9 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury DW 2

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Prosecution completed cross-examining Defense Witness 2, Nizam Ahmed. Thereafter, Defense sought three weeks time but Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 10 July 2013.

Cross-Examination of DW 2
The Prosecution completed their cross-examination of Defense witness 2, Nizam Ahmed. The Prosecution asked about the witness’ personal details, i.e. education, family, and home district. The Prosecution asked the witness whether he knew Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. The witness replied that he knew him as a political leader. The Prosecution asked the witness whether he knew that he (Fazlul Qader Chowdhury) was speaker, minster and acting President when then President Ayub Khan was absent. 

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that he participated in the mass movement in 1969. The Prosecution claimed that that movement was for self-determination. The witness replied that that movement was against Ayub Khan and was in favor of the establishment of democracy. The Prosecution asked the witness whether Fazlul Qader Chowdhury was against this movement. The Defense objected, saying that the Prosecution should not be allowed to ask questions regarding Fazlul Qader Chowdhury as the witness did not mention a single word regarding him during the examination-in-chief. The witness nonetheless replied that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury was sympathetic towards the movement. The Prosecution claimed that in April 1971, Fazlul Qader Chowdhury along with other Muslim League leaders met with General Tikka Khan and that he supported their activities. The witness replied that he does not know about such a meeting. One of the Prosecutors was attempting to interrupt, saying that the statement should be that they ‘supported the activities of Pakistani Army.’ The Tribunal instructed  the Prosecutor not to prompt the witness’ responses.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness also testified that he went to Karachi on the 7 or 8 of April 1971, and that one or two days after that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury came to visit them. He also testified that in April or May of 1974 he again met with Salauddin Qader Chowdhury at Purbani Hotel, Dhaka. The Prosecution claimed that the witness was lying and that these meetings did not take place. The witness denied the allegations. The Prosecution asked the witness how long it took to go to Karachi from Dhaka in 1971 by air and whether he had submitted any documents regarding his visit before the Tribunal. The witness replied that it took 6 hours because during the war one had to go via Sri Lanka. The witness further replied that he has travel documents regarding his visit but that he does not have them with him at the Tribunal.

The Prosecution claimed that Nazim’s testimony regarding his participation with Salman Fazlur Rahman, Qayyum Reza Chowdhury and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the mass movement of 1969 is false. They additionally claimed that he was lying about taking shelter on 28 March 1971 with Qayyum in the house of a Swedish family and about Sheikh Kamal joining them at the house. The Prosecution also asserted that the witness was lying about Qayyum driving Salauddin Qader Chowdhury to the airport and hiring a taxi for Sheikh Kamal. They additionally claimed the witness did not return to Eskaton and later leave for Karachi with Qayyum and Salman on the 7th or 8th of April 1971. The Prosecution alleged that the witness is jobless,  has no source of income, and is receiving financial benefits from the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s family in return for his false testimony before the Tribunal. The witness denied all of these allegations.