Head of Defense, Abdur Razzaq argued for a retrial in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Golam Azam. He made the following key arguments:

• Regarding the admissibility of the alleged skype conversation, the Defense argued that the public interest in admitting the contents of the skype conversations into evidence outweighed the chairman’s privacy interest.
• Citing Kuruma Son of Kaniu vs. Reginam (1955 1 ALL ER PC 237); Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspections (AIR 1974 SC 348); and Moudud Ahmed vs. the State (48 DLR 108), the Defense argued that the alleged skype conversations should not be excluded on the basis that they are the product of illegal hacking because the test is whether or not the evidence is relevant, not what method was used to obtain it. Here they claimed that the alleged skype conversation was collected from a website and that later portions of the conversations were published by the Economist, Wall Street Journal and the Daily Amar Desh.
• The Defense argued that the alleged skype conversation talked about 22 persons; however, none of them had disputed the truthfulness of its contents.
• Citing to caselaw [WCSC is currently seeking the citation and will update] the Defense claimed that public officials are not entitled to protection of their privacy when the subject matter is regarding their work and when reasonable verification has been carried out. He argued that Economist carried out reasonable verification before publishing the skype conversations; and were therefore justified in publishing it in United Kingdom despite journalist ethics laws. Razzaq also noted that the Economist had cited the public interest in the matter as justification for their publication.
• The Defense requested that the court accept the conversations into evidence. He prayed for a recall of the Charge Framing Order arguing that the Tribunal took cognizance of the charges on the basis of formal charges which were procured by fraud. Therefore the Charge Framing Order as it is currently formatted was also procured by fraud and should be recalled.
• As previously requested by Justice Jahngir, the Defense also analyzed two cases (Taylor vs Lawrance (2002); Gillies vs Secretary of State (2006)(HL) and argued that this case should be distinguished because it is not about bias but about actual collusion.   
• The Defense argued that the alleged skype conversations are relevant evidence and would not be irrelevant only for its alleged illegal source i.e. hacking.

The Tribunal requested that Attorney General Mahbubey Alam, who is expected to reply on behalf of the prosecution, to give reply after hearing all of the three re-trial applications.