Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:
- Contempt Proceedings Against M K Anwar, Jamaat Party Leaders (Accused Not Present)
- Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Adjourned
- 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.