Tag Archives: contempt

26 Feb 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against M K Anwar, Jamaat Party Leaders (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Adjourned
  3. 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.

Continue reading →

20 Feb 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Kamaruzzaman Limitation of Defense Witnesses and Cross-Examination of PW 18

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings: Jamaat Dhaka City Unit
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Limitation of Defense Witnesses, Cross-examination of Prosecution witness 18 (Accused Present)

Today counsel for Jamaat’s Assistant Secretary General of the Dhaka city unit and a Central Executive member of the party appeared and requested ten weeks additional time to allow the accused to appear in court to respond to the contempt charges against them. The judges stated that ten weeks adjournment is unacceptable and they saw no reason why the defendants could not present themselves before the court in compliance with the order. The court then fixed 26 February 2013 as the next date for the matter and stated that the two implicated leaders, Selim Uddin and Hamidur Rahman Azad, must personally appear in the court on that day. The Tribunal initiated contempt proceedings against the two Jamaat leaders by suo-moto order because of comments allegedly made during public engagement on 4th February, a day prior to Mollah’s judgment. Selim Uddin allegedly commented in public that the tribunal should not exist anymore, while Azad allegedly threatened the start of a civil war if the Tribunal delivered an unfavorable verdict.

The court then moved to the Kamaruzzaman case and passed its order pertaining to the Prosecution’s application under Rule 46A of the Rules of Procedure, read with Section 11(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, seeking to limit the number of defense witnesses to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceeding. The Tribunal granted the Prosecution’s request and limited the Defense to four witnesses. They stated that only four witnesses would be necessary to support the Defense’s plea of alibi. The Chairman of Tribunal-2 said the defense bears no other burden to prove or disprove the case. The Tribunal asked the defense counsel to provide the prosecution with the names of such witnesses in the earliest opportunity.

The Tribunal then continued hearing the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 18, the Investigating Officer Abdul Razzaq.

Continue reading →

Weekly Digest: Issue 4 – February 10-14, 2013

This week’s digest details the ongoing progress of the Gholam Azam, Nizami, and Chowdhury cases in Tribunal 1. The Tribunal also heard matters regarding the ongoing investigations against Abdus Shobhan and Mubarak Hossain. In the Gholam Azam case the Prosecution completed its cross-examination of Defense witness 1 and the Tribunal scheduled February 17th for Closing Arguments, despite requests from the Defense for more time to produce additional witnesses. In the Chowdhury case the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17 took place in-camera, and direct and cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses 19 and 20 was completed. The Nizami case experienced delays, as Defense counsel were unable to reach the Tribunal due to ongoing violence in the Palton neighborhood of Dhaka (where their offices are located).

Tribunal 2 heard the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer in the Kamaruzzaman case, who appeared in Court as Prosecution witness 18. In the  Mujahid case The Defense also cross-examined Prosecution witness 1. In the Abdul Alim the Defense cross-examined prosecution witness 10. The Tribunal additionally granted additional time to Home Minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir to respond to contempt proceedings against him.

Read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 4 – Feb 10-14

Weekly Digest: Issue 3 – February 3-7 2013

This week was dominated by the second Judgment of the ICT, issued by Tribunal 2 in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Qader Molla. The Judgment was issued on February 5th. The Accused was found guilty of 5 of 6 charges, all counts of crimes against humanity. Closing arguments in the case were completed on January 17, 2012. The Judgment was issued less than three weeks after the close of the case. Qader Molla was sentenced to life imprisonment. This report contains detailed analysis of the verdict and the factual and legal conclusions contained within it.

Tribunal 1 heard matters in the Gholam Azam, Nizami, and Chowdhury cases as well as a request from The Economist for additional time to respond to contempt proceedings related to its publication of the alleged Skype and email conversations between the former Chairman and expatriate Bangladeshi lawyer, Ahmed Ziauddin. In addition to issuing the Qader Molla Judgment, Tribunal 2 also dealt with ongoing contempt proceedings against Home Minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir and BNP leader MK Anwar, and issued an Order to Jamaat to explain comments made by its Central Executive member and Assistant Secretary General of Dhaka or face contempt.

Read the full weekly report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 3 – Feb 3-7

Weekly Digest Issue No. 2 January 27-31

This week’s proceedings were dominated by the completion of Closing Arguments in the Sayedee case, heard by Tribunal 1. The Defense presented legal arguments regarding delay in prosecution, malafide intent, the elements of the crimes, and the value of out-of-court statements admitted into evidence under Section 19(2) of the ICT Act. The Prosecution submitted its reply and requested the death penalty against the Accused. The case is now under review and awaiting the Tribunal’s judgment.

Tribunal 2 had a light week, primarily dealing with administrative and evidentiary applications. They additionally heard arguments in pending contempt proceedings.

Read the full report here: Weekly Digest Issue No. 2 – Jan 27-31