Latest dramatic twist:
Direct governmental interference in the judicial process because the government was worried the judge wouldn’t give the verdict the government wanted.
Regardless of whether or not the judge is biased, if his ultimate verdict goes against the wishes of the prosecution the correct process is to appeal it on the basis of the judge being biased. Particularly in a case like this, that would have had a very strong chance of succeeding given that the judge said some looney things.
Instead, you have government trying to choose the outcome of a trial through direct interference. This is a kangaroo court. Iraq’s government has no interest in justice; they just want blood.
First, they fail to protect defence lawyers, creating an atmosphere of fear to try and cripple the defence. Then the government interferes so much in his trial for mass murder of Shias that thepresiding judge resigns in protest. Then they remove the judge in the middle of the trial for mass murder of Kurds, in order to replace him with one more likely to give the outcome they want.
What next? Just do away with the trial altogether and throw him to the mob?
This is no justice, no judicial process.
The trial of Saddam Hussein descended into farce today as the chief judge was sacked after Iraq’s government claimed he had lost his neutrality after stating in court last week that Saddam was not a dictator.
The latest twist in a legal process that has been marked by murders, resignations, accusations of intimidation and political interference followed remarks made last week by chief judge Abdullah al-Amiri.
He was replaced on the five-member panel by Mohammed al-Uraibiy, who was his deputy, said a court source.
The prosecution had first asked for al-Amiri’s replacement last week after he allowed Saddam to lash out at Kurdish witnesses, and then stirred further controversy after he told the ex-president that “you were not a dictator”.
The court is trying Saddam, his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majeed, known as Chemical Ali, and five others for war crimes and crimes against humanity for their role in the 1988 Anfal campaign against Kurds.
Saddam and Majeed also face the graver charge of genocide.
Arguments between the chief judge and the chief prosecutor in the case, Minqith al-Faroon, broke out last Wednesday after al-Faroon complained that the chief judge had allowed Saddam to accuse Kurdish witnesses of being “agents of Iran and Zionism” and threatened to “crush the heads” of his accusers.
“You allowed this court to become a political podium for the defendants,” al-Faroon told al-Amiri. “The action of the court leans toward the defendants. Therefore, I ask your honour to step down.” Al-Amiri then refused.
The following day, while cross-examining a Kurdish witness, Saddam said: “I wonder why this man wanted to meet with me, if I am a dictator?”
It is then that al-Amiri interrupted in a friendly aside directed at Saddam: “You were not a dictator. People around you made you [look like] a dictator.”
“Thank you,” Saddam responded, bowing his head.
It is not the first crisis to be faced by the court. A judge in a separate trial of Saddam for killing almost 150 Shias in the village of Al-Dujaul in the 1980s stepped down earlier this year, citing political interference from the government.