka cyber tribunal court sentenced them to two years in prison, prompting reactions from various quarters at home and abroad. However, it is not unusual for individuals and organizations around the world to express concerns when someone faces legal action, particularly in cases related to human rights or activism. Sympathies for individuals facing legal action are part of a global discourse on justice and human rights. These expressions of sympathy may stem from a genuine desire to ensure justice, fairness, and the protection of fundamental rights.

However, when foreign sympathies veer into the realm of interference with the legal processes of sovereign nations, they risk undermining the principles of independence and sovereignty. It is essential to strike a balance between advocacy and respect for the legal systems of individual countries, ensuring that international support remains constructive and within the boundaries of diplomatic decorum.

In the case of Adilur Rahman Khan, there are reasons to scrutinize the nature of these sympathies and their potential implications. And it is essential to remember that human rights activists, like all citizens, are subject to the law. The sentencing of Messrs. Khan and Nasir has brought to light a crucial aspect of their actions that deserves further scrutiny. Following their legal troubles, Adilur and Nasiruddin seem to have relied on a familiar tactic employed by individuals facing legal action: garnering sympathy at home and abroad. They have portrayed themselves as victims of political persecution, attempting to mobilize public opinion in their favour. Their supporters argue that their convictions are politically motivated and an assault on freedom of speech and human rights. However, their conduct suggests a more troubling reality: that they may have been serving vested interests, potentially at the expense of genuine human rights causes.

Foreign sympathies for Khan might be well-intentioned, but they risk undermining the sovereignty and independence of Bangladesh's legal system. It is essential to recognize that Bangladesh is a sovereign nation with its own laws and judicial processes. When foreign organizations and individuals openly advocate for an individual's exoneration or criticize the legal proceedings, they may inadvertently infringe upon the country's right to administer justice independently. In addition, one of the foundational principles of democratic nations is the separation of powers, which includes an independent judiciary. Interference in the legal processes of another country can disrupt this balance and compromise the principle of legal independence. While international human rights standards must be upheld, the specific circumstances of a legal case should be left to the jurisdiction of the country in question.

Adilur Rahman and Nasiruddin's international support network is extensive, including prominent human rights organizations, influential individuals, and foreign governments. This network has amplified their cause on the global stage, portraying them as champions of human rights facing unjust persecution. While international support is valuable for any activist, its manipulation for personal gain raises ethical questions. Their strategy capitalizes on the global discourse on human rights, which often focuses on protecting individuals from state overreach. Adilur Rahman and Nasiruddin present themselves as victims of state oppression, conveniently sidestepping the allegations against them. This framing allows them to tap into a wellspring of international sympathy that views their convictions as an affront to human rights. Hence, it is crucial to emphasize that Adilur Rahman’s case followed due process within the framework of Bangladesh's legal system. The court's decision must have been based on a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented. Regardless of one's stance on the verdict, it is essential to respect the legal procedures and institutions of the country in question.

Advocacy for human rights and justice is a commendable endeavor, but it must be carried out with due respect for the legal systems and sovereignty of individual nations. Instead of openly calling for the exoneration of individuals facing legal action, foreign organizations and individuals can play a constructive role by engaging in dialogues, offering legal support within the framework of international law, and respecting the outcomes of legal processes.

The court ruling represents a significant moment in Bangladesh's pursuit of justice. Adilur Rahman and Nasiruddin were not sentenced arbitrarily; they underwent a comprehensive legal process. The court's decision reflects that individuals, regardless of their profession or affiliations, are held accountable for their actions. As people’s sympathy goes out with the human rights activists, Adil Khan and Nasiruddin are being treated with compassion. However, when it comes to dispensing justice and ensuring rule of law, the court is not supposed to show any consideration for public feelings.

Human rights activism is a noble pursuit aimed at defending the rights and dignity of individuals and communities. Human rights activists play a crucial role in any society by advocating for justice, fairness, and accountability. However, this role comes with immense responsibility. It becomes a matter of grave concern when this noble cause is exploited or manipulated for ulterior motives.

The consequences of such actions go beyond the courtroom. It is imperative that human rights activists maintain the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and impartiality. When activists deviate from these principles, they risk not only their own credibility but also the credibility of the broader human rights movement. Misrepresenting facts or fabricating reports undermines the very principles that human rights activists are meant to uphold. Such actions can erode public trust and skepticism in the legitimacy of human rights organizations. This case serves as a stark reminder that credibility is hard-earned but easily lost. Adilur Rahman Khan and ASM Nasiruddin, under the guise of human rights activism, appear to have engaged in actions that served particular interests. So, while various organizations and individuals have expressed concerns about the court's verdict, it is crucial to clarify that their concerns should be focused on ensuring due process and a fair trial, rather than sympathy for the accused. Justice, in this context, means ensuring that the legal process is followed rigorously and that the accused are afforded their rights, including the right to appeal.

These two human rights activists are accused of misusing their platform and misleading both domestic and foreign audiences. One of the most alarming aspects of their conduct was the alleged publication of a fabricated report on Hefazat-e-Islam, a fundamentalist religious organization in Bangladesh that raises questions about their impartiality and independence as human rights activists. Adilur Rahman's false reporting of 61 deaths during a Hefazat rally at Shapla Chattar in Dhaka has had far-reaching consequences, contributing to a distorted narrative and potentially damaging the country's image on the international stage. The publication of false information, especially when it concerns sensitive political and religious issues, can have severe consequences. It not only misleads the public but can also contribute to social unrest and the erosion of trust in legitimate human rights organizations.

In a democratic society, the principles of accountability and transparency apply to all citizens, regardless of their profession or advocacy. The case of Adilur Rahman and ASM Nasiruddin underscores the importance of safeguarding the integrity of human rights activism. While their sentencing may have sparked debates about the legal process, the central issue remains their alleged manipulation of human rights advocacy for vested interests. True human rights activists should always prioritize the rights and dignity of individuals over political or financial gain. To protect the credibility of the human rights movement, it is essential to hold individuals accountable when their actions undermine the principles they are meant to uphold. Rather than sympathy for wrongdoing, the focus should be on upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law.

The case of Adilur Rahman Khan and ASM Nasiruddin underscores the delicate balance between advocacy and accountability. While the protection of human rights is a noble endeavor, it should not serve as a shield to evade legal scrutiny. Activists must be held accountable for their actions, particularly when their activities have the potential to incite conflict or disseminate false information.


Dr. Rashid Askari is a
free-thinking writer, academic,
translator and former vice
chancellor of Islamic
University Bangladesh.