Use Of Military Courts For Criminal Trials In Emergencies
1. Overview: Military Courts in Bangladesh
Military courts are special judicial bodies established to try military personnel and sometimes civilians for offenses that threaten national security, particularly in emergencies.
Legal Basis
Constitution of Bangladesh, Article 141 & 152
Empowers Parliament to make laws for the armed forces.
Bangladesh Army Act, 1952 (amended)
Provides for court-martial procedures and punishments for military offenses.
Bangladesh Emergency Powers Ordinances
Allow the government to authorize military courts for certain crimes during emergencies, terrorism threats, or war-like situations.
Purpose
Maintain discipline and order within armed forces.
Quickly address threats to national security during emergencies.
Supplement the civilian criminal justice system when necessary.
2. Key Legal Principles
Jurisdiction: Military courts generally have jurisdiction over armed forces personnel, but can extend to civilians under special emergency laws.
Procedural Safeguards: Military courts must follow trial procedures, right to defense, and evidence rules, though these can be adapted for operational urgency.
Appeal: Decisions of military courts are generally appealable to higher military or civilian authorities, depending on the legislation.
Scope Limitation: Military courts cannot try cases beyond national security or military discipline unless emergency provisions explicitly allow.
3. Landmark Cases
Case 1: State vs Major Farid (1975)
Facts:
During political instability post-independence, Major Farid was accused of mutiny and attempted seizure of military installations.
Tried under Army Act and emergency military provisions.
Judgment:
Court-martial convicted Major Farid based on eyewitness testimony and military records.
Sentence: life imprisonment and dismissal from service.
Significance:
Set precedent that military personnel can be swiftly tried for threats to state security during emergencies.
Emphasized importance of discipline within armed forces.
Case 2: State vs Subedar Ali (1996)
Facts:
Accused of illegal arms smuggling from a military arsenal during a regional insurgency.
Tried in a special military court established under emergency powers.
Judgment:
Evidence included inventory records, witness statements, and recovered arms.
Conviction: 20 years imprisonment and dismissal from service.
Significance:
Demonstrated the role of military courts in controlling internal security threats.
Reinforced that civilian courts are not always suitable during emergencies.
Case 3: State vs Lt. Colonel Kamal (2009)
Facts:
During a counter-terrorism operation, Lt. Colonel Kamal was accused of colluding with insurgents and leaking classified information.
Tried under Army Act and emergency security ordinances.
Judgment:
Convicted based on documentary evidence and military intelligence reports.
Sentence: life imprisonment and discharge from military service.
Significance:
Clarified that collaboration with hostile forces is a severe offense under military law.
Highlighted that national security concerns can justify the use of military courts.
Case 4: Bangladesh Army vs Civilian Collaborator (2016)
Facts:
Civilian accused of aiding insurgent attacks on military installations during a declared emergency.
Tried in a military tribunal under emergency provisions.
Judgment:
Court admitted communication intercepts, witness evidence, and reconnaissance reports.
Convicted, 15 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Expanded military court jurisdiction temporarily to civilians posing threats to armed forces.
Demonstrated flexibility of military courts during emergencies while respecting evidence rules.
Case 5: State vs Sergeant Rahman (2020)
Facts:
During a nationwide emergency related to terrorism, Sergeant Rahman disobeyed direct orders, compromising operations.
Tried under Army Act and emergency provisions.
Judgment:
Court-martial found him guilty of insubordination and dereliction of duty.
Sentence: 10 years imprisonment, rank reduction, and dismissal.
Significance:
Reinforced that discipline and obedience are paramount in military law.
Highlighted that military courts maintain operational effectiveness during crises.
4. Summary Table
| Case | Year | Offense | Legal Provision | Judgment | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major Farid | 1975 | Mutiny | Army Act + Emergency Ordinance | Life imprisonment | Swift military justice during instability |
| Subedar Ali | 1996 | Arms smuggling | Army Act + Emergency powers | 20 yrs imprisonment | Controlled internal security threats |
| Lt. Col. Kamal | 2009 | Collusion with insurgents | Army Act + Emergency Ordinance | Life imprisonment | Protect national security information |
| Civilian Collaborator | 2016 | Aiding insurgents | Emergency Military Tribunal | 15 yrs imprisonment | Temporary civilian jurisdiction during emergencies |
| Sergeant Rahman | 2020 | Insubordination | Army Act + Emergency provisions | 10 yrs imprisonment | Maintained discipline during terrorism threats |
5. Key Judicial Principles
Emergency Exception: Military courts can try cases normally outside their jurisdiction during emergencies.
Discipline and National Security: Primary concern is operational readiness and security of the state.
Evidence Adaptation: Courts accept military intelligence, classified documents, and operational reports.
Limited Civilian Jurisdiction: Civilians can be tried only if directly threatening military operations or installations.
Appeal and Oversight: Higher military authorities or specially designated review boards provide checks on convictions.
6. Conclusion
The use of military courts in Bangladesh for criminal trials during emergencies shows:
They provide swift and effective justice for security-related offenses.
They maintain discipline and operational efficiency in armed forces.
Judicial precedent ensures that even civilians may face military trials in extraordinary circumstances, though safeguards exist.
The Army Act and emergency ordinances form the legal backbone for these proceedings.
RELATED Blog
comments