22 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mubarak PW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs Mobarak Hossain,  Accused Present

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena continued the cross-examination of Darul Islam, Prosecution witness- 1, who had testified in support of Charges 1, 2 and 3. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until 27 May 2013.

Cross-Examiantion
The Defense asked the witness whether he had any documentary evidence to show that he came to East Pakistan from West Pakistan on leave. Witness answered that at this moment he does not have such documents. The Defense claimed that a member of  the West Pakistani Army who was on leave would not receive his salary from East Pakistan. The Defense asked whether he had any documentary evidence to show that he had actually drawn his salary from East Pakistan. He replied that he did not. The Defense claimed that actually the witness did not actually come to East Pakistan on leave and did not draw his salary from here. The Witness claimed that in 1971 Mejor Sekendar was the area commander of Akhaura, Paharpur and Fakirmura while Defense claimed that Brigadier Sadullah of 23 Beluch regiment was the area commander. The Defense further stated that Sadullah’s serial number was 23 among the 195 Army personal who were detained in 1971. The witness answered that he is unaware of this. The Defense claimed that in 1971 Mejor Abdullah Khan, Mejor Sadek Newaz and Captain Jabed Iqbal worked in Akhaura, Paharpur and Fakirmura. The witness denied those assertions. The Defense claimed that in Brahmanbaria there were 4 units of army and Lieutenant colonel Khijir Hayat, Brigadier Sadullah and Lieutenant colonel Jaedi were the commanding officer of those units. The witness said he did not know about their command.

Defense claimed that there were no Razakars in Bangladesh on 2 August 1971, but that there were Ansar groups. The witness agreed that there were no Razakar and added there were no Ansar either, but he also stated that there were “volunteers” who helped the Pakistani Army. The Defense alleged that the witness did not originally tell the  Investigation Officer that Mobarak Ali worked with Pakistani Army as a volunteer. The witness denied the allegation. The Defense claimed that the Razakars were employed by the government, were provided salary by government and transferred by government.  The Witness denied that this was the power structure.

Next the Defense asked the witness whether he had any pass to show that he had crossed the border and entered Agortola of India. The witness answered that no pass was required for entry into Agortola. The Defense claimed that the witness’ name does not appear in any book or newspaper describing him as a freedom fighter. The witness denied this.

During examination-in-chief, te witness had testified that the accused Mobarak Ali was a Union level Rokon of Jamaat-e-Islami. The Defense claimed that there is no post of Union level Rokon in Jamaat-e-Islami. The witness admitted that the title was incorrect but added that Mubarak was a leader. The Defense claimed that Mobarak was not involved with the politics of Jamaat-e-Islami, that he was actually involved with the Awami League. The witness denied that suggestion. The Defense asked the witness whether he had any documentary evidence to show that Mobarak Ali was a Razakar or volunteer of Pakistan Army. The witness admitted that he had no documentary evidence but reiterated that Mobarak was a Razakar. The Defense asked the witness who the Razakar Commander and Convener of the Peace Committee of Brahmanbaria were. Darul said he could not remember. The Defense claimed that during the Liberation War the Darul was in West Pakistan and that he fled to Bangladesh only after the Liberation War ended. They also alleged that the witness is being influenced by Abdul Hamid, the son of Abdul Kahar Bhuiya, and is gaining financial benefit in exchange for his testimony against Mobarak Hossain. The witness denied the allegations.

The Defense claimed that in his initial interview the witness did not tell the Investigation Officer that some locals including Baju Mia, Abru Mia, Mobarak Ali, Mukta Mia and Jamshed Mia and others formed a Razakar group. They also claimed that Darul did not allege in his initial interview that Jamshed, Mukta Mia and Mobarak called the villagers to come to the house of Haji Box for a meeting. The Defense also challenged whether the witness had originally provided the Investigation Officer with details regarding the presence of Jamshed, Mobarak Ali and Mukta Mia Pakistan Army at the crime scene and the allegation that 33 people were forced to dig a ditch before being killed. The Defense claimed that the witness did not originally allege that Abdul Khalek was killed by Mobarak Ali and his accomplices when Abul Khalek went to his home to meet with his sick mother. The Witness denied these allegations and reasserted that he stated all these details in his initial interview with the Investigation Officer. The Defense also attacked the witness’ character by alleging that he used to earn money through fraud. The witness denied the allegations.