Category Archives: Trial of Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

Weekly Digest Issue 6: February 24-28

We apologize that we are slightly behind in our weekly digests of the proceedings. Due to limited staff and unforeseen obstacles, including hartals, we have had some delays in our coverage. Our daily summaries are up to date and we hope to have our weekly digests up to date shortly as well. Thank you for your patience.

Please find below our Weekly Digest Issue 6, covering the week of February 24-28. This week was dominated by the announcement of the verdict in Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossain Sayedee on 28 February 2013, in which Sayedee was found guilty of 8 charges and sentenced to death. For a detailed report on the Judgment against Sayedee please see our Special Issue Report, available here.

In addition to issuing the Sayedee Judgment, Tribunal 1 also continued to hear the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case, and the Prosecution submitted Formal Charges against Mubarak Hossain. Tribunal 2 heard proceedings in the Kamaruzzaman, Abdul Alim and Mujahid cases, as well as contempt proceedings.

The Weekly Digest is accessible here: Weekly Digest, Issue 6 – Feb 24-28

 

20 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Adjournement in Kamaruzzaman and Mujahid, Alim Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman – Extension of Time for Production of DW
  2. Chief Prosecuor vs. Mujahid: Adjournment
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs Abdul Alim: Cross-Examination of PW 13

The case against Mujahid was listed for the hearing of the Defense review application and for the examination of the prosecution witness. However, the Defense counsel requested adjournment of court due to the death of one attorney’s mother. The Prosecution did not object to the same and the court adjourned the matter till Sunday, 24 March 2013.

In the Kamaruzzman case the Defense also sought additional time as the Defense witness could not be presented before the court. The Defense counsel said that they could not produce the witness because travel into Dhaka from Sherpur was not possible due to the hartals. The Tribunal adjourned the matter for one day and ordered that the witness be produced on 21 March 2013. At this point, the Tribunal expressed its dissatisfaction for the repeated requests for additional time from the D, particularly with regard to the timely production of Defense witnesses. The Defense argued often granted the Prosecution similar adjournments, and had even given 24 days of additional time for the production of PW-12. Thus they argued that there is an imbalance between the court’s attitudes toward the two parties and that the Defense were being prejudiced. The Tribunal rejected this argument and stated that because the onus to establish an independent case lies with the Prosecution and not the Defense, the Tribunal granted the Prosecution additional time. They said the Defense cannot be allowed to delay the proceeding by referring to such examples.

Finally, in the case Abdul Alim, the defense cross-examined PW-13. Prosecution witness 13 is the nephew of PW 2 Laily Begum and is the grand child of martyr Doctor Abul Kashem, who according to the Prosecution’s case was killed on 25July 1971 in Kuthibari at the instruction of Abdul Alim. The witness was examined by the prosecution on Sunday, 17 March 2013.

Continue reading →

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

26 Feb 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against M K Anwar, Jamaat Party Leaders (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Adjourned
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Cross-examination of Prosecution witness 13 (Accused Present)

The counsel representing M K Anwar filed a written explanation, as requested by the Tribunal, on behalf of the veteran BNP policy maker and stated that his client has the highest regard for the court and that his statements were misplaced and misinterpreted by the newspaper report. MK Anwar had allegedly made comments that the government is staging the ongoing trials of the alleged war criminals as a mechanism of vengeance against the leaders of its opposition parties. Prosecutor Mr Rana Das Gupta sought time for further hearing of the matter, stating that the prosecution will place its submissions after evaluating the written explanation filed on behalf of the opposite party. The matter fixed for hearing on 28 February 2013.

Counsel for the Jamaat leaders Mr Selim Uddin,  Mr Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Mr Rafiqul Islam sought adjournment of the matter for another week, stating that they could not appear by reason of unavoidable circumstances. The three leaders were ordered to personally appear before Tribunal-2 after contempt proceedings commenced against them following their comments about the tribunal during a public engagement on 4th February, a day prior to Mollah’s judgment. The prosecution strongly objected to their absence and stated an arrest warrant should be issued against each. The judges stated that the absent politicians must be personally present before the court on Sunday 3 March 2013 or face severe consequences.

Mr Kamaruzzaman’s case was adjourned until Sunday, 3 March 2013.

Finally, the cross-examination of Mr Shakti Shaha, PW-13 of the case against Mujahid was resumed by the Defenes and continued for the rest of the day.  The core line of questioning was aimed at attacking the reliability and credibility of the witness’s testimony, suggesting that the testimony is fabricated and is based on coaching by the Prosecution. It was suggested that the witness lives and works in India permanently. It is the Defense’s case that the witness never saw the accused and is a false witness who in reality is an Indian passport holder coming to Bangladesh illegally to give oral evidence. The Defense noted that he gave his previous statements to the Investigating Officer in India and claimed that this was because he is in fact an Indian resident. The Defense further suggested that the witness’ description of what he saw from the top of the tree (allegedly the participation of Mujahid and his associates in the killing of the witness’ father) is not only untrue and fabricated but also impossible and impracticable.

Continue reading →

19 Feb 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Examination of PW 13, Kamaruzzaman Cross-Examination of PW 18

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Examination of Prosecution Witness 13 (Accused Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman Prosecution Application and Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 18 (Accused Present)

The day’s proceedings began with the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 13 in the Mujahid case. 57 year old Shakti Shaha is the son of victim Upendra Narayan Shaha. In his testimony he emotionally described the killing of his father and many others from the Hindu community.

In the Kamaruzzaman case the Tribunal heard an application under Rule 46A of the Rules of Procedure, read with Section 11(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, filed by the prosecution requesting that the number of witnesses allowed to the Defense be limited so as to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceedings. The Tribunal stated it would provide its answer on February 20th. The Tribunal then returned to the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer (Prosecution witness ).  He was mainly questioned about the various prosecution documents exhibited in the case. The Defense sought to undermine the reliability of the documents and highlighted the various inconsistencies between witness statements given to the Investigation Officer and subsequent statements given by the witnesses in court.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid
Examination in Chief of Prosecution Witness 13
The Prosecution conducted their examination-in-chief of Shakti Shaha who testified about witnessing the killing of his father and others in the Hindu community. His testimony supported allegations under Charge 7. In particular he testified to the involvement of the accused in the local Peace Committee, his participation alongside other Biharis in the burning of dwelling houses belonging to the Hindu community, the killing of Upendra Narayan Shaha, Nupen Shikder, Biren Shaha, Nonita Ghosh and the rape and murder of Jhorna in the presence of the accused. The evidence also corroborated that given by Prosecution witness 12, Chitra Ranjan Shaha, who gave his testimony on 15 January 2013.

Shaha testified that the Pakistan Army entered Faridpur on 21 April 1971 and established military camps in various locations therein including Faridpur Circuit House and the district stadium. The witness stated that his family was afraid and took shelter in his sister’s house in Bakchor the same day. A few days later he said his sister’s house was looted and burned and they were forced to take shelter elsewhere.

He then testified that in the Bengali month of Boishakh at around 10 or 11 a.m., the accused Mujahid, Alauddin Kha and few others were seen in an open jeep heading towards the Board Office situated near the local market to attend a Peace Committee meeting. They left the meeting place around 2pm. Shaha said he came back to his sister’s house and climbed a fruit tree to pick fruits for food. He was in the tree when he saw Mujahid carrying a revolver and other Biharis carrying rifles headed towards the house. He testified he saw them tie up his father Upendra Narayan Saha and approximately 10 others. His mother offered money and all her gold jewelry in exchange for the release of her husband. They refused her pleas and took the detained to the Shree Angan. There Mujahid gave the signal to shoot and the Biharis opened fire. The witness saw from the tree that those lined up collapsed immediately after the firings.

The witness was very emotional and at this point began to cry loudly. The courtroom became silent. The Judge asked the Prosecution to calm the witness.

The witness testified that after half an hour he came down from the tree and saw his father lying dead. He said that one of the attacking party, Ohab Bihari, also hit his mother with rifle. A girl from Goalindo, named Jhorna was raped and shot to death. Another girl named Nonita Ghosh was also killed.

The witness confirmed that he gave his statement to the Investigation Officer during investigation. He stated that he has known Mujahid since childhood and that his brother Kiron Lal Shaha studied with Mujahid’s younger brother. The witness then identified Mujahid in the dock.

Defense Cross Examination
The Defense counsel began their cross-examination. They asked whether the witness remembered his date of birth and whether he had National voter ID card. The witness replied that although he gave the details of his date of birth at the time of the information collecting stage and preparation of the National Voter ID card, he was unable to remember the date at the time of questioning.

The cross-examination is scheduled to continue on the 26th.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman
Prosecution Application for Limitation of Defense Witnesses
The Tribunal heard a Prosecution application under Rule 46A of the Rules of Procedure, read with Section 11(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 requesting the Court to exercise its power to limit the number of Defense witnesses for an expeditious trial. The prosecution counsel argued that the Defense has submitted a long list of witnesses for the purpose of delaying the judicial process. They stated that the court’s intervention is required to expeditiously reach the ends of justice.

In reply, the Defense pointed out that although the court has the power to limit the number of witnesses, the prosecution has no power to file this application advocating that the same be done. He further submitted that the numbers of prosecution witnesses and Defense witnesses should be proportionate in order for the process to be balanced. The court fixed February 20th for passing an order on this application.

Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 18
The Defense continued its cross-examination of Prosecution witness 18, the Investigation Officer Abdul Razzaq. He denied that he did not disclose where he obtained the documents in Exhibit-16 and that they haven’t been signed by the persons who presented them. He also denied the suggestion that the Prosecution did not take the statement of Mina Farah, author of “Juddhey Juddhey Jibon” (Exhibit-17), because she would not lie present false charges against the accused. The Defense noted that on pg 220 of her book, it is stated that word spread through radio transmission that her house was being used as the Al-Badr Head Quarters. The Defense alleged that the correctness of this statement has not been investigated by the Investigating Officer. The Defense also suggested that the book is unreliable because it was published 39 years after the war and is based on iperfect memories from the 1971 period. The Investigating Officer responded that he does not know the when the book was written but is aware of the fact that the author has been residing in the United States for a long time. He denied that the contents of the book were written upon the malicious direction of some people and that it is baseless. He also denied similar suggestions about the statements contained in Exhibit 8 and 15.

The witness was then asked about the contents of the book “Juddhey’r Araley Juddho” (Exhibit-19), by Professor Abu Sayeed, and the whereabouts of the author. The Defense noted that the author was a Minister during the last Awami regime and often participates in various television talk shows, yet has not been called as a Prosecution witness. They further highlighted that on page 162 the name of the accused is named as the Al-Badr Chief Organiser, but the area under his leadership is not specified. The book also states that Ashraf Hossain was the organiser in Mymensingh. The Defense alleged that the Investigating Officer did not investigate where the author collected the information contained in his book.

The Defense then addressed documentary evidence contained in Volume-2 of the Investigation Report. Specifically they noted that pages 433, 558, 584, 632, 657, 662, 673, 674, 684 and 771 contain the names of many people including the name of Mr Kamran but does not contain the name of the accused Kamaruzzaman. Additionally the Defense noted that pages 1144-1159 of Volume-3, as well as sections of Volumes 4-7, contain details of many atrocities but do not implicate the accused. The Defense also stated that the alleged copy of Kamaruzzaman’s Al-Badr ID Card, enclosed in the 6th Volume, does not also contain his signature. The accused’s name is also not mentioned on page 2710 of the 8th Volume which contains a newspaper report on Jamalpur Al-Badr and Al-Badr’s activities.

The Defense noted that two cases were filed against the accused outside of the ICT: Case No. 60 of 25 January 2008 in Pallabi Police Station and Case No. 34 of 31 December 2007 in Keraniganj Police Station. The Defense asked why the Investigating Officer did not meet the informants and witnesses from those cases and why he made no inquery into the contents of the First Information Report (FIR) from those cases. The witness replied that he had not done so because he was not in charge of investigation of those cases. (The Defense was prevented from seeing the Case Diary in the hands of the Investigation Officer. However, the same was given to the judges for inspection).

The IO denied the suggestions put forward by the Defense counsel that Kamaruzzaman was never the Chairman of Mymensingh Islami Chatra Shangha and stated that the involvement was not found in his investigation but came to his knowledge via a fax dated 20 January 2012 from the Police Super of Special Branch of Jamalpur district. He disagreed with the suggestion that the information of this fax was not dependable.

The witness said that his investigation revealed that the accused was the Al-Badr commander of Sherpur and that he finished his Secondary School Certificate in the year 1967 from JKM Institution. The witness acknowledged he did not know in which year the accused complete Class-10. Questions posed by the Defense showed that the Investigatin Officer did not visit the school of the accused and did not talk to any of his fellow students, teachers or members of staff. The Defense counsel then suggested that the witness’ findings about the accused becoming associated with Islami Chatra Shongho was baseless.

Finally, The Defense suggested that shahid  (martyr) Bodiuzzaman was in reality not a freedom fighter. The argued that Bdouzzaman trained liberation fighters and but died for a different reason (the same had been suggested to PW-6). The Investigating officer denied this but admitted that he did not talk to anyone who trained under Bodiuzzaman.

The cross-examination of the witness is scheduled to continue next week.