Last week I WTF Friday’d an accusation from the Bangladeshi war crimes tribunal that The Economist was interfering with its work and invading the privacy of a judge. The court alleged that the newspaper was in possession of private messages between presiding judge Mohammad Nizamul Huq and expat Bangladeshi lawyer Ahmed Ziauddin, obtained when Huq’s computer was hacked.
On Saturday, The Economist fired back, reporting that indeed it had received a bunch of recorded conversations and emails between Huq and Ahmed, and they demonstrated that, contrary to statements given by both men, Mr. Ahmed was advising the tribunal’s work.
This seemed like kind of a weird thing for The Economist to get excited about, given that “tribunal judge solicits input from expert on international law” isn’t exactly a juicy headline, but this morning, Huq resigned.
I have to assume there’s more to this story. Anyone know what it is?