Monthly Archives: January 2013

2 January 2013: Tribunal 2 Daily Summary – Alim, Kamaruzzaman

The Tribunal heard arguments in two matters:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Cross-examination of Prosecution Witness #8
2. Contempt Proceedings Against Suranjit Sengupta – a government minister

The cross-examination of Beauty Khanam, eighth prosecution witness in the case against Abdul Alim, was completed. The case wa then adjourned until January 15th. Out of court, Defense Counsel for Kamaruzzaman submitted an application for retrial to the Registrar.

Cross Examination of Prosecution Witness #8 Completed in the Case of Abdul Alim
Ahsanul Haq Hena and AEM Khalilur Rahman, Alim’s counsels, cross-examined Beauty, daughter of a martyr subeder major. She testified that the Shanti [Peace] Committee and members of the Razakars had acted upon Abdul Alim’s order and had killed her father in Joypurhat because he was fighting against the Pakistani army.

Beauty had already been cross-examined briefly on several other days, but not for long on each occasion. At one stage of yesterday’s cross-examination, the witness expressed discontent over Hena when he repeated the same questions he and his colleagues had asked her earlier.

The tribunal requested the Defence to decide among themselves who would ask what questions.

Contempt Proceedings Against Suranjit Sengupta
Upon his request, The tribunal then extended time  for Suranjit Sengupta, a minister without portfolio, until January 14 to explain his comments regarding the date verdicts in the cases pending with the tribunal could be expected.

On December 24, the tribunal on its own motion issued the show-cause notice on Suranjit following a report in a Bangla daily. Suranjit was quoted in the report as saying, “Verdict of 14 identified war criminals has already been finalised. Trial of these 14 war criminals would be completed anytime within 2013.”

Defense Counsel files Application for Retrial on behalf of Kamaruzzaman
The Defense filed an application on behalf of Accused Muhammad Kamaruzzaman for a retrial based on Skype and email communications between the former Chairman of Tribunal 1 and foreign legal expert Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin that allegedly show collusion between the prosecution and the judges as well as pressure from the executive branch of the government to provide verdicts before December 17 of last year.

The case against Kamaruzzaman is in ongoing and the Prosecution is presenting its case-in-chief. Fifteen prosecution witnesses have so far testified in the case against Kamaruzzaman. The Defense told the media that they are preparing  retrial petitions in the cases of the three other accused: Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed, Abdul Quader Mollah and Abdul Alim, all of which are pending in Tribunal 2. The Defense asserted that the Skype and email conversations show that the formal charges of the first eight cases pending with the two tribunals were prepared by Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin and his associates and came from Brussels.

The Defense told the media that they were not alleging any direct involvement in the controversy on the part of the judges of tribunal 2, however they claim that the appearance of bias prejudices their clients cases and so they see fit to file the petition.

The Defense cited the authority of the Tribunal under §46 (A) of ICT  rules of procedure to pass orders in the furtherance of “the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process.”

1 January 2013: Detailed Summary Golam Azam, Nizami, and Sayedee

Today the Defense Chief Counsel Abdur Razzaq submitted his response to the arguments of the Attorney General against the applications for retrial in the cases of Golam Azam, Nizami and Sayedee. After making these arguments Barrister Rafiqul Islam Miah made further submissions on behalf of Golam Azam.

Response to the Attorney General’s Submissions in the Cases of Golam Azam, Nizami, and Sayedee
The Skype and Email Communications between the former Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin are not Extraneous
Defense Counsel Abdur argued that the Attorney General was mistaken in arguing that the communications were an extraneous matter that should not be considered as these conversations go to the root of the matter and show that the trial has not been fair. While the AG argued that the formal charge rather than the Charge Framing Order is the crucial document, Razzaq stated that Ziauddin is also responsible for the formal charge. As shown by the Skype and email conversations he sent 7 drafts of the formal charge and the 7th draft was the one that was submitted by the prosecution. Therefore the formal charge is not valid under law and the entire trial process is vitiated.

Additionally, while the Prosecution replied to the application for retrial requesting that it be rejected, they never denied any of the allegations contained in the Defense’s application. None of the conversations via Skype or email have been contested as falsified and the Prosecution has not denied that the formal charge and the Charge Framing Orders were prepared by Dr. Ziauddin. The formal charge and Charge Framing Orders are an act of fraud committed against the tribunal.

Under §11(1)(d) and 11(6) of the ICT Act Dr. Ziauddin could only be appointed for administrative support, not for legal expertise
Regarding Ziauddin’s appointment under 11(1)(d) and 11(6) of the ICT Act 1973 Razzaq said that on December 6, former Chairman admitted that he occasionally talked with an international criminal law expert about international law; which indicates Ziauddin gave him judicial support not administrative support. He further argued that a lawyer cannot imagine or invent a fact.

Continue reading →

1 January 2013: Detailed Daily Summary – Chowdhury Case

Case: Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Today Defense counsel of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury presented further arguments. They filed four applications including one asking the Tribunal for an order clarifying that its judges were not party to any of the skype conversations between the former Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin. Other applications included initiating contempt proceedings against Law Minister for influencing the proceedings; summoning the former Chairman of the Tribunal-1 to testify; and seeking the removal of the Chief Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum.

Before the lunch break, Defense Counsel Fakhrul started to place his arguments for an order clarifying that its judges were not party to any of the skype conversations. Fakhrul said that the law minister misused his power. Attorney General argued that application was filed to malign the court and prayed to reject the applications. Tribunal fixed Thursday for hearing Salauddin’s remaining application seeking removal of conducting prosecutor Zead-al-Malum. This application upset the judges who then told Fakhrul that his submissions were not respectful to the judges. The judges then asked him to move on to his other applications.

Lack of Decorum in the Court
During arguments in the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, the Accused, shouted and swore at the Prosecution and Attorney General for raising objections to his motions while his lawyer Barrister Fakhrul Islam was presenting the submissions. Later on an Assistant Attorney General and a junior Defense lawyer shouted at each other and openly threatened each other with serious bodily harm in open court. They came very close to each other in the aisle of the court and there seemed to be a real risk of a physical altercation. Eventually both sides were calmed by the elderly Chief Prosecutor Ghulam Arieff Tipoo and the Chief Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq. Both sides apologized. The Accused stated he would not have acted in such a way but for the provocation. There have been previous incidents of disruptions caused by Defendant Chawdhury.

Continue reading →

1 January 2013: Tribunal 1 Proceedings

4 Items appeared in the Cause List:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Professor Golam Azam – for further hearing of applications and arguments
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salahuddin Qader Chowdhury – for hearing application and prosecution witness
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami – for hearing application and prosecution witness
  4.  Chief Prosecutor vs. Delawar Hossain Sayedee (DHS) – for hearing application

Tribunal-1 completed hearing arguments from both sides on re-trial petition and fixed January 3, 2013 for delivering its order in all three cases.

Abdur Razzaq responded to the Attorney General’s submissions in the cases of Professor Golam Azam, Motiur Rahman Nizami and Delawar Hossain Sayedee. Barrister Rafiqul Islam Miah placed his submission before the Tribunal on behalf of Golam Azam. [SEE HERE FOR DETAILED SUMMARY]

Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury [SEE HERE FOR DETAILED SUMMARY]

Defense Submissions in the Case of Golam Azam, Nizami and Sayedee
Razzaq argued that the Skype and email conversations between the former Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin were not extraneous and must be considered as grounds for a retrial. He stated that the sections of the ICT Act of 1973 that provide the Tribunal with the authority to appoint administrative personnel could not be used to appoint someone providing legal advice such as Dr. Ziauddin. Furthermore, such appointments may not be secret. The Defense further argued that the Prosecution’s argument that the Defense is benefitting from its own wrongful act does not apply here because the Defense obtained the skype and email conversations legally from public sources such as media publications. He stated that the right to privacy does not prevent the court from examining these conversations because they are relevant evidence and the Defense’s reference to them does not go against Tribunal 2’s order barring their republication because the Defense is not a media entity. Finally, Razzaq argued that numerous anomolies resulting from the relationship between the former Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin had violated the Accused’s right to fair trial. He noted that the international community would scrutinize the results of the trial.

Defense Submission by Barrister Rafiqul Islam Miah on behalf of Golam Azam
The Tribunal’s inherent power under 46A of the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2010 has no limits. There is only one limitation that the Tribunal will not be able to exercise his inherent power where it is not necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. He further argued that ‘justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done’, a legal maxim.

 Defense Submissions in the Case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Today the Defence counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury presented arguments. They filed four applications included one asking the Tribunal for an order clarifying that its judges were not party to any of the skype conversations between the former Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin. Other applications included initiating contempt proceedings against Law Minister for influencing the proceedings, summoning the former Chairman of the Tribunal-1 to testify, and seeking removal of the prosecutor Zead-al-Malum.  The courtroom dynamic became very heated and there were verbal altercations between the prosecution and the defense, as well as outbursts from the Accused who was present in the courtroom.

31 December 2012: Detailed Summary of Retrial Arguments

4 Items were scheduled for hearing:
1.Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami  – for hearing application and Prosecution Witness
2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Delawar Hossain Sayedee – for hearing application
3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Golam Azam – for further hearing of applications and arguments
[NOTE: It appears that as with many of the arguments made for  and against retrial in the Sayedee and Golam Azam cases, the arguments made today in the Sayedee case are also applicable to the Golam Azam case]
4. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury – for in-camera hearing of Prosecution Witness                                     

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Submissions on Behalf of the Defense in the case of Nizami
Chief Defense Counsel Abdur Razaq requested permission to respond on the legal points of the application tomorrow.

Bar Council Vice Chairman Khandakar Mahbub Hossain placed his argument on behalf of Nizami.

Continue reading →