Tag Archives: Gholam Azam

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 →

11 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Closing Arguments, Mubarak Hossain Pre-Trial Proceedings

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Gholam Azam: Defense Closing Arguments (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Mubarak Hossain: Pre-Trial Proceedings, Cognizance of Charges to be Announced Tomorrow (Accused Not Present)

On March 11, 2013 Defense counsel Mizanul Islam continued the Closing Arguments for the 2nd consecutive day. He submitted arguments regarding Prosecution witnesses 16 and 1. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the Gholam Azam’s case until tomorrow, 12 March 2013.

The case against Mubarak Hossain was listed in the Cause List as being scheduled for Cognizance. The Chairman of Tribunal 1 asked the Prosecution to provide the Formal Charge, list of witnesses and other relevant documents to Mubarak Hossain’s Defense counsel, as the Prosecution admitted that they have not yet served the documents to the Defense. Prosecutor Haider Ali drew the Tribunal’s attention to the Cause List where the case was listed as a miscellaneous case instead of a separate case. Thereafter the Tribunal decided to give its order tomorrow (12 March 2013) regarding the Tribunal’s cognizance of the charges.

Continue reading →

10 March 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Closing Arguments

Today’s proceedings began with a Defense application for a week long adjournment. Senior Defense counsel, Mizanul Islam, cited the death of his mother in-law and travel schedule as reason, stating that he was not prepared to begin Defense Closing Arguments. The Tribunal rejected the application and required that Defense Counsel Mizanul Islam begin the summing up. The Defense began their Closing Arguments and continued until 11:45am. At that time they again sought adjournment and Tribunal allowed the prayer, adjourning the case until tomorrow, 11 March 2013.

Continue reading →

7 March 2013: ICT 1 and 2 Daily Summary – Brief Summary due to Hartal

A Hartal was announced for today, 7 March 2013. Due to security concerns 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

7 March 2013
Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
A Junior Defense counsel for Gholam Azam sought adjournment. Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum objected to the request and requested that the Tribunal fix the date for pronouncing the verdict without continuing with the Defense’s Closing Arguments. The Tribunal accepted the Defense’s request and adjourned the Gholam Azam case until March 10, 2013.

TRIBUNAL 2

7 March 2013
[We are compiling Tribunal 2’s Summary and will post it here as soon as it is complete.]

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]