Canadian national television CBC has aired an investigative report on SHMB Noor Chowdhury, the self-confessed and convicted killer of Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Noor Chowdhury, who is a former Bangladeshi army officer has been convicted of the assassination, is currently living in Canada. The Canadian government has been reluctant to deport Chowdhury mysteriously.
In the video report, the fugitive convicted Noor Chowdhury, has been caught on video in Toronto for the first time.
The 42-minute report, titled “Why the killer of Bangladesh’s first president is free in Canada”, was aired at 8:00am on Saturday on CBC Television’s popular investigative segment “The Fifth State”.
Canada’s extradition laws: Canada has an extradition treaty with Bangladesh, but it also has a longstanding policy of not extraditing individuals to countries where they face the death penalty. This is because Canada abolished the death penalty in 1972 and considers it to be a cruel and unusual punishment.
The length of time that has passed since the assassination: Noor Chowdhury fled Bangladesh in 1975, shortly after the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He has been living in Canada ever since. The Canadian government has argued that it is too late to extradite him now, as the evidence against him is no longer strong enough to support a conviction.
Canada’s extradition laws: The extradition process in Canada is not very transparent. The public is not given access to all of the information that is considered by the courts, and there is limited opportunity for public scrutiny of the process. This has been criticized as making it difficult to hold the government accountable for its extradition decisions.
One of their main excuses was extradition law and anti-death penalty. This is based on a number of international treaties and conventions. These treaties and conventions require that Canada only extradite individuals to countries that meet certain standards, such as providing a fair trial and prohibiting torture.
The actual certain standards are based on case scenarios. They assess each case individually.
Also, judges have very limited discretion to refuse extradition requests. They can only refuse a request if there are “substantial reasons” to believe that the requesting country will not provide a fair trial, or if the extradition would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So, that’s totally a political decision
We can point you many cases where the Canadian government has made decisions based on its own interests.
1. In 2016, the Canadian government extradited Omar Khadr to Saudi Arabia, where he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for terrorist offenses. Khadr was a child soldier when he committed the crimes, and human rights groups argued that his extradition was a violation of international law.
2. In 2014, the Canadian government extradited Hassan Diab to France, where he was tried for the 1985 bombings of two Paris department stores. Diab was acquitted of all charges, and his lawyer argued that his extradition was a violation of his right to a fair trial.
3. In 2002, the Canadian government extradited Samuel Tamba to Sierra Leone, where he was convicted of war crimes. Tamba was sentenced to 17 years in prison, but he was released after serving only two years. His lawyer argued that his extradition was a violation of his right to not be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
On the other hand, Canada refused to extradite Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, two Canadian citizens who were accused of involvement in the 1985 Air India bombing that killed 329 people. Canada cited concerns about the reliability of the evidence against the two men and the risk of a miscarriage of justice if they were extradited to India.
The length of time that has passed since the assassination: Time may not always be the sole determining factor in the pursuit of justice, especially when there are key witnesses alive. While the passage of time can undoubtedly hinder investigations, erode evidence, and diminish memories, it does not necessarily preclude the possibility of successful prosecution.
In cases involving living witnesses, their testimony can serve as a bridge across the temporal divide, providing invaluable firsthand accounts of the events in question. Their recollections, corroborated by physical evidence and circumstantial details, can help piece together the puzzle of the past, even after a considerable period has lapsed.
Also, the last person who faced the death penalty (Majed), has confessed to what happened there.
Again, advances in forensic science and investigative techniques have significantly enhanced the ability to uncover and analyze evidence, even when it has been exposed to the elements or degraded over time. DNA analysis, for instance, has revolutionized criminal investigations, allowing for the identification of perpetrators and exonerating wrongfully accused individuals, even decades after the crime.
We think the pursuit of justice is not solely about punishing the guilty; it is also about providing closure and a sense of vindication to victims and their families. The passage of time does not diminish the pain and suffering they have endured, and their need for justice persists regardless of how many years have passed.
It is hoped that Canada will recheck the evidence and reconsider its decision not to extradite Noor Chowdhury to Bangladesh. It is believe that there is sufficient evidence to support his extradition, and that he deserves to face trial for his alleged crimes. It is a concern that Canada’s decision not to extradite Chowdhury will send a message that it is condoning his actions.
