It appears certain that the limited amnesty declared by the Pakistan Government will not cover Shaikh Mujibur Rahman. Indeed, though the amnesty—taken together with the appointment of a civilian as governor for East Pakistan—must be accepted as welcome evidence that the Government is trying to move away from the full rigours of military rule, it was depressingly accompanied by warnings of more arrests to come. Some of the regular and irregular troops who were involved in the fighting are to be let go, but some more of the politicians are to be rounded up.

The Islamic world seems to be particularly studded with trials of a political nature at this moment. In Cairo there is the trial of All Sabri and his eleven co-defendants. There are more trials going on in Khartum following last month’s coup and counter-coup. In Libya two major trials are in process—the first involves prominent members of the former monarchist regime who are accused of corruption and rigging the elections, and the second those alleged to have taken part in an abortive coup last year. In Morocco nearly two hundred people (thirty-two in absentia) await verdicts on a charge of plotting to overthrow the Government.

Political trials, or trials of politicians, tend to become both for accusers and accused symbolic events, and once they have been put in train it is impossible to guess how they will end or who eventually will turn out the moral victor. It should therefore be in the interests of the authorities themselves to make sure that such trials are conducted in the most impeccable manner possible. Justice must be seen to be done, if it is to be distinguished from vengeance.

In the summary trials after the Sudan coups this distinction was conspicuously lacking. Many of those in the Sudanese Government today must be regretting the precipitancy of these drum-head courts martial. Sudan used to be a country remarkable for its political tolerance; now that has gone, and it will be hard to prevent something nearer to the vendetta from taking its place.

If a country has a good judicial tradition the best way to ensure justice is to make use of the established courts That has not been done in Egypt, one of the countries which happily has such a tradition, where a special tribunal has been set up to try the total of ninety-one accused. Not surprisingly the defence of the first batch to appear is challenging the status of the tribunal. Should this special tribunal continue its sittings in closed court this would inevitably detract from its findings, whatever they may be. It would also appear to conflict with the promise of open-handed justice which President Sadat made and which was received with such spontaneous warmth by the Egyptian people.

In Libya too it is a “people’s court” (after the Mahdawi circus in Baghdad thirteen yeans ago an ominous name) which is trying more than a hundred representatives of the former regime, and a “special military court” which is trying those accused in connexion with an abortive coup. Another “special military court” is trying Shaikh Mujib. The Morocco trial is before a regular court—the Criminal Tribunal of Marrakesh—but there have been grave allegations that the accused were tortured before appearing in court and they have refused to plead.

Some of those countries where trials are taking place pride themselves on being revolutionary, and “revolutionary justice” is thought to make its own rule. But it can safely be said that where these rules conflict with what most people would regard as natural justice they only breed trouble for the future. The torturing investigation, the closed court, the televised prosecution are not part of justice in any sense.