Today in the Nizami case the Defense concluded it cross-examination of Jamal Uddin, Prosecution witness 17. Jamal Uddin testified in support of charges 2, 4 and 6. 

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Tribunal recorded the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 8, Abdus Samad, who testified in support of Charge 2. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 4 September 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Prosecution witness 17

Cross-Examination Continued
During the examination-in-chief the witness testified that on 27 November 1971, three or four groups of freedom fighters took possession of Dulauri village. Being informed at 2:30 or 3 am Pakistani Army, Razakar and Al-Badr led by Motiur Rahman Nizami raided Dulauri, shooting and killing 9 freedom fighters and 14 unarmed civilians of the village. Additionally several houses were set on fire. The Defense asked the witness about the location of the camp. Jamal Uddin replied that there was no fixed camp at Dulauri and the homes of the villagers were used as a camp. Defense asked the witness how long he was in Dulauri. The witness replied that he was there the entire month of November 1971. He said he could not recall who the owner of the house where he stayed was but said that among the owners was one Nurul Islam who is from Biswas Bari. The Defense asked the witness where he was on the night of 27 November 1971. The witness replied that he was at Ramkantopur which is located on the other side of the Ishamoti river. He said that he returned to Dulauri the next morning.

During examination-in-chief, the witness had testified that he learned from Aynul Huq, the headmaster of Ruposhi Primary School, and Shamsul Rahman, alias Nannu, that in the beginning of May 1971 Motiur Rahman Nizami, the then leader of Islami Chhatra Shangho, along with local Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Chhatra Shangho activists attended a meeting at Ruposhi Primary School in order to form local Razakar and Al-Badr groups. The Defense asked the witness about Aynul Huq and where his home was located. The witness replied Baousgari. The Defense asked the witness whether he ever visited Aynul Huq’s home. The witness replied that he did. The Defense asked the witness whether he knew Amanullah, the cousin of Aynul Huq. The witness replied he did and described Amanullah as a Razakar. The Defense claimed that after the liberation war Amanullah was arrested for the killing of Dr Abdul Awal, one of the victims named in Charge 6. The witness said he was not aware of these events. The Defense further claimed that among the persons who personally witnessed the killing, some are still living. The witness admitted that. The Defense claimed that the witnesses who personally witnessed the killing also told Jamal Uddin the names of the involved Razakars. The witness replied that this was true. The Defense asked the witness whether he has taken any initiative to bring about the arrest of the Razakars who are responsible for the killings in Dulauri. The witness replied that he did not take any initiative.

The Defense asked the witness if he caught any Razakars after the war. The witness replied that he tried but failed because the Razakars went into hiding. The Defense asked the witness about the teachers at Ruposhi Primary School. The witness replied that he cannot say. The Defense alleged that Aynul Huq was not the headmaster of Ruposhi Primary School. The witness replied that he does not know whether Aynul Huq was the headmaster of Ruposhi Primary School or not but claimed that Aynul Huq was a teacher of Ruposhi Primary School. The Defense claimed that during the examination-in-chief the witness had said that Aynul Huq was the headmaster of Ruposhi on the basis of speculation. The witness admitted that.

During the examination-in-Chief, the witness had testified that in December 2000 and excavation unearthed bones and skulls beside the house of Megha Thakur. Jamal Uddin testified that he learned about the killings of May 1971 from the people who were gathered around the excavation. The Defense asked the witness whether he was personally present at the site of the excavation in December 2000. The witness replied that he was. Defense asked the witness whether he can specifically answer who told him about the alleged killings. The witness replied Chotur Ali Chairman, freedom fighter Abu Shama and many more told him about the incidents. The Defense alleged that Chotur Ali Chairman is the brother of Khoda Box, who is the chairman of the Peace Committee and chairman of the Union Council. The witness replied that he cannot confirm or deny this.

The Defense claimed that in 2000 the witness was a member of Sathia Upozilla Parishod or Sathia Union Parishad. The witness denied that. He testified that in 2003 he was the secretary of the Union Awami League. The Defense asked the witness how far Karomja was from his home. The witness replied 15 kilometers. The Defense asked the witness who told him to be present at the spot. The witness replied that the then minister Abu Sayed. The Defense asked the witness whether anyone from 1971 to 2000 informed him about the spot from where bones and skulls were recovered. The witness replied that no one informed him as he was already aware of the site. The Defense asked the witness whether he informed the administration about the alleged spot. The witness replied he did not. The Defense claimed that the Accused, Motiur Rahman Nizami, was elected as MP after defeating Professor Abu Sayed in the election of 1991. The witness admitted that. The Defense also claimed that in the election of 1996, Professor Abu Sayed was elected as MP by defeating Motiur Rahman Nizami. The witness admitted that as well. The Defense claimed that in the election of 2001 Motiur Rahman was again elected as MP by defeating Professor Abu Sayeed. The witness replied that he does not know about that election. The Defense claimed that in December 2000, just one or two days before recovering the bones and skulls in the excavation, Motiur Rahman Nizami was elected as the Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami. The witness replied that he is unaware of this. The Defense alleged that because Motiur Rahman Nizami was elected as Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami there was a high probability that he would again be running against Professor Abu Sayeed in the election of 2001. They alleged that this was the reason why Abu Sayeed, the witness and other Awami League leaders created the story of Nizami’s involvement in the killings. The witness denied that. Defense claimed that the daughter of Megha Thakur resided in Pabna. The witness replied he does not know. Defense asked the witness whether the relatives of Negha Thakur still reside in that area. The witness replied again that he does not know.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that on 12 November 1971 groups of Razakar, Al-Badr and Pakistani Army forces were led by Nizami and attempted to catch Johirul Huq. When they failed to catch him they instead set fire to some homes in the Hindu area and raped two Hindu women. The Defense asked the witness who informed him about these alleged events. The witness replied that 2 or 3 days after the incident Johirul Huq himself informed him about the incident. The Defense asked the witness about the specific place where Johirul informed him. The witness replied that it was in Sathia but could not specifically identify the place.

Defense alleged that in the villages of Ruposhi, Demra and Baousgari there are surviving individuals who were older than 15 at the time of the war. The witness admitted that. The Defense asked the witness if Motiur Rahman Nizami is a well known face in Bangladesh. The witness admitted that he is. The Defense asked the witness where Nizami resided in 1971. The witness replied that he was in Bangladesh but could not specifically say where. The Defense claimed that the witness in his initial interview to the Investigation Officer did not make specific allegations against Nizami and that this testimony has been fabricated. The witness denied the allegation and said that he informed the Investigation Officer of all these events and of Nizami’s involvement. The Defense claimed that as a leader of the ruling party the witness provided false testimony against Nizami. The witness denied that. The Defense claimed that Nizami was not present in Pabna in 1971. The witness denied that as well.

Courtroom Dynamics
During the Defense’ cross-examination of the witness members of the Prosecutors verbally insulted Defense counsel Mizanul Islam. The Defense brought this to the attention of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal replied that they did not hear what the Prosecutor said. The Defense described the exchange. In response the Tribunal said that such language cannot be the language of “a gentleman” and reiterated that the Tribunal expects cooperation from Prosecutors. If any member of the Prosecution failed to do so he should not appear before the Tribunal

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain
Prosecution Witness 8
Examination-in-Chief
Abdus Samad, Prosecution witness 8, testified that in the Bangla month of Boishak, the Pakistani Army set fire to his home because freedom fighters used to stay there and because explosives were found there. Samad testified that subsequently to the arson they took shelter in the house of his paternal aunt beside Akhawra check post. From there they returned to their village and took shelter in their maternal grandfather’s house. Samad testified that while there, members of the Peace Committee including Sher Ali, Baju Mia, Suroth Ali, Monsur Ali, Mahmud Ali Shardar, Mobarak and Kosu Mia detained him and took him near the Pakistani camp located at Mugra Bazar where they made him dig large holes for a buggy trap. Samad testified that he worked there 20 to 25 days. Samad testified that during that time the Pakistani Army violated his family, his aunt and his cousin.

The witness stated that in the Bangla month of Vadro the members of the Peace Committed took some people from the village to help the Razakar forces. Samad testified that Kosu Mia, Mobarak Mia, Nazrul, Mannan, Asad, Alim, Abul, Tajul, Nurul, Ful Mia asked him to go with them to help with cooking. Samad testified that he was warned by them that if he did not go with them he would face more problems. We went to Brahmanbaria with them by train. From the train station they went to Kalibari (temple) by foot. He testified that after breaking the lock of the temple they broke the statues of the temple threw the pieces into the pond. Additionally the Razakars replaced the name of the temple with ‘Razakar Monjil.’ Samad testified that he worked there as a cook. After two months a wounded Hindu boy was brought to the Razakar Monjil and kept there for 4 or 5 days. Samad testified that the boys wounds were festering and smelled bad. After 4 or 5 days Samad said he did not see the boy and heard that he was shot to death by the Razakar Commander Mobarak, as well as Kosu Mia and others beside the Kurulia canal. After couple of days Mobarak, Kosu Mia and others left for Suhilpur. The witness said that he remained at Razakar Monjil with another group which was led by Nazrul. Samad testified that he heard that Mobarak and Kosu Mia brought a man from Nayonpur and killed him in Suhilpur . Samad acknowledged that he had been interviewed by the Investigation Officer previously. He identified Mobarak in the dock.

Cross-Examination
Upon questioning by the Defense the witness admitted that there was only one person present in the Dock. The Defense claimed that the day after Brahmanbaria was liberated the witness left for Bhoirob along with Kasu Mia and Nawa Mia, leaving behind their arms. The witness denied that and said that he was never given any weapon. The Defense asked the witness when his family, aunt and cousin were violated. The witness replied that the violations occurred before he started his work digging large holes at Mugra Bazar. The Defense asked the witness whether his first wife or second wife was the one to be violated. The witness replied that his first wife, Amena Khatun, was violated. The Defense asked if the Investigation Officer interviewed his wife Amena Khatun. The witness replied that he did not. The Defense asked the witness who was present at the spot when he was interviewed by the Investigation Officer. The witness replied no one else was present. Defense asked the witness whether the Investigation Officer gave him a type written record of his interview or wrote down what he said. The witness replied that the Investigation Officer wrote down what he told him. The Defense asked the witness how much the Pakistani Army paid him for digging the buggy traps. The witness replied that he was paid 2 or 2 ½ taka for each day. The Defense claimed that the Pakistani Army did not pay him. The witness admitted that and replied that the members of the Peace Committed paid him and the others for their work digging. The Defense asked the witness when the Peace Committee was formed in Brahmanbaria. The witness replied he does not know.

The witness previously testified during his examination in chief that in the Pakistani Army set fire to his house because freedom fighters used to stay there and explosives were found there. The Defense asked the witness whether any other houses was set on fire, if so how many, and whether the owners of any other houses are still living. The witness replied that 10 or 12 houses were burned and confirmed the owners of those houses are still living. Regarding the broken statues of the Kalimondir (temple), the Defense asked whether the witness took the Investigation Officer to the alleged spot and whether he had ever seen any statues of Kali (a goddess in the Hindu religion). The witness replied that he did not take the Investigation Officer to the temple and that he had seen such statues. The Defense claimed that statues of Kali are generally made of clay. The witness admitted that as well. The Defense then asked the witness how many hands Kali had, and what animal she was standing on. The witness replied that he does not know. The Defense claimed that there were two temples at the alleged site of occurrence. The witness admitted that but said he did not know about the other temple. The Defense asked how long the witness was at Kalimondir, to which he 3 or 4 months. The Defense asked the witness whether he ever saw any army Major, Colonel, or Captains at the Kalimondir. The witness replied that he only saw a soldier who used to train them.

The Defense asked the witness about who else worked with him digging holes for the buggy trap. The witness stated that Aju Miah, Alim Mia, Sahjahan Mia, and Ajad Miah worked with him. The Defense claimed that Mobarak did not take the witness to dig the holes. The witness denied this. The Defense alleged that the witness wrongly alleged that Mobarak was the Razakar Commander as there was no such post and the relevant position was called Razakar adjutant. The witness replied he does not know what the proper term was.

The Defense then began questioning about the witness’ siblings and their claims to the property and the home that was allegedly burned. They also asked if his siblings’ had also received a notice for an interview from the Investigation Officer. The witness replied that he has two bothers who share property rights in the house, but said they did not receive a notice for an interview with the Investigation Officer. The witness further made it clear that the house where they currently reside is not the house which was burned. He asserted that they sold the house which was destroyed to Abdul Gofur. The Defense asked the witness whether he filed any case regarding the destruction of the house. The witness replied he did not.

The  Defense claimed that in 1971 Mobarak was a student of class 7 at Akhawra Railway School. The witness replied he does not know. The Defense further claimed that the witness did not make allegations regarding the violation of his family members, the threats made against him to induce him to work as a cook with the Razakars, the killing of the Hindu boy, or Mobarak Hossain’s role as a Razakar commander during his initial interview with the Investigation Officer. The Defense claimed that the witness is receiving financial benefit from Khodeza and Abdul Hamid in exchange for his false testimony against Mobarak Hossain. The Defense claimed that as a Razakar the witness committed crimes and is testifying here in order to hide his own crimes. The witness denied all of these allegations.