12 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal, Nizami PW 7, AKM Yusuf Cognizance of Charges

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami 
  2. Chief Prosecution vs AKM Yusuf

In the Nizami case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 7, Pardip Kumar Dev, who testified in support of charge 4. This charge alleges that Motiur Rahman Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the ICT Act 1973 and was complicit in murders, rapes, looting and destruction of properties committed in the village Karamja,  The charge alleges both accomplice liability under Section 4(1) and Command Responsibility liability under Section4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Pardip testified that during the killing he saw Sukur, Afzal, Asad, and Moslem Gong at the site of the  incident. He stated he could not recall whether he was interviewed previously by the Investigating Officer. After asking a few question during which the witness did not implicate the Accused, Prosecutor Mir Iqbal requested permission to declar Pradip Kumar Dey as a hostile witness. The Tribunal granted the request and allowed the Prosecutor to continue as though cross-examining the witness. The Prosecution then suggested that the witness was interviewed by the Investigation Officer on  6 November 2011 and that he accused Motiur Rahman Nizami and Rofiqun Nabi of being involved in the killing. The witness answered that he does not remember the interview. The Prosecution then suggested that he saw Nizami at the site of the alleged killing but is now denying the fact because of financial coercion from the Defense. The witness denied the suggestion. Subsequently the Defense declined to cross-examine the witness.

Today the Tribunal additionally  took cognizance of the Formal Charges submitted against AKM Yusuf and issued a warrant for the suspect’s arrest .They requested that law enforcement  produce AKM Yusuf by 26 May 2013.

AKM Yusuf was produced before the Tribunal in the afternoon and the Tribunal sent him  to the jail to be detained until trial. The decision to send him to jail was made in-chambers.