Category Archives: Tribunal 1

9 Jan 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary: Gholam Azam Defense Case-in-Chief

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Professor Gholam Azam: Defense Witness 1 Direct examination

The Defense continued the testimony of Defense Witness #1, Abdullahil Aman Azmi, who began giving his testimony on November 12, 2012. Today he introduced 3 volumes of documents into evidence as exhibits. A few items still remain to be exhibited but were not allowed today due to the objection of the Prosecution that these items are not legible. The Tribunal agreed and the Defence assured the court that the illegible documents would be typed so as to make them readable. The Defense sought adjournment for time to complete the task. Tribunal allowed their prayer and adjourned until Sunday.

Details of Exhibited Items and Defense Witness #1
Today Azmi exhibited photocopies of numerous books including: Secret documents of America, edited by Mizanur Rahman Khan; Not the Whole Truth, written by Shoforraz Hossen Mirza (page 19-25); Bangladesh: Emergence of a Nation, by A M A Muhith (page 235-257); Pakistan crisis in leadership, by Mejor General Fozle Mukim Khan (Retired) (page 92-146); Muktijudher Purbapor Kothapokothon, published by Prothoma Prokashoni (page 37-143); Behath Biplob, by Ahmed Sofa; Blood and Tears, by Kutubuddin Ahmed; Declaration of Independence, Myth and Documents, by Masudul Huq; Pakistan’s failure in National Intrigation, by Rawnak Jahan (page 185-205); Last few days of undivided Pakistan, by G W (page 74-103); Bangladesh O Shaetho-sashon Theke Shadhinota, by Moudud Ahmed (page 168-207); Bangladesh Document; Ekathor ar Judhoporadh abong Judhaporadhi-der Bichar, by Shahriar Kobir (page 63-65); Mujib r Karagar a Powne Sathsho Din, by Advocate Sadh Ahmed.

The witness then exhibited photocopies documents, including: Press Note of the Government of Pakistan, letter written by Sector Commander-1 to Commander in Chief of Bangladesh Force dated 04 December 1971; Dhaka Gazette dated 10 August 1971; Press release dated 07 July 1971, 04 December 1971, 06 December 1971; 08 December 1971 taken from Bangladesh, Liberation War, Mujibnagar Government’s Document 1971; Gazette Notification of 1972; Notification of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh Government dated 18 April 1973; Bangladesh Gazette dated 31 January 1972; ICT Act 1973 Bill, First Amendment of the Constitution; Discussion upon the ICT Act 1973 Bill at the Parliament; Tripartite Agreement between Bangladesh, India and Pakistan; Shimla Treaty taken from Bangladesh Document; and a document taken from http//history.state.gov/countries/Bangladesh.

Azmi then exhibited photocopies reports published in different newspapers including ‘The Guardian’ dated 06 June 1972; Observer dated 01 December 1973; Daily Shongram dated 01 March 2012; reports published in the Daily Inquelab and the Daily Ajker Kagoj in March 1992 ; Editorials of the daily Noya Diganto and Amer Desh dated 01 November 2011; the Daily Inquelab dated 28 August 2000; the Daily Prothom Alo dated 07 December 09; the Daily Amardesh dated 27 April 2011 (on-line publication) and reports published in the Daily Ittefaq in 1992.

The Tribunal allowed the Defense to exhibit two documents over the objection of the Prosecution. Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum raised his objection against the report published in Daily Bangla and related Press release of the Government in 1973 since it was a type-written copy, and against a report published in the Daily Jonokhontho dated 05 August 2000 because he alleged that it was not clear whether it was a report of Jonokontho or not.

In the beginning of the morning session Lead Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum said that while exhibiting the documents the Defence had repeated some documents. Justice Jahangir Hossain stated that given the number of documents being exhibited by the Defense it was understandable that there be some repetitions.

Chairman was not present in the Tribunal since he is on leave. The Members of the Tribunal was reluctant to adjourn the case and was willing to finish the deposition of the DW-1 by Thursday. However, Defence Counsel Mizanul Islam submitted that it would be very difficult for him to exhibit the rest of the documents since they have to type almost a volume so Defence need time and DW-1 will not be able to come on Thursday due to his personal difficulty.

8 January 2013: Daily Sumary Tribunal 1- Golam Azam

The Tribunal heard matters in the following case:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Golam Azam – Defence Case-in-Chief

Proceedings focused solely on the Defense’s exhibit of documents that they will rely on for their case:

The defense used the witness to exhibit many books, newspapers and documents, including a photocopy of ‘What happened in 1971 and who were Razakars’; ‘Bangladesh: Unfinished Revolution (Part-2)’; ‘Pakistan Crisis in Leadership’; ‘The Re-trial of East Pakistan’ a book written by General Niazi; ‘The Pakistan Army 1966-71’ written by Mejor General Shawkat Reza (Retired) (Chaper-4,5; page 101-131); ‘Pakistan Crisis in Leadership’ written by Mejor General Fazal Muhim Khan (Retired)(page 115-131; 159-173); ‘Dhaka’s Dibbled’ written by Syed Alamder Raja (page 61-65); ’71: in the eyes of Pakistani’ written by Professor Muntasir Mamun and Mohiuddin Ahmed (page 311-360); ‘Internal Strife and External Intervention’ written by Hasan Azkari Rizvi (page 114-271); ‘The deliberate dib able’ written by Dr Shafder Mahmud (page 55-199); ‘Bangladesh: Victim of Black Propaganda Intrigue and Indian Hegemony’ written by Azammal Hossain (page 32-52); ‘Crisis of East Pakistan’ written by Shoforraz Hossain Mirza (page 59-90); ‘Unprotected Independence is the subordination’ written by Mejor Jalil and edited by Atique Helal; and ‘Detained in an Indian Jail’ written by Muhammad Alamgir (page 11-31).

While Mizanul Islam was exhibiting ‘Documents of the Liberation War in Bangladesh,’ a book written by Hakkani, Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum raised objection alleging that  it is a banned book.

Mizanul Islam exhibited photocopies of two books written by Professor Golam Azam: ‘Aggression of India and Bengali Muslims’; ‘Palashi to Bangladesh’; ‘The Question about the Existence of Independent Bangladesh’.

Mizanul Islam on behalf of Azmi exhibited photocopies of the daily statements about the activity of Razakars in Modoni, Lokhiganj, Chollisha, Rahurhat, Amtola, Jahangirpur in July, 1971. He exhibited the daily statements of Razakars in Netrokona in August and September, 1971.

He exhibited a lot of documents, including the certified copy of a gazette dated 07-09-1971, regarding Razakar Ordinance 1971; Syllabus and Documents on Razakars and their Training and Organizations dated 16-12-1971; a photocopy of a letter written by the Director of Razakars to a Assistant Director of the Razakars; a photocopy of documents about the verification of the Razakars G.S.O-2 dated 08-09-1971 and G.S.O-3 dated 09-09-1971; a list of the armed Razakar dated 22-09-1971; a list of selected Razakar commanders; the Complaint Register No-1 dated July 21, 2010, search list and evidential documents Volume-3,4,5 and 6 from the Investigation Authority, International Criminal Tribunal Bangladesh; Photocopies of the interviews of the Golam Azam published in different medias; Documents of the India-Bangladesh relation (1971-2002) including the speeches of former Prime minister Indira Gandi; Statement of Lokshova dated 27-03-1971; Speech of the Mr Muhammad Ali in the General Assembly of the United Nations  on September 27, 1971 as found in the Bangladesh Document volume-2;  and a whitepaper of the crisis in East Pakistan (page 45-53) as found in Pakistan Horizon, journal volume-xxv no 1, 1972 (page 21).

The Defense then exhibited numberous photocopies newspapers dated from 2008 to 2011 about banning Jamaat-e-Islami, punishment and trial and accused of the war criminals, statements of different Awami-League leaders published in different newspapers, and statements of the current Prime minister about the Razakars as published in Daily Amer Desh dated 22-04-10. While Mizanul Islam was exhibiting different newspapers Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum raised question regarding the relevancy of these documents.

7 January 2013: Tribunal 1 Daily Summary – Golam Azam and Sayedee

The Tribunal heard matters pertaining to the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Golam Azam – Defens e Case-in-Chief 
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Delwar Hossain Sayedee  – contempt proceedings brought by Defense

Summary
The Tribunal adjourned Golam Azam’s case for today on the grounds that the Defense will file a review application for the review off the Jan. 3rd order rejecting his request for retrial. They claimed that they did not receive a certified copy of the order and could not file the review application until they did.  Mizanul Islam, senior Defence Counsel, assured the Tribunal that the Defense would produce its witness Abdullahil Aman Azmi, Defense Witness #1m on 8 January 2013.

The Defense Counsels of Sayedee informed the Tribunal that they had filed contempt petitions against Masudur Rahman of  ATN News and against BTV. The Tribunal then fixed 9 January 2013 for the hearing of these applications.

Case: Chief Prosecutor vs Gulam Azam
Defence Witness #1,  Abdullahil Aman Azmi, began providing testimony on November 13, 2012 and has not yet completed. The Defense failed to produce him on a couple of occasions and the Tribunal at one point barred the Defense from producing further Defense Witnesses unless the Defense provided a satisfactory explanation for their failure. Today was fixed for argument in the matter.  Senior Defence Counse, Mizanul Islam, assured the Tribunal that the witness will be produced tomorrow and sought adjournment.

Prosecutor Zead-Al-Malum raised an objection to the Defense’s request and said that the Defense had made similar excuses before and still failed to produce their witness. He asked the Tribunal to begin closing arguments or to impose a fine against the Defense.

The Tribunal then passed a written order stating that for the ends of justice the application filed by the Defence would be scheduled for hearing tomorrow on the ground that the Defense will file a review application of the order dated 03-01-2013. The order noted that Mizanul Islam had assured the Tribunal that the Defense would produce its witness on 8 January 2013.

Outside the Courtroom
Chairman A.T.M Fazle Kabir was absent from the Tribunal as he is on leave. Mizanul Islam informed  the Tribunal that today Defense attorneys were not allowed to take their cars inside the Tribunal gate. Justice Jahangir Hossain told him to wait until Chairman A.T.M Fazle Kabir returned to present the matter. Mizanul Islam further stated that the Defense had been told that only two family members of the accused will be allowed to visit the Tribunal. Accused Golam Azam was brought to the Tribunal but did not appear in the courtroom, reportedly because he was feeling sick.

Tribunal adjourned at 11:45am

3 January 2012: Tribunal 1 Daily Summary – Rejects Application for Retrial in Sayedee, Golam Azam and Nizami Cases

The Tribunal Issued Its Order on the Application for Retrial in the Sayedee, Golam Azam and Nizami Cases:

The Tribunal read out its order rejecting the retrial application of Golam Azam and said the same order would apply for the retrial applications of Motiur Rahman Nizami and Delwar Hossain Sayedee since the facts and legal points were same. The Tribunal stipulated separately for Sayedee’s case that it would rehear the closing arguments from both the Prosecution and Defense as Tribunal-1 had been reconstituted after former Chairman Justice Nizamul Huq’s resignation and therefore the current Chairman had not heard closing arguments. The Tribunal fixed 13-14 January for the Prosecution to present its arguments and 15-17 January for the Defense.

For a more detailed examination of the order and a copy of the order itself, please see here.

Case: Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury
On 1 January 2013, Fakhrul Islam filed three applications on behalf of Chowdhury, including one asking the Tribunal for an order clarifying that its judges were not party to any of the skype or email conversations that took place between the former Chairman Nizamul Hoque and Dr. Ziauddin. Other applications included initiating contempt proceedings against the Law Minister for influencing the proceedings and summoning the former Chairman of the Tribunal 1 to testify. To avoid contempt proceedings Ahsanul Huq, Defence counsel of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury prayed to consider them as ‘not pressed’ and offered unconditional apology.

The Tribunal said it needed further time to consider the application regarding the question of their involvement in the skype conversations and fixed January 10 for issuing an order. The Tribunal allowed the prayer of ‘not pressed’ on two other applications.

Observations Outside the Court
At the lunch break some High Court lawyers, supporters of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, were seen in front of the Tribunal. They were attempting to obtain a pass for entry into the Tribunal. The Tribunal authority refused to give them pass, which made them angry. They were shouting some slogans and engaged in an altercation with the registrar. After a short time they departed.

3 January 2013: ICT 1 Details of Rejection of Retrial Application in Sayedee, Golam Azam and Nizami

The Tribunal read out its order rejecting the application for retrial in the case of Golam Azam. It stated that the order also applied to the cases of Sayedee and Nizami as the facts and legal points of the applications were the same.

The Tribunal began by noting that it had not yet been determined who hacked and illegally recorded the alleged skype  and e-mails conversations, or when and in which country the recording took place. It said that these relevant questions must be resolved first, before taking the substance of the conversations into account. The order further stated that hacking is a crime committed with a malafide intention and that the court cannot rely on evidence that is the product of hacking.

The order further stated that the the Tribunal has taken evidence through public and transparent procedure. The court stated that evidence adduced in the cases is to be evaluated and is the sole basis for arriving at a decision in a given case. The key matter is how far the prosecution has been able to establish its charges. In the process of such evaluation of evidence the alleged skype conversations and e-mail will not prejudice either party.

The order said that there is no express provision to hold re-trial or re-call any order of Tribunal under ICT Act 1973. The order stated that there is a settled principle of law that the inherent power of a court cannot be invoked where there is an express provision in the Act giving a remedy and here they find express provision under section 6(6) of the ICT Act 1973. This provision allows for the bench to be reconstituted as necessary and for a newly seated judge to pass a decision based on the record

The tribunal found no reason to exercise its inherent power under 46(a) of the ICT Act. They stated  that all the orders in these cases have been passed by three judges, not by the chairman alone, and that the majority view has prevailed and is insulated from any possible bias that the Chairman might have held. Tribunal said in its order that the Defence did not produce any document to show that hacked documents are admissible in evidence. The Tribunal said that they learnt from the opinion of an IT expert that skype conversations can be manipulated and therefore concluded that it could not rely on the alleged conversations. Tribunal stated in its order no reliance can be placed upon such hacked documents which are inadmissible in evidence, therefore, the prayer for recalling the Charge Framing Order is rejected and the application for retrial denied.

Tribunal Will Rehear Closing Arguments in the Sayedee Case
The Tribunal did state that uniquely in the Sayedee case it would listen to closing arguments by both the Defense and the Prosecution as the former Chairman had resigned after these arguments and therefore the current Chairman did not hear these arguments. It scheduled the prosecution’s closing arguments for January 13-14 and the Defense for January 15-17.