Category Archives: Trial of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

6 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary Yusuf Pre-Trial Hearing, Chowdhury PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the AKM Yusuf case, the Tribunal was scheduled to hear the initial presentation of proposed charges against AKM Yusuf. The Defense objected and argued that they had not been given full access to the documents upon which the Prosecution intends to rely. The Tribunal decided it would review the documents and direct the Prosecution accordingly.

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of the Investigation officer, Md Nurul Islam, Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 9 June, 2013.  Continue reading →

5 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 10, Chowdhury PW 41, Islam Contempt Proceeding

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  3. Contempt Proceedings against Fakhrul Islam

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Defense completed the cross-examination of Tofazzal Hossain, Prosecution Witness 10, who testified in support of charge no 15. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 9 June 2013. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of the Investigation officer, Md Nurul Islam, Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 6 June 2013.

The Tribunal also fixed 12 August as the date for the next hearing on the potential contempt proceeding against Fakhrul Islam, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
Cross Examination of PW 10
The Defense continued to cross-examine Prosecution witness 10 about the incident of 17 November 1971. The Defense asked the witness what time the alleged incident took place, where the witness was when it occurred, and how far away he was from the alleged location of the incident. The witness replied that on November 17 at about 01:10 am, freedom fighters attacked the Razakar camp at Sathia Pailot School, and that he was in the adjacent area of the CO office, which is now the Union Council, and was 100-150 yards away from the school.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that on 7 December 1971, while freedom fighters were gathered for a meeting at the police station beside the Pailot School camp, they were attacked. He stated that  at that time they were unarmed. The Defense previously asked the witness where the freedom fighters were based between 17 November and 7 December. The witness answered that they were occupying the police station beside the Sathia Pailot School. The Defense claimed that the freedom fighters who took possession of the police station were armed. The witness then admitted that.

The Defense asked the witness about the incident of 7 December 1971: specifically whether anyone other than him was injured, how many people were gathered there, how many rounds of bullets were fired, and whether the witness had personally seen any Razakar members. The witness answered that other than him, no one was injured on that day. The witness testified that 150 or 200 people were gathered at the time of the incident, but could not say how many rounds of bullet were fired.

The Defense asked the witness about the head of the local Peace Committee. The witness testified that he heard that Jobbar is the President of the Peace Committee. Previously in answer to a question, the witness had replied that he heard that the freedom fighters’ commander Mukul took the 14 Razakars detained after the operation of 17 November to Sahjadpur on boats. The Defense alleged that Jobbar, whom the witness identified as President of Peace Committee, was the father of a freedom fighter commander named Mukul. The witness denied that suggestion, but said that the freedom fighter Mokbul Hossen Mukul was the son of the Peace Committee President Jobbar. The witness did not clarify whether there were two freedom fighters with the name Mukul, or only one. The witness testified that Jobbar was an activist in the Muslim League.

The Defense asked the witness whether he had read any newspaper between 1971 and 1975 which stated that in 1971 Nizami had attended a program or given a speech in Pabna. The witness replied that he had heard that Nizami gave speeches in different meetings, but claimed he had not seen this information in a newspaper because lived in remote areas. The Defense then asked the witness numerous questions to demonstrate that the witness did not reside in remote areas throughout this entire period.  The Defense claimed that in the last part of August 1971 freedom fighters detained Nizami and took him to the Chor areas. The witness answered that he had not heard this. The Defense claimed that the witness, when he came to Dhaka to testify before the Tribunal, was provided with a copy of the interview which he had given to the Investigation Officer. The witness admitted this. The Defense stated that the witness came from his home with the intention to testify against Nizami, and that his identification of the Accused was meaningless given there is only one person in the dock who could be the defendant. The witness agreed with this. The Defense claimed that a Razakar named Mahtab resided in the witness’s house in 1971. The witness claimed that he could not remember such a person. The Defense alleged that the witness was falsely claiming not to have any memory of Mahtab. The witness denied the allegation.

The Defense claimed that the witness, in his initial interview with the Investigation Officer, did not provide key details which he later testified to at trial. In particular, the Defense claimed that the witness did not claim that he and Nizami were classmates in Boalmari Madrassa; that in May 1971, the school was closed to set up a Razakar camp at Sathia Pailot High School; or that the witness observed the inauguration program from a distance and learned about the decisions of the meeting from attendees. The Defense also claimed that the witness, in his initial interview, did not recount the alleged incident of 7 December during which unarmed freedom fighters were allegedly attacked at the police station beside the Pailot School, or that the witness was shot in his left eye and became unconscious.  The Defense claimed that the witness likewise did not say that the followers of Nizami, Abdus Sobhan and Ishaq attacked the local Hindu community and looted their houses, and that the wife of Shunil Joardar was raped in her husband’s presence and then committed suicide out of shame. The witness denied all of these allegations.

The Defense claimed that the incidents of 17 November and 7 December 1971 did not take place, and that the witness collected his salary regularly from his school in person. The witness denied these claims. The Defense claimed that the son of the witness received a job with BTV upon the recommendation of Abu Sayed during the tenure of the last Awami League government. The witness admitted that his son received a job, but denied that it was on the recommendation of Abu Sayed. The Defense alleged that the witness received his job in Upozilla Counsil Primary School on the condition that he testify against Nizami. The witness replied that this was not true.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Cross Examination of PW 41
The Defense asked the witness about different exhibits, including Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 36, and 39. The Defense claimed that all of the newspaper headings had been altered by computer. The Defense claimed that the witness, during the investigation, did not search for the name of the reporter who collected the information and did not search for information about who was arrested alongside Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. The Defense claimed that the report is not original and is a modified scanned copy altered using Adobe Illustrator. The witness denied that. The witness testified that he did not scan or compose the newspapers, and the person who did these things is not a witness in this case. Regarding Exhibit-15, Defense claimed that the witness did not investigate to find the name of the original reporters, and that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury’s name was added by modification of the scanned copy.

 The Defense asked the witness about the source of Exhibit 10. The witness answered that the source was PPI, but did not clarify what the abbreviation means. The Defense claimed that the first line of the report is not clear and that the report does not contain the name of the Accused. The witness replied that the report discusses the son of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. Defense asked the witness about whether, following receipt of the report, he searched for the driver’s name, address, driving license, or other record of the driver’s death. The witness replied that he asked Siraj Uddin, Kazi Nurul Afsar, ANM Mahbub, and Fazlul Huq Bhuiyan about these things, but did not get any information. The Defense asked the witness whether he searched any local Chittagong newspaper for this information. The witness answered that he went to the offices of different local newspapers but did not receive the original as  copies of every issue of the newspapers are not available in the local newspaper offices. The Defense asked the witness who the editor of the Azadi newspaper was at the time of publication, when the witness went to the local office, and whom the witness spoke with while there. They aimed to cast doubt by indicating that the witness did not actually go to the office. The Defense asked the witness whether any case was filed regarding the death of the driver and injury of the Accused. The witness answered that he did not investigate that matter. The witness denied that the news was manipulated in bad faith.

Regarding Exhibit-36, the Defense claimed that Kawsar Sheikh was not the Assistant Librarian when the witness seized the reports. The witness replied that he wrote down what they said regarding their posts. The Defense claimed that the witness seized the Exhibits from Mobarak, and gave the main copies under Mobarak’s custody. The Defense asked the witness whether any requisition was served to make Mobarak appear as a witness. The witness answered that he did not serve any such requisition. The Defense claimed that all the paper cuttings and the seizure list are paper transactions and have been faked. Witness replied that this is not true. The Defense claimed that Exhibit 39 is also a paper transaction and fake and that all of the seized documents have been fabricated. The witness also denied that allegation. The Defense noted that Exhibits 6 through 23 do not contain the name of the Accused. The Defense asked the witness about the profession of the Accused. The witness replied that before 26 March, the Accused was a student, and that from 26 March to 20 September the Accused was involved in the commission of crimes against humanity.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Fakhrul Islam
On 30 December 2012, Fakhul Islam, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, filed a petition seeking an order clarifying that the Tribunal judges were not party to any of the Skype conversations that formed the controversy resulting in the resignation of former Chairman of Tribunal 1, Nizamul Hoq. On 3 January 2013, in order to avoid contempt proceedings, Ahsanul Huq Hena, another defense counsel for Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, prayed that the Tribunal consider the petition as ‘not pressed’ and offered an unconditional apology. On 14 January 2013, the Tribunal issued a notice asking Fakhul Islam, Defense counsel of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, why contempt proceedings should not be issued against him. Today, 5 June 2013, the Tribunal fixed 12 August as the date for the next hearing.  

4 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 10, Chowdhury PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Defense conducted the cross-examination of Tofazzal Hossain, Prosecution Witness 10, who testified in support of Charge no 15. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 5 June, 2013. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer, Md Nurul Islam (IO), Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
Cross Examination of PW 10
The Defense asked the witness about the location of his village and neighborhood. During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that Nizami was his classmate in Boalmari Madrassa. The Defense asked the witness about the witness’s education and when he was first admitted to Boalmari Madrassa. The witness answered that he entered in class one but could not remember the year. The witness further stated that in 1954 he passed Dakhil and in 1959 he passed Matriculation from Sathia Pailot School.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that he is a teacher by profession. The Defense asked the witness when he retired from Sathia Pailot School, and whether or not he applied for an extension of his service. The witness replied that he applied for extension.

The Defense claimed that the witness went to Mohammad Ali, the Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami and Principal of the Sathia Degree College, for a recommendation to extend his service, and that his application for extension was not granted. The witness admitted that his application to extend his tenure of service was not approved but denied that he went to Mohammad Ali for recommendation; he further added that Mohammad Ali was his student. The Defense asked the witness about a school, which was previously known as Imam Hossen Academy and now known as Upozilla Parishad Primary School. The Defense claimed that the witness is now the headmaster of this school. The witness replied that he is the acting headmaster of that school. Then, the Defense claimed that the witness took this post as acting headmaster just two years ago at the age of 72, although even with extension the retirement age for teachers is 65. The witness admitted that a teachers’ retirement age is 65 with extension, but denied that he took his job as acting headmaster at the age of 72. The Defense then asked him when he took the post as acting headmaster. The witness replied that he did so in October, 2012.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that Nizami was his classmate in Boalmari Madrassa. The Defense asked the witness when he saw Nizami in his class, and asked about how the witness or other classmates referred to Nizami, with the aim of verifying whether Nizami was actually the witness’s classmate. The witness answered that the classmates called Nizami by the name the name of Moti or Motiar, and that he himself called Nizami “mamu.” The witness added that he saw Nizami in his class when he was a student of Ebtedaye Chahram (class four), but could not say which year Nizami entered that Madrassa.

The Defense asked the witness numerous questions about the general election of 1970, about Moulana Ishaq, who was elected in that election, and about when he first heard the word Razakar with the aim of casting doubt on his testimony. The Defense asked the witness about different posts, such as Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the school, and how the witness collected his government allowance from the school after the school was closed in May 1971, with the aim of casting doubt on whether the witness was actually a teacher at Sathia Pailot High School in 1971. The witness answered that Amanullah, an assistant teacher of the school, would communicate with the witness every three months and provide him the government allowance on behalf of the school. Defense then asked the witness where he used to reside during the Liberation War. The witness answered that in the beginning of the war he lived in his village home, but that after that he resided in different places. The witness further testified that when he had received his government allowance, Amanullah would take his signature.

During examination-in-chief, the witness testified that the Razakar camp was inaugurated in the middle of May, 1971, and that he saw Nizami, Moulana Abdus Sobhan, Moulana Ishaq and some 100-150 Razakars there. The witness also testified during examination-in-chief that he learned from people who had attended that at a meeting at the camp, the participants decided to kill people who joined the Liberation War and to motivate the youth to join the Razakar force. The Defense asked the witness whether he had seen any government employee attend this meeting and from whom he heard about the decisions of the meeting. The witness answered that he did not see any government employee attend the meeting, and that he heard about the decisions of the meeting from Sayed Ali Khan, Muslem Uddin, Samad Pramanik and many others who attended The Defense asked the witness who, other than himself, is still alive from colleagues in 1971. The witness answered that other than himself, headmaster Khorshed Alam, and assistant teacher Abdul Hakim, he could not say specifically who is still alive.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified about the incident of 17 November, 1971. The Defense asked the witness numerous questions about the incident, including whether he was present when the freedom fighters attacked the Razakar camp located at Sathia Pailot School and what happen to the Razakars who were killed at that alleged incident. The witness answered that he was not present at the site, but came to the site after the incident and heard that the corpses were buried. The Defense then asked the witness whether he saw the spot where the corpses were buried. The witness answered that he did not. The Defense asked the witness whether he saw who had taken the detained Razakars. The witness replied that he heard that the freedom fighters’s commander Mukul took the detained Razakars to Sahjadpur by boat. The Defense asked the witness about Sattar Razakar. The witness answered that among the 14 detainees was Sattar Razakar, who was killed in Darirampur.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Cross Examination of PW 41
The Defense asked the witness numerous questions about the Accused’s political career, the number of times the Accused was elected as a Member of Parliament, where he was elected from, etc. The Defense claimed that when the Accused was a minister, he helped the people of the Hindu community by providing relief. The Defense claimed that one of the chief executives of the Accused is Hindu. The Defense asked the witness whether he knows how many people from the Rawzan, Boalkhali, Hathazari, Kotoali and Pachlaish areas left for India before 25 March 1971, and how many people remained in India after the war. The witness answered that he does not have any statistics regarding this. The Defense asked the witness about the family members of the Accused, including his father, mother, siblings, cousins, uncles, etc. The Defense claimed that except for the Accused’s father, Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, none of his family members were involved with the politics of the Convention Muslim League, and they were involved with the politics of the Awami League. The witness answered that he does not know. The Defense asked whether the witness asked cousins of the Accused, who are MPs of the Awami League, about the Accused and where he was in 1971. The witness answered that he interviewed them, but did not keep the interviews on record. The Defense asked whether the witness asked the family members of the Accused about where the Accused was in 1971. The witness answered that he did not.

The Defense asked the witness whether he received any documentary evidence showing that the Accused was a leader in 1971, or that the Accused gave any speeches against independence or against the Hindu community. The witness answered that he did not have any such documents. The Defense claimed that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury and the Accused were not members of the 104 members Peace Committee. The witness admitted that. The Defense claimed that there was only one Peace Committee in Chittagong, and that Mahmudum Nobi convened it. The witness denied the suggestion.

3 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 41, the Investigation Officer Md Nurul Islam. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 4 June, 2013.

Cross Examination of Prosecution Witness 41
The Defense asked the witness when he joined the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), about his post, and whether he had worked in the CID in Chittagong. The witness answered that he joined the CID in July 1996 as a sub-inspector but did not work in the CID in Chittagong. The Defense asked the witness about his personal details, including his school and his education. The Defense asked the witness who, in 1971, held certain police posts in Chittagong. The witness answered that he did not investigate that. The Defense also asked the witness who, in 1971, held the post of Officer-in-Chief of the Hathazari, Boalkhali, Kotoali and Rawzan police stations. The witness answered that he cannot recall whether or not he investigated that. The Defense asked the witness whether he had interrogated any member of the police was held a post in 1971, or investigated the GDE and EUD records of the cases of these police stations. The witness answered that he did not. The Defense asked the witness whether he investigated the record of the documents regarding the people who were killed in these police stations in 1971, or the looting which took place in these police stations in 1971. The witness answered that he did not investigate into these matters.

The Defense asked the witness about the complaint petitioner. The witness answered that he is the complaint petitioner. The Defense asked the witness whether he had any documents showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury had been a member of a political party before 1978. The Defense also asked whether the witness had interrogated any leader of any political party regarding Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s political identity before 1978. The witness answered that he did not have documents showing Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s involvement with a political party before 1978, and that he did not interrogate any leader regarding this matter but he investigated the matter locally. The Defense claimed that in 1971 Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was not a student of any school, college or university located in Chittagong. The witness admitted that.

The Defense asked the witness whether he knew that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury lost his mother at an early age, and that Chowdhury’s father married again after his mother’s death and owned her property. The witness answered that he heard that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury had a second marriage, but did not know whether Salauddin Qader Chowdhury lost his mother at an early age. The Defense asked the witness whether he had any documents showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury resided in Chittagong in 1971. The witness answered that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury resided with his father Fazlul Qader Chowdhury in 1971. The Defense then claimed that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury had three houses in Bangladesh, including one located in Dhanmondi, Dhaka, and another house in Pakistan. The Defense repeated the question again, asking whether the witness had any documents showing that in 1971 Salauddin Qader resided in Chittagong. The witness answered that he had documents, which were the GR register of the Zilla Police Court, two copies of Complaints, reports of the Court Inspector and fortnightly reports and newspaper cuttings. The Defense claimed that the name Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was not on the list of voters before 1979. The witness answered that he did not know. The Defense claimed that the Complaints and the GR register were recorded in 1972. Witness admitted that, but added that the incidents discussed in those complaints took place in 1971. The Defense claimed that in 1971, several cases were filed against the Pakistani Army for killing, mass killing and looting. The witness answered that he did not receive any records regarding these matters, and that is why he did not know. The Defense claimed that the witness is not telling the truth, even if he is aware of the fact. The witness answered that this is not true. The Defense asked the witness whether he had recorded any interview with any witness showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury resided in Goods Hill, Chittagong in 1971, or interviewed anyone who resided near Goods Hill. The witness answered that this information is in the testimony of different witness.

The Defense asked the witness whether he had seized any newspaper from 1971 showing Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s relation with the Pakistani Army. The witness answered that he did not. The Defense asked the witness whether he had any document showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury had any involvement with the Muslim League Convention in 1971, or any documents showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury attended any meeting with his father Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. The witness answered that he did not have any such documents. The Defense claimed that there are many examples available in the world showing that the son and father are supporters of two different political parties. The witness admitted that such examples are available, but added that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was a follower of his father, and that is why he later on was involved with the politics of the Muslim League. The witness further said that from the police reports, it was evident that Salauddin Qader Chowdury was a candidate of the Convention Muslim League. The Defense asked the witness whether he had verified this information with the Election Commission. The witness answered that he had not. The Defense claimed that the police report was a fake report created on the instruction of the witness. The witness denied the suggestion.

29 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal Coverage, Chowdhury Applications and PW 41

 Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

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

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Tribunal issued its order on the three applications filed by the Prosecution and the two applications filed by the Defense on 28 May 2013. Today the Tribunal passed an order accepting four of the proposed eight out-of-court Prosecution witness statements submitted by the Prosecution under Section 19(2) of the ICT Act 1973. Among these four witnesses three are dead and one has been determined to have left for India. The Tribunal rejected the Prosecution’s petition to submit additional documents. They accepted the petition to correct the mistake made in the Charge Framing Order. The Tribunal rejected both the Defense’s applications.

Today the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of the Prosecution witness 41, the Investigation Officer Md Nurul Islam. Thereafter, the Defense sought additional time for preparation. The Tribunal adjourned the case until Monday, 3 June 2013.