Tag Archives: alibi

13 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard cases in the following matters:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today the Tribunal heard an application regarding documentary evidence from Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s Defense, as well as the sixth day of their Closing Arguments. Yesterday the Tribunal instructed the Defense to conclude their submission by today. However, the Defense failed to complete their arguments and requested additional time. The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow and asked Defense to sum up their submission tomorrow within an hour.       Continue reading

24 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 15, Chowdhury Defense Application and DW 4

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the Nizami case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 15, Aminul Islam Dablu.

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal had scheduled today as the deadline for producing Defense witnesses 4 and 5, Salman F Rahman and Shamim Hasnain. However, the Defense filed an application stating that they were facing difficulties in producing the witnesses and requested that the Tribunal allow another Defense witness, Abdul Momen Chowdhury, to testify in place of Salman F Rahman. The Prosecution opposed the application, noting Abdul Momen Chowdhury’s name did not appear in the original list of 1153 witnesses submitted by the Defense. They argued that section 9(5) of the ICT Act states that if the Defense intends to rely upon witnesses, the list of witnesses must be submitted before the Tribunal and the Prosecution at the commencement of the trial. The Prosecution additionally submitted that there is no scope under the ICT Act of 1973 or the Rules of Procedure to allow alternative witness. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal verbally granted the Defense’s application and asked the Defense if they would be able to produce the witness by 12 pm. The Defense agreed and the witness testified and was cross-examined by the Prosecution. After concluding the cross-examination, the Defense requested that the Tribunal allow them to produce Shamim Hasnain (on of the 5 DWs) on 28 July. However, the Tribunal passed an order and stated that the examination-in-chief of Defense witnesses has been concluded. They noted that they provided two additional opportunities for the Defense to produce the witness and that they did not now find any new ground for reconsideration. The Tribunal finally scheduled 28 July for the beginning of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments and 31 July for the beginning of the Defense Closing Arguments.  Continue reading

23 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Applications

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal was scheduled to hear the examination-in-chief of Defense Witness 4. However, the Defense filed two applications, one for adjournment in order to produce Defense witnesses 4 & 5, and another requesting the Tribunal to accept an affidavit from the mother of Shamim Hasnain (one of the 5 proposed Defense witnesses) into evidence.

The Defense submitted that Shamim Hasnain is willing to depose. Shamim Hasnain is a judge of the High Court and has requested leave from his institution to testify before the Tribunal. He and the Defense are awaiting for the Chief Justice’s approval. In light of the pending request, the Defense requested adjournment of the case until 28 July.

The Defense additionally informed the Tribunal that Salman F Rahman, one of the 5 proposed Defense witnesses, has fallen sick while traveling to Mecca. They submitted that he would be available after Ramadan to provide testimony before the Tribunal and requested that his testimony be scheduled accordingly. The Prosecution opposed the prayer saying that the application is being filed in order to delay the proceedings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order stating that the application for adjournment was is supported by any evidence and that the Tribuna would give a last chance for the production of the Defense witness by fixing 24 July as the deadline to produce Defense witnesses 4 and 5.

Regarding the second application, the Defense submitted that the mother of Shamim Hasnain has provided a worn affidavit regarding Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s alibi that he was in Pakistan in 1971. The Prosecution opposed the application saying that in this stage of Trial there is no scope to file any affidavit before the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides, Tribunal rejected the application stating that Shamim Hasnain is one of the proposed Defense witness and likely to depose before the Tribunal.

16 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury DW 3

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases: 

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
In the Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-Chief of Qayyum Reza Chowdhury, Defense Witness 3. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 17 July 2013. 

Examination-in-Chief
Qayyum Reza Chowdhury testified that he is a businessman and that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury is his cousin. He stated that he took admission in Saheen School in 1964 and met Sheikh Kamal (son of Bangabondhu) and Nizam Ahmed (DW-2) while there. Qayyum testified that Bangabondhu used to drop Sheikh Kamal and Nizam Ahmed with his car, number 3131, at the school. The witness said that he took admission at Notre Dame College after passing his SSC in 1966 from Saheen School. He further testified that Salman F Rahman, Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and Nizam Ahmed also took admission at Notre Dame College and that they became closer while studying there. Qayyum testified that while Salauddin was a student of Notre Dame, he (Salauddin) resided in Eskaton. Qayyum testified that subsequently they all took admission at Dhaka University and participated in the movement to free Bangabondhu who was accused of involvement in the Agortola Conspiracy Case. Qayyum testified that when Salauddin Qader Chowdhury took admission at Dhaka University, he (Salauddin) began living in Dhanmondi. The witness testified that when Asad was shot he, Salman F Rahman and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury were present very nearby behind a tree. Nizam was t,wo feet away from Asad and Khairul Bashar was near a riot van. Qayyum testified that when Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was a student of Dhaka University and resided at Dhanmondi political leaders frequently went to his house. Qayyum testified that he (Qayyum) was good in English and for that reason was assigned by Bangabondhu to work with his press secretary, Badsha in handling foreign journalists, translation and typing related works. Qayyum testified that Salaudin Qader Chowdhury was present at Race-course field with him during the historic speech of Bangabondhu on 7 March, 1971. Continue reading

9 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury DW 2

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Prosecution completed cross-examining Defense Witness 2, Nizam Ahmed. Thereafter, Defense sought three weeks time but Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 10 July 2013.

Cross-Examination of DW 2
The Prosecution completed their cross-examination of Defense witness 2, Nizam Ahmed. The Prosecution asked about the witness’ personal details, i.e. education, family, and home district. The Prosecution asked the witness whether he knew Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. The witness replied that he knew him as a political leader. The Prosecution asked the witness whether he knew that he (Fazlul Qader Chowdhury) was speaker, minster and acting President when then President Ayub Khan was absent.  Continue reading

4 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination as DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today the Prosecution completed their cross-examination of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Defense witness 1. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 8 July 2013.

Cross-Examination
During his examination-in-chief, Chowdhury claimed that he is Chittagonian by birth. The Prosecution stated that the he born to a Bengali Muslim family on 13 March 1949 in Bohira village under Rawjan police station. The witness denied, clarifying that he born in a Muslim family in the Chittagong town under Kotoali police station, not in a Bengali family. The Prosecution alleged that Chowdhury’s mother tongue is Bangla. He denied this as well, claiming that his first language is Chatgia, the local language of Chittagong. The Prosecution asked the witness whether this language has an alphabet which he affirmed.

During his examination-in-chief Chowdhury also claimed that Chittagong has never historically been part of Bengal. The Prosecution asked the witness about Resolution-7, dated 19 July 1905, from a book titled The Partition of Bengal, which they claimed showed that Chittagong was part of Bengal even in 1905. The resolution referred to a proposal to form a new province consisting of Chittagong, Dacca (now Dhaka), Rajsahi of Bengal and Malda, Hill Tipperah, Asam and Darjeeling . The Prosecution read out from the book and asked the witness whether these statements are written in this book. The witness answered yes. The Prosecution asked the witness whether he read the Indian Independence Act of 1947 and is aware of its content, to which he replied affirmatively. The Prosecution then claimed that Chittagong was clearly part of Bengal even before the birth of Chowdhury’s father and had no distinct identity as claimed by Chowdhury. They alleged that the Defendant is intentionally denying history and providing false information before the Tribunal. The witness denied the allegation and added that there is nothing in the Act stating that distinct identity must be recognized by Act. Continue reading

10 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal Coverage, Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor v.s Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. Our coverage is gathered from media sources and from discussions with the Defense and Prosecution. 

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued their cross-examination of Md Nurul Islam, the Investigation Officer, Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 11 June, 2013.

Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer, PW 41
The Defense asked the witness about Exhibit-32/3, a certified photocopy of the General  Register of a prior case filed regarding the incidents also alleged in this case.  The Defense claimed that charge sheet of that case did not contain the name of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury or Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. The Defense also asked the witness about Exhibit- 32/4 a case filed by Anil Boron Dor (PW-22). The Defense claimed that the witness did not investigate other persons accused in that case, though they were alleged to be responsible for the same incidents. Continue reading