Category Archives: contempt proceedings

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 23

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary –

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. the Economist – Reply from Respondent
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Hearing of Request for Police Escort, Prosecution Witness 23

Today Mustafizur Rahman, counsel for the named respondents in the contempt proceedings against the Economist, submitted their reply and the Tribunal fixed 24 April 2013 for a hearing. The South Asian Bureau Chief of the Economist and the Chief Editor of the London based weekly were named in contempt proceedings that the Tribunal initiated on 6 December 2012. The Tribunal issued a notice asking them to show cause why action for interference with the ongoing trials and violating the privacy of a judge in conjunction with the publication of alleged skype conversations between the former Tribunal 1 Chairman and foreign lawyer Ahmed Ziauddin.

Today the Tribunal also heard arguments from Ahsanul Huq Hena, Senior Defense Counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, in support of his application for police protection coming to the Tribunal during hartal (strike) days. The advocate submitted that he represents Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Mobarak Hossain alias Mobarak Ali, and Abdul Alim. Hena stated that he is does not belong to any political party and comes to court in a professional context. He further submitted that on his way to the Tribunal he has been followed and threatened in offensive language by people outside the court. Because he resides far away from the Tribunal and has to cross several areas to come to the Tribunal, Hena stated that it is unsafe and troublesome for him to attend proceedings during hartal days.

Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon agreed with the Defense application and stated that if the provisions of law (he did not make it clear which law) allowed Prosecution counsel to receive police protection then Defense Counsel should be similarly assisted. The Tribunal verbally allowed the Defense application and asked Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon to communicate the Tribunal’s approval to the police. The Tribunal also scheduled 27 March as the date for passing its order regarding this application.

After hearing the Defense application, the Tribunal then turned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 23, Bano Gopal Dash. After the completion of the cross-examination the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 27 March 2013.

Continue reading →

3 – 4 March 2013: ICT 1 and 2 Daily Summary – Brief Summaries Due to Hartal

A three day hartal has been called in Bangladesh. For safety reasons our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days. We have compiled the following brief summary from media coverage and communication with the Defense and Prosecution.

TRIBUNAL 1 SUMMARY

3 March 2013
Investigation of Mir Quasem Ali

On March 3, 2013 Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon submitted the progress report of the Investigation of Mir Quasem Ali and sought two months time to submit the formal charge. The Tribunal fixed April 24 for the submission of the formal charge.

Quasem Ali was brought to the ICT but was not produced before the Tribunal during the hearing.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
The Defense sought adjournment on behalf of Gholam Azam. Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum opposed the petition. The Tribunal rejected the Defense petition and asked the Prosecution to continue their Closing Arguments. Thereafter the Prosecution submitted their the Closing Arguments for the 9th day.

4 March 2013:
Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury
March 4 was fixed for recording the testimony of Prosecution witness 21; however, Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum submitted that the Prosecution could not produce the witness today. Thereafter the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the Salauddin Quader Chowdhury’s case until 12 March 2013.

Salauddin Quader Chowdhury was brought to the ICT but was not produced before the Tribunal.

 Contempt Proceedings against the Economist
On December 6, 2012 Tribunal 1 issued a notice asking them the Economist to show cause why contempt charges should not be brought against South Asian bureau chief Adam Roberts and the chief editor of the London based weekly. The Tribunal accused them of interfering with the ongoing trial and violating the privacy of a judge in conjunction with the alleged Skype controversy. The Economist was initially asked to reply within three weeks. On 3 February 2013 the Tribunal fixed 4 March 2013 for the submission of the Economist’s reply. On 4 March 2013 Barrister Mustafizur Rahman submitted that he has not yet received the written reply from his clients and sought two weeks additional time to submit the reply. The Tribunal accepted his prayer and fixed 25 March 2013 for the next hearing.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
The Prosecution placed their arguments on legal points in the Gholam Azam case and completed their Closing Arguments. Thereafter, the Tribunal asked the Defense to begin their closing arguments, but no senior defence counsel was present at the Tribunal. A junior Defense counsel sought one week adjournment for preparation, however, the Tribunal fixed 7 March 2013 for Defence closing arguments.

TRIBUNAL 2 SUMMARY
[We are compiling a summary of events in Tribunal for this week and will post information once it is complete]

Weekly Digest, Issue 5: February 17-21

This week Tribunal 1 heard matters in the Gholam Azam, Nizami, and Chowdhury cases. In the Gholam Azam case the Tribunal heard arguments regarding a number of Defense applications, including requests to depose further witnesses and another request for bail. They began hearing the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments, as scheduled on 17 February. In Chowdhury, the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 10, part of which was conducted by Chowdhury himself. In the Nizami case, the Tribunal heard an application from the Prosecution requesting permission to submit additional documents and the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witness 2, Zahir Uddin Jalal.

Tribunal 2 covered the Kamaruzzaman and Mujahid cases. The Tribunal also rejected an application for review of its final judgment in the Qader Molla case. In Kamaruzzaman, the Tribunal granted a request from the Prosecution to limit the Defense to four witnesses in support of their case. They also heard the ongoing cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, Prosecution witness 18. In the Mujahid case, the Tribunal heard the examination of Prosecution witness 13, Shakti Shaha. The Tribunal also dealt with contempt proceedings against Ahmed Ziauddin (linked to the Skype controversy) and leaders of the Dhaka City Unit of Jamaat-e-Islami.

Read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 5 – Feb 17-21

Weekly Digest: Issue 3 – February 3-7 2013

This week was dominated by the second Judgment of the ICT, issued by Tribunal 2 in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Qader Molla. The Judgment was issued on February 5th. The Accused was found guilty of 5 of 6 charges, all counts of crimes against humanity. Closing arguments in the case were completed on January 17, 2012. The Judgment was issued less than three weeks after the close of the case. Qader Molla was sentenced to life imprisonment. This report contains detailed analysis of the verdict and the factual and legal conclusions contained within it.

Tribunal 1 heard matters in the Gholam Azam, Nizami, and Chowdhury cases as well as a request from The Economist for additional time to respond to contempt proceedings related to its publication of the alleged Skype and email conversations between the former Chairman and expatriate Bangladeshi lawyer, Ahmed Ziauddin. In addition to issuing the Qader Molla Judgment, Tribunal 2 also dealt with ongoing contempt proceedings against Home Minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir and BNP leader MK Anwar, and issued an Order to Jamaat to explain comments made by its Central Executive member and Assistant Secretary General of Dhaka or face contempt.

Read the full weekly report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 3 – Feb 3-7

3 Feb 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Witness Testimony in Gholam Azam and Nizami

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against the Economist
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Ghulam Azam – Defense witness 1 testimony (Accused not Present)
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami – Prosecution witness 2 (Accused Present)

On February 3, 2013 Mustafizur Rahman requested 4 weeks of adjournment on behalf of the Economist to reply to the 6 December 2012 Tribunal order in which the former Chairman of ICT-1 issued an order to show cause for contempt in relation to their reporting of alleged Skype and email conversations between the Chairman and foreign legal expert Ahmed Ziauddin. The Tribunal granted Mr. Rahman and the Economist a month and fixed the next date for hearing as 3 March 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
On February 3, 2013 Defense witness 1, Abdullahil Amaan Azmi, a former Army personnel and the son of accused Gholam Azam provided testimony. He introduced several documents as exhibits. He exhibited photocopies of reports published in the Don newspaper dated from February 12 to October 28, 1971 and photocopies of reports published in the Pakistan Observer dated from April 1 to July 29, 1971.

While Defense was exhibiting the newspapers Prosecution raised an objection regarding the context of the newspaper reports. The Tribunal however declined to consider the objection. The Prosecution then stated that they would file an application regarding their objection. The Defense witness then exhibited photocopies of two photos against the objection of the Prosecution. He also exhibited photocopies of Bangladesher Sadhinota Juddho Dolilpotro (published in June 1984 vol-10); Bangladesh Document 1971 (Part-3); Shanti Committee 1971 (Published in February 2012) a book written by Muntasir Mamun; and Judhoporad, Gonohottha and Bicharer Oneshon (published in May 2001) a book written by Dr M A Hasan. The Defense witness also exhibited a Office Memo No. 164(10)/con Dated May 25, 1971, regarding the appointment of the Razzakars. The Defense witness also exhibited a video clipping of a talk show ‘Shoja Kotha’ aired by Desh TV on May 14, 2012 and a video clipping of a program ‘Ronogoner Dinguli’ aired by BTV on April 20, 2012.

Abdullahil Amaan Azmi testified that the Language Movement started after 1947 and that between 1948 and 1954 Gholam Azam went to prison three times for his leadership in Language Movement. Azmi alleged that by eliminating Gholam Azam’s contribution from the history of Language Movement, the history of language Movement has been distorted. He further alleged that in a similar way over the last 41 years the history of Independence has been distorted and the involvement of Gholam Azam with the Liberation War has been repainted in a negative manner.

Azmi stated that in 1971 Gholam Azam was one of 130 members of the Peace Committee. But Azmi asserted that Gholam Azam was not of official status within the Peace Committee. He alleged that in the last 41 years no action has been brought against any of the official members of Peace Committee including the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary and Joint Secretary, but nonetheless proceedings have been brought against the unofficial members of the Peace Committee for committing the alleged crimes. He claimed that the prosecution against Gholam Azam was brought only for political reasons and was designed to undermine him.

Thereafter, Prosecutor Haider Ali started to cross-examine Azmi. During the cross-examination he admitted that Moin E U Ahmed was the only Four Star General and that General Mostafizur Rahman was a honorary Four Star General.

The Tribunal then adjourned the case until Monday February 4, 2013

 Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami
In the Nizami case the Defense conducted cross-examination of prosecution witness 2, Zohiruddin Jalal alias Bishu Jalal, a former Freedom Fighter. During the cross-examination Zohiruddin Jalal admitted that it is possible to become a member of Muktijudha Songshod (an organization of freedom fighters) at any time. He admitted that he became the member of Muktijudha Songshod in 2005 and he could not remember his membership no. He stated said that former President Ershad first published a list of freedom fighters and then from 1991 to 1996 a voter list of freedom fighter was published. A freedom fighter’s list was also published by the Awami League. Jalal admitted that his name was not on the list of freedom fighters. He said that he applied to include his name in the voter list of Muktijudha Songsod as a member of Central Command Council in 1992. He said that he was the 35th member of Muktijudha Songsod. He admitted that those who are not a member of Muktijudha Songsod do not have a right to include their name in the voter list of Muktijudha Songsod.

Jalal said that he took admission in Westend School in 1970 in the 8th class. He could not continue his education into the 9th class in 1971 due to the Liberation War. He said that he passed SSC with second class in 1972 as a private student of Saleha School. He admitted that he could not remember the name of the subjects he took in SSC examinations. After that he took admission in Jogonnath College.

Jalal stated that during the Liberation War he used to read the Daily Purbo Desh but did not like to read the Shongram. He said that on August 29, 1971 he heard from someone that a report was published in Songram stating that some miscreants (Shongram used to describe freedom fighters as miscreants) were captured with arms and hearing this news he went to the Police Station with his uncle Bahauddin. He admitted that he saw 20 to 25 people there. He admitted that while testifying in Tribunal-2 he mistakenly said that he saw Rumi, Boudi, Jweal, Azhar, Chullu vai, Altaf Mahbub there (in the police station) due to the time gap of 41 years. He admitted that his first interview regarding Liberation War was published in the magazine of Westend School in 1972 or 1973. He admitted that his interviews were published in different newspapers including the Daily Prothom Alo and the Daily Jonokhontho, however, as far his knowledge none of his interviews were not published in Ittefaq, Azad or Purbo Desh. He said that he did not know whether his interview was published in any books or not. He said that he has given interviews to the Investigation Officer Razzak on two occasions. He stated that the commander of Bisshu Bahini was Shojib and he (Jalal) was given the title of Bisshu from Major Khaled Mosharrof, Commander of sector-2. He admitted that Razzakar of the Romna Police Station area was Gurha and that there was no Peace Committee in Savar.