Category Archives: Trial of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

30 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 31, Nizami PW 6

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 31, Accused Present

Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami: Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 6, Accused Present

Today the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 31, Shujit Mohazon, in the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. Shujit testified in support of Charge 6, which alleges Genocide and deportation as a Crime Against Humanity. The case was then adjourned until 2 May 2013. In the Nizami case the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 6, Shahajahan Ali. The witness testified in support of Charge 6, which alleges murder as a Crime Against Humanity. The Defense began their cross-examination but did not complete their questioning before the end of the day. The Tribunal adjourned the case until 2 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Shujit Mohazon testified as Prosecution witness 31 in support of Charge 6. Chowdhury is accused of  committing offense of Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i), 3(2)(3 )(ii) and deportation as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act.

Cross-Examination
The Defense began by asking Shujit Mohazon about his profession. Shujit stated that he he is a shopkeeper and received his trade license from the Union Council. The Defense suggested that the Mohazon name is known as being involved with determining interest rates in Chitagong. The witness said he did not know anything about such business.

The Defense then asked the witness about Bozlur Rahman road. Shughit that the road was visible from his house but that he did not see any army vehicles on the road on the day of the incident on that day.

Continue reading →

29 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Prosecution Witness 31

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Prosecution witness 31

Today the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of the Prosecution witness 31, Shujit Mohazon. The Tribunal then heard the beginning of the Defense’s cross-examination. They then adjourned the case until tomorrow as per the request of the Defense, who stated that they needed additional time to prepare questions regarding the factual issues because the Prosecution had only informed them this morning that the witness would appear today.

Prosecution Witness 31
The Prosecution called Shujit Mohazon, son and brother to two alleged victims, as prosecution witness 31. Shujit Mohazon testified in support of Charge no 6. Charge 6 was alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i) and  3(2)(3 )(ii); and deportation as a Crime Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973.

Examination-in Chief
Shujit Mozajon testified that he is the son of Jogesh Chandra Mohazon and Harilata Mohazon. He was 11years old in 1971. He stated that on 13 April1971 he along with his father, Jogesh Chandra and brother, Ranjit Mohazon, were sitting on their veranda when they heard the sounds of crowds yelling the slogan ‘Pakistan Zindabad.’ He testified that the Pakistani army and some Bengalis arrived and entered their house. Being afraid, Shujit said that he hid himself next to the Gola (a barrel for storing rice) in their kitchen. From his hidden position he saw his father and brother be taken to the bank of Khitish Chandra’s pond. Continue reading →

25 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 5, Chowdhury, PW 30

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami: Prosecution Witness 5, Accused Present
  2.  Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Prosecution Witness  30, Accused Present

Today in the Nizami case the Prosecution conducted its examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 5, Nazim Uddin Khattab. The Defense began their cross-examination, which continued until the lunch break. The Tribunal then adjourned the case until 28 April 2013.

In the Chowdhdury case Defense conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 30, Md Nazim Uddin. The witness testified in support of Charge 4 which alleges that Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act and was complicit in murders, rapes, looting and destruction of properties as Crimes Against Humanity  under section 3(2)(h), section 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1) and section 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami: Prosecution witness 5
Examination-in-Chief
Nazim Uddin Khattab testified that on the morning of 25 April 1971 he saw Motiur Rahman Nizami with Rafikun Nabi Bablu, Asad, Afzal, Moslem, Shukur and Siraj doctor attending a meeting at the Union Board Office. He said that after half an hour the meeting concluded and everyone exited the meeting room. Rofikun Nobi Bablu began yelling and verbally insulting the witness and others who were with him. Bablu was angry at them for voting in favor of Boat (the symbol of the Awami League) in 1970 and for supporting the Awami League. The witness further testified that Nizami told them that if they left the village they would assume that they were joining the freedom fighters and their family members would be killed. If they stayed in the village he said no one would be harmed.

Continue reading →

24 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Qasem Ali, Contempt Proceedings, Chowdhury Prosecution Witnesses 29 and 30.

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Mir Quasem Ali : Investigative Report
  2. Contempt Proceedings against The Economist
  3. Chief Prosecutior vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: Prosecution Witnesses 29 and 30

The Prosecution  submitted its progress report regarding the investigation into Mir Qasem Ali. They requested an additional two-weeks to prepare the Formal Charge. The Tribunal scheduled the submission for 9 May 2013.

In  the ongoing contempt proceedings against the Economist, Barrister Mustafizur Rahman Khan sought two weeks additional time on behalf of the Defendants. The Tribunal fixed 14 May for hearing the reply of the South Asian Bureau Chief and Chief Editor.

Today the Prosecution also conducted its examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 29, Shubol , and  Prosecution witness 30, Md Nazim Uddin. Thereafter, Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena began the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 29. The Tribunal adjourned the case until 25 April 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Prosecution Witness 29 and 30
Prosecution Witness 29
Today the Prosecution called witness 29, Shubol. The witness testified in support of Charge 2 which alleges that Salauddin was involved in the murder of Poncha Bala Sharma, Shunil Sharma, Joti Lal Sharma, Dulal Sharma and Dr Makhon Lal Sharma and in the injury of Joyonta Kumar Sharma. It is alleged that these acts of murder and injury were committed with the intent to destroy the members of the Hindu religious group in whole or in part ,which was considered Genocide under section 3(2)(c)(i) and 3(2)(c)(ii). Continue reading →

23 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 28

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Prosecution and Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs SalauddinQader Chowdhury: Cross Examination of PW 28, Accused Present
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs MobarakHossain: Charge Framing Order, Accused Present

Today Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury concluded the cross-examinination of Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit.

The Tribunal also issued the official Charge Framing Order against Mobarak Hossain. They rejected the Defense’s request for acquittal and also rejected an application for bail. Mubarak Hossain submitted a plea of not guilty. The Tribunal scheduled the opening of the trial for 16 May 2013. Additionally the court requested that the Prosecution and Defense submit their proposed witness lists on 16 May as well.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Cross-examination of Prosecution Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit, was cross-examined by the Defense. His examination in-chief took place on the 22 April.

The Defense began by asking whether Poritosh or his brothers had filed a case before or after the Liberation War regarding the alleged killing of his father. Poritosh replied that he did not know if anyone he or anyone else had filed such a case at the Rawzan Police Station. He testified that the  Rawzan Police Station is about half a kilometer from his house. He could not say whether his father visited the Police Station before he was killed. He testified that after 25 March 1971 the Pakistani Army went to Rawzan but could not give an exact date.

The Defense then asked him questions about his job as a teacher at RABM high school. He testified that the head master of his school was Abdur Rashid. He stated that when he left the school in 1971  he did not submit the resignation letter or application for leave. He claimed that there were no students from Palit Para or Biswash Para in his school. He testified that his house was about 10 kilometers from the school. He stated that while he was a teacher he also worked as the house tutor for Abul Kashem Chowdhury’s son, Abu Bakar. He acknowledged that Abu Bakar is still living. He stated that he knew the neighbors and that he stayed ab Abul Kashem Chowdhury’s house for over a year. He testified that he did not inform anyone when he left Abul Kashem’s house in 1971.

The Defense asked Poritosh to describe the trip between the scene of the killing and where his family was hiding. He testified that along the road there were shops on both sides of the road, and the houses of wealthy and important people. He admitted that he did not attempt to tell anyone about the killing on his way back. However, he claimed that others were aware of the incident, though he could not say how people heard about it. Continue reading →