Category Archives: Trial of Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

3 January 2013: Tribunal 2 Daily Summary

Tribunal 2 heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Qader Molla -Defense petition for review of order dying permission to produce additional witnesses
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid – Cross examination of Prosecution Witness #11 [See here for more detail]
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman – application for retrial hearing [see here for more detail]
  • The Counsel for Defense made request for a later hearing date of the review application filed a for reconsideration of the tribunal’s decision denying the permission to produce additional defense witnesses. The request was immediately denied orally, along with the request for two hours of time for enabling the Senior Defense Counsel to appear. The Tribunal required the Counsel for Defense to make submissions instantaneously. The Tribunal rejected the review application reasoning that the ICT rules of procedure contain no provision allowing the defense to call additional witnesses and noting that only the prosecution may do so. The Tribunal further stated that the application was virtually identical to one rejected earlier, and that it must have been submitted in order to cause delay in the proceedings. The rejection was accompanied by a sanction of 10,000 BDT imposed on the Defense for submitting repetitive applications.
  • The court then moved to Mujahid’s case wherein the prosecution witness PW-11, Mr Foyez Uddin Ahmad, was cross examined by the defense counsel. 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 based on the coaching of the Prosecution, and that the witness neither knew the accused, nor was he capable of recognizing him.
  • Finally, the Court heard at length the application filed on behalf of Muhammad Kamaruzzam for the recall of the order by which the Tribunal took cognizance of the charges against him and for a full and complete retrial. The Defense argued that the perception of bias created by the leaked Skype and email conversations between the former ICT 1 Chairman and outside legal expert Dr. Ziauddin prejudiced the Accused’s right to fair trial and therefore necessitate a retrial. They supported these arguments with international legal precedents.  The court denied the application, firmly rejecting any such possibility of bias and condemning the content of Skype conversation. They stated that the statements in the Skype conversations were at all true, they reflected only on the former Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin. The Tribunal then passed  a suo moto order requiring Mr Ziaduddin, the Brussels based Bangladeshi international law expert, to explain, within 30 days from the receipt of this order, why contempt proceedings shall not be commence for his Skype conversations with the retired chairman of ICT-1 and the appearance that he was attempting to interfere with the independence of the tribunal. Prosecution witness PW-16 who was present expressed his inability to give testimony on that day due to his sudden illness.

3 Jan 2013: Cross-Examination of PW 11 in Mujahid Case

Chief of Prosecution vs. Mujahid
The Defense conducted the cross examination of Mr Foyez Uddin Ahmad, Prosecution Witness 11. The 82 year old witness had previously testified against Mujahid, providing testimony supporting  Charge 2 for abetting and substantially contributing to the actual commission of offense of persecution as crime against humanity and genocide. He stated that Mujahid was the leader of Islami Chatra Sangha and subsequently became the head of Al-Badar Bahini. The witness alleged that Mujahid, accompanied by one Hammad Moulana, 8-10 non-Bengalees, and a Mr. Ishaque went along with the Pakistani Army and launched an attack directed against Hindu populated villages such as Baidyadangi, Majhidangi, and Baladangi. The charge further alleges that they killed 50 to 60 Hindus by gun fire and by setting fire to their houses, and that they carried out these actions with the intent to persecute and destroy the Hindu Community.

The Defense focused its cross-examination on questions designed to challenge the reliability of the identification evidence and undermine the credibility of the witness, leading to an inference that he could not have identified the accused to be connected with the alleged charges because he did not know him during the liberation war.

  • The witness was asked during his cross-examination about his school, Yasin Muslim Hight School, Tepakhola (presently named as Government Yasin College) and about the Head Masters / Principals thereof during different regimes.
  • The Defense asked about the presence of Razakaars in the witness’ locality during the liberation war. He commented that his areas of Dicrichor, Chor Horiram and Gazirtech had none.
  • The witness was asked about the number of areas in Faridpur city named “Komlapur”and answered that there were three, namely, Komlapur, Kuthibari Komlapur and Chorkomlapur.
  • He was asked about the character of Mr Maolana Abdul Ali, the father of the accused, and testified to the affirmative in regard to his piousness, being an Imam and Islamic scholar, and that he was released upon the instruction of Bangabandhu  Sheikh Mujibur Rahman following the arrest in the post-liberation period.
  • He stated that he was not aware about the number of children Maolana Ali had, their education details and that he did not personally know the accused Mr Mujahid at all. He remembers seeing him only once, in the local Sadar Hospital, but admitted that he saw him only from the back side.

3 January 2013: Tribunal 2 Daily Summary

Cases heard during session:       
1. Qader Molla –  Hearing of Defense Application for Reconsideration of Denial of Right to Call Additional Witnesses
2. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid  – Cross-examination of Prosecution Witness #11
3. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman   – Hearing of Application for retrial

  • Qader Molla: Defense counsel requested a later hearing date for the review application filed earlier on behalf of Kader Mullah seeking reconsideration of the tribunal’s decision denying permission to produce additional defense witnesses. This request was immediately denied orally, along with a request for two hours of time to enable the Senior Counsel to appear. The Tribunal required the Defense to make its submissions instantaneously. The Tribunal then rejected the review application reasoning that the ICT rules of procedure contain no provision to allow additional witnesses. Only the Prosecution has the power to call additional witnesses. The Tribunal opined that the Defense’s application was the same as one that had been rejected earlier and that the Defense was attempting to cause delays in the proceeding. The rejection was accompanied by a sanction of 10,000 BDT imposed on the Defense for submitting repetitive applications.
  • Mujahid:  Prosecution witness PW-11, Mr Foyez Uddin Ahmad was cross examined by the defense counsel, whose core line of questioning was aimed at attacking the reliability and credibility of the witness’s testimony, suggesting that the testimony is fabricated upon the coaching by the Prosecution and that he neither knew the accused, nor was he capable of recognizing him.
  • Kamaruzzaman: The Court heard at length the application filed on behalf of Muhammad Kamaruzzam to recall the order taking cognizance of charges against him and for a full and complete retrial. The argument for retrial was based on the allegation that the Tribunal has the appearance of being biased due to the leak of the Skype and email conversations between the former Chairman of Tribunal 1 and an outside legal scholar, Dr. Ziauddin of Brussels. The Defense supported their argument that the appearance of bias is grounds for retrial by relying on international precedent.  The court denied the application and firmly stated that there was no such possibility of biasness. The Tribunal further condemned the content of the Skype and email conversations and passed an order suo moto  requiring Dr. Ziaduddin to explain, within 30 days from the receipt of this order, why contempt proceedings shall not be brought against him for his Skype conversations with the former chairman of ICT-1.  Prosecution witness PW-16 who was present expressed his inability to give testimony on that day due to his sudden illness.