Tag Archives: Chowdhury

Weekly Digest Issue 7: 3-7 March

This week’s Weekly Digest follows Tribunal 1’s progress in the Gholam Azam case where the Defense continued its Closing Arguments. Additionally, the report contains a summary of witness testimony in the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case. The Tribunal also formally took cognizance of the charges against Mubarak Hossain and ordered that he be detained in jail this week.

Turning to Tribunal 2, the report details developments in the Mujahid, Kamaruzzaman, and Alim cases and additionally addressed several ongoing contempt proceedings. In the Mujahid case the Tribunal disposed of three Defense applications and heard the direct examination of Prosecution witnesses 14, 15 and 16. In Kamaruzzaman the Tribunal heard testimony from Defense witnesses 1, 2 and 3. In the case of Abdul Alim they heard testimony from Prosecution witness 12. Finally the court dealt with ongoing contempt proceedings against Jamaat leaders, the Daily Shongram, and MK Anwar.

Please read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 7 – March 3-7

24 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments, Chowdhury Defense Application for Police Protection

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Closing arguments
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Defense Counsel Application for Police Protection to and from the Tribunal

Tajul Islam, Defense Counsel of Gholam Azam filed an application seeking permission to meet with his client Gholam Azam. Additionally, the Defense concluded the closing arguments on factual issues. Arguments continued for 5 days and addressed Prosecution and Defense witnesses as well as Charge 5. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings until 27 March 2013, when Abdur Razzaq is scheduled to present the Defense arguments on legal issues and Charges 1 to 4.

In the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, senior Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena, filed an application seeking police protection for coming to the Tribunal during days when hartals or other political unrest present security concerns. He requested that his car be accompanied by full time uniformed police gunman. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing of the petition for tomorrow and adjourned the proceedings until then.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam- Defense Closing Arguments
Prosecution Witness 16 – The Investigating Officer
The Defense read out different paragraphs from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Prosecution witness 16. Mizanul Islam submitted that during the cross-examination the witness was asked whether Gholam Azam had a direct connection with the local Peace Committee but was only able to refer to Exhibit-57, the Daily Pakistan dated 16 April 1971. The Defense noted that the contents of Exhibit-57 do not answer the question. The article discusses the formation of a 21 member executive committee within the Peace Committee and states its purpose as bringing back normalcy at the direction of the Central Peace Committee. On cross-examination the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not find any direction or order bearing the signature of Gholam Azam. The witness also admitted that there was no resolution which designated Gholam Azam the power to cancel or suspend any local level Peace Committee. The Defense noted that the Investigating Officer was unable to specify who had authority within the Peace Committee to issue directions or orders to the local level committees. The Investigating Officer claimed that directions and orders from the Central Peace Committee were communicated to the local level Peace Committees by newspapers, television and radio broadcast. He further testified that the local level Peace Committees were bound to follow the directions. However, the Defense noted that the witness had admitted that he did not know the broadcasting range of Dhaka television stations and acknowledged that due to poor communication there was often a delay in orders reaching newspapers in remote areas such as Taknaf and Tetulia. The witness also admitted that he had no evidence as to whether the Daily Shangram or the Daily Paigam was distributed in Patuakhali (a remote area). Continue reading →

21 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury and Sayedee Defense Applications

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Two Defense Applications
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Sayedee:  Case-in-Chief: Two Defense Applications

On 21 March 2013 the Tribunal passed an order rejecting the petition filed by Salauddin Quader Chowdhury under section 7 of the Members’ Privileges Act of 1965. Salauddin filed this petition when Parliament was in session seeking an adjournment of criminal proceedings at the Tribunal until seven days after the conclusion of the session of Parliament. The Tribunal stated that Section 7 of the Member Privileges Act should be read with section 8 of the same Act. They stated that section 8 of the Member Privileges Act will be applied in the present scenario as Chowdhury was arrested on criminal charges. The Tribunal further stated that Parliament currently is not in session and the petition has no merits and is therefore rejected.

On March 19, 2013 Salauddin Quader Chowdhury filed a petition seeking protection from defamatory harassment while in the custody. Chowdhury has been charged with committing sodomy against another inmate of the Kashimpur-1 jail where Chowdhury is being held. The alleged victim is evidently serving a 31 year sentence and was apparently delegated to serve Chowdhury who has special accommodations in jail. The charges were not brought by the alleged victim himself, but by the victim’s father. Chowdhury contests the charges and has stated that he believes them to be backed by parties with vested interests who seek to destroy him politically. In addition to protection from defamatory statements, Chowdhury requested that the Tribunal order an investigation into the allegations. The Tribunal disposed off the petition, stating that the matter was not related to the case and was a matter for the jail authorities. However, the Tribunal directed the jail authorities to take steps so that Salauddin Quader Chowdhury could assign the power of attorney to a representative for filing a suit in this regard.

In the Sayedee case the Tribunal heard arguments for the two Defense applications filed on 20 March 2013. The first requested bail for two cases filed in the Pirojpur Sadar Police Station Case No 9(8)09 and Zianagar Police Station Case No 4(9)09; the second requested certified or authenticated copies of the FIR, Charge Sheet, Statement of witnesses and other relevant documents related to these cases filed in Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and Zianogor Police Station. Mizanul Islam submitted that the two cases were transferred to the Investigation Agency of the ICT and the cases are still under investigation. He further submitted that there is no forum in which Sayedee can seek a legal remedy other than ICT. Therefore the Defense requested bail before this Tribunal. Prosecutor Haider Ali submitted that none of the documents related to these cases were exhibited in the ICT case against Sayedee. He further submitted that there is no connection between the ICT case and the cases filed in the Pirojpur Sadar Police Station (Case No 9(8)09) and Zianagar Police Station (Case No 4(9)09). Thereafter, Tribunal rejected both the Defense applications, stating that Tribunal has no authority to supply documents regarding these two cases.

The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings at about 11:35 due to the government’s declaration of a public holiday to mourn the death of the President of Bangladesh.

12 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary: Gholam Azam Defense Adjournment, Chowdhury PW 21, Mubarak Hossain Cognizance of Charges

12 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam –  Defense Closing Arguments
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury –  Testimony of PW 21
  3. Investigation of Mubarak Hossain – Cognizance of Charges

On March 12, 2013 a junior Defense counsel for Gholam Azam sought adjournment saying that senior Defense attorney Mizanul Islam could not attend due to the personal difficulties. The Tribunal accepted the Defense prayer and adjourned the proceedings of the Gholam Azam’s case until March 13. The charged the Defense taka 1,000 for the cost of the delay.

The Tribunal took cognizance of the formal charge against Mubarak Hossain and ordered him to be detained in jail, rejecting the Defense request for an extension of bail. The Tribunal fixed 4 April 2013 for the next date of hearing.

In the Chowdhury case Prosecution witness 21, Abul Bashar, testified before the Tribunal. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the Chowdhury case until 18 March 2013.

Continue reading →

3 – 4 March 2013: ICT 1 and 2 Daily Summary – Brief Summaries Due to Hartal

A three day hartal has been called in Bangladesh. For safety reasons our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days. We have compiled the following brief summary from media coverage and communication with the Defense and Prosecution.

TRIBUNAL 1 SUMMARY

3 March 2013
Investigation of Mir Quasem Ali

On March 3, 2013 Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon submitted the progress report of the Investigation of Mir Quasem Ali and sought two months time to submit the formal charge. The Tribunal fixed April 24 for the submission of the formal charge.

Quasem Ali was brought to the ICT but was not produced before the Tribunal during the hearing.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
The Defense sought adjournment on behalf of Gholam Azam. Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum opposed the petition. The Tribunal rejected the Defense petition and asked the Prosecution to continue their Closing Arguments. Thereafter the Prosecution submitted their the Closing Arguments for the 9th day.

4 March 2013:
Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury
March 4 was fixed for recording the testimony of Prosecution witness 21; however, Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum submitted that the Prosecution could not produce the witness today. Thereafter the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the Salauddin Quader Chowdhury’s case until 12 March 2013.

Salauddin Quader Chowdhury was brought to the ICT but was not produced before the Tribunal.

 Contempt Proceedings against the Economist
On December 6, 2012 Tribunal 1 issued a notice asking them the Economist to show cause why contempt charges should not be brought against South Asian bureau chief Adam Roberts and the chief editor of the London based weekly. The Tribunal accused them of interfering with the ongoing trial and violating the privacy of a judge in conjunction with the alleged Skype controversy. The Economist was initially asked to reply within three weeks. On 3 February 2013 the Tribunal fixed 4 March 2013 for the submission of the Economist’s reply. On 4 March 2013 Barrister Mustafizur Rahman submitted that he has not yet received the written reply from his clients and sought two weeks additional time to submit the reply. The Tribunal accepted his prayer and fixed 25 March 2013 for the next hearing.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
The Prosecution placed their arguments on legal points in the Gholam Azam case and completed their Closing Arguments. Thereafter, the Tribunal asked the Defense to begin their closing arguments, but no senior defence counsel was present at the Tribunal. A junior Defense counsel sought one week adjournment for preparation, however, the Tribunal fixed 7 March 2013 for Defence closing arguments.

TRIBUNAL 2 SUMMARY
[We are compiling a summary of events in Tribunal for this week and will post information once it is complete]