Tag Archives: contempt

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

 

21 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings against Jamaat Leaders, Adjournment for Kamaruzzaman

21 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. Selim Uddin and Other Jamaat Leaders
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman

Prosecutor Mohammad Ali started the day’s submission expressing his deep sadness at the death of President Zillur Rahman, the Honorable President of Bangladesh. Stating that the country mourns at his departure, the prosecutor proposed that the court observes two minutes of silence in his honor. In response, the judges expressed their sadness and commented that all present in the courtroom mourn with the nation. However, they said that as an independent entity of the judiciary, it is not possible for them to observe the silence without some steps or instruction coming from the Honorable Chief Justice.

The court then called the contempt proceedings against Mr Selim Uddin and other Jamaat party leaders. Defense counsel for the politicians had filed applications Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam requesting the court to dispense of the requirement that they appear in person. The counsel submitted that all of them have highest regards for the court and is not being able to comply with the court’s order solely by reason of security issues. The court rejected the applications stating that the two Jamaat leaders who have not yet appeared are now fugitives and such submission will not dispense with the requirement of personal appearance. The Tribunal fixed the next hearing for 10 April 2013. 

Finally, the defense sought time to produce defense witness in Kamaruzzaman’s case claiming that the witness could not appear due to illness. The court fixed Sunday 24 March 2013 as the next date for hearing the witness. The Tribunal stated that if the Defense again fails to produce their witness they will begin hearing closing arguments.

10 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings against Jamaat leader, MK Anwar; Kamaruzzaman Examnation of DW 1 and 2

10 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings against Jamaat leader Selim Uddin (Present), Daily Shongram (warning made to present journalist), and MK Anwar (Not Present),
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid : Order of three applications and examination of prosecution witnesses  (Accused Not Present)
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Cross-Examination of Defense witness 1, Direct and Cross-Examination of Cross-Examination Defense Witness 2 (Accused Present)
  4. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim : Adjourned Due to Illness of Prosecution Witness

Today the Tribunal dealt with ongoing contempt proceedings against Jamaat leaders, MK the Daily Shongram, and MK Anwar. In the Mujahid case the Tribunal disposed of three Defense applications and then heard the direct examination of Prosecution witnesses 14, 15 and 16, all of whom are expert witnesses regarding documentary and historical evidence. In the Kamaruzzaman case the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Defense witness 1, and both direct and cross-examination of Defense witness 2. Finally, in the case of Abdul Alim the Tribunal allowed an adjournment due to the illness of the Prosecution witness scheduled to testify.

Continue reading →

6 March 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings Against Jamaat Leaders, Kamaruzzaman DW 1

6 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt, Kamaruzzaman Examination of DW 1
Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings: Jamaat leadership – Selim Uddin and others (Accused not present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman : Examination of DW 1

Defense counsel for the Jamaat leaders Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam said they were unable to produce their clients before the tribunal and that they that they had not been able to communicate to their clients the tribunal’s order requiring their attendance. Upon being asked by the tribunal about what may be done, the learned counsels said that they have no option but to surrender their vokalatnama, (the power as appointed advocates of the opposite parties) as it is not possible for them to continue representing the three Jamaat leaders. The tribunal asked the counsels to submit a written application to this effect and accepted their prayer of withdrawal as appointed advocates. Prosecutor Mr Rana Das Gupta submitted that an arrest warrant against the absent leaders should be issued by the Tribunal. He further stated that the opposition parties are intentionally disregarding the Tribunal’s order, showing their disrespect and lack of confidence in the institution.  The Tribunal thenissued an arrest warrant against the three leaders under Rule 46A of the Rules of Procedure read with Section 22 of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. They noted that the court had granted time to the leaders on four previous occasions, repeatedly asking for their presence, but with no response. The Tribunal directed the Inspector General of Police to take necessary steps to secure the arrest of the Jamaat trio on or before 21 March 2013.

The Tribunal then moved on to the case against Muhammad Kamaruzzaman. The Defense called its first witness, Md. Arshed Ali, the son of a martyr Ekabbor Ali. After being examined by Defense counsel the Prosecution started its cross-examination. In his testimony Ali described how his father and many others were killed by the Pakistani Army on 10th Srabon of the Bangla calendar during the 1971 Liberation War in Shohagpur, Benupara and Kakorkandi area of Sherpur.   Cross-examination is scheduled to continue on 7 March 2013.

Courtroom Dynamics
During the examination-in-chief of the defense witness, there was an intense argument between Defense counsel Kafil and two of the Tribunal-2 judges: Justice Obaidul Hassan and Judge Shahinur Islam. The argument started when the Defense objected to Judge Shahinur Islam asking questions to the witness. The Defense reacted by saying that he should be allowed to question his witness without interruptions. The Chairman said that contempt proceedings under Section 11(4) of the 1973 Act could be taken against the Defense counsel for similar behavior in future. The Defense counsel at one point said that he would withdraw himself and not continue before the Tribunal. After moments of silence, the situation calmed down after the Defense counsel offered his apology and the judges said that the court is a place to maintain decorum. Questioning was then resumed without any further incident. 

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]