The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Thursday raised question about the legality of a second confessional statement made in the two August 2004 grenade attack cases, by Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami leader Mufti Abdul Hannan in 2007 who was already a death row prisoner when he gave it.
At least 24 people were killed and many others injured, including Sheikh Hasina, the then leader of opposition in parliament and Awami League president, in the grenade attack on an Awami League rally at the party鈥� central office at Bangabandhu Avenue in the capital Dhaka on August 21, 2004.
A six-member bench headed by chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed raised the question during a hearing on a state appeal challenging a recent High Court verdict that acquitted Bangladesh Nationalist Party鈥檚 acting chairman Tarique Rahman, former state minister for home Lutfozzaman Babar, and 47 others of the murder and explosive charges.
The court adjourned the hearing until August 13 for further hearing from the state, represented by additional attorney general Aneek R Haque and deputy attorney general Abdullah Al Mahmud Masud.
The court asked DAG Abdullah how Mufti Hannan could legally provide a second confession on November 1, 2007, while in a condemned cell. It noted that although a second confession could be made to correct minor errors in the first, Hannan鈥檚 two statements were inconsistent.
Abdullah argued that Hannan voluntarily approached the trial court to make a second confession, claiming he had not told the full truth in his first statement due to pressure at the time in 2005.
In response to questions about the origin of the Arges grenades used in the attack, Abdullah cited the confession of Hizbul Mujahideen leader and the accused, Abdul Majid Bhatt, a Kashmiri national. Majid Bhatt described how the grenades were smuggled from Pakistan to Indian part of Kashmir and then into Bangladesh through the border.
Abdullah said that Bhatt鈥檚 confession was supported by the recovery of 57 Arges grenades from various locations across Bangladesh.
Abdullah acknowledged that Mufti Hannan had later retracted his confession, but said Bhatt had not. He also stressed that there were no direct eyewitnesses to the attack, though one witness testified to seeing someone drop a grenade.
The court also pointed out a timeline inconsistency stating that Hannan鈥檚 second statement was recorded in 2007, while other accused gave confessions in 2011. The judges noted that the wording of multiple confessions should differ if they are truly independent.
Defence lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir, representing Lutfozzaman Babar, argued that Hannan鈥檚 confession was not voluntary.
He said Hannan was tortured while being held illegally for 410 days in the Taskforce for Interrogation (TFI) cell during the previous Awami League government, and his confession was forcibly extracted.
The court expressed concern that the trial court鈥檚 verdict mentioned findings by an FBI team, although no FBI report was submitted as evidence.
It also criticised the High Court for declaring the trial illegal without examining the merits or evidence of the case.
On December 1, 2024, the High Court overturned the October 2018 trial court verdict, declaring it illegal on grounds of multiple procedural and legal inconsistencies.
The Dhaka Speedy Trial Tribunal-1 on October 10, 2018 had sentenced 19 people, including Lutfozzaman Babar, to death, Tarique and 18 others to life term imprisonment, and 11 more to varying prison terms in connection with the grenade attack.
Tarique Rahman, elder of BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia鈥檚 two sons, was tried in absentia as he has been living in London since 2008.
