Tag Archives: Nizami

19 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Investigation of Abdus Sobhan, Nizami PW 16

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Investigation of Abdus Sobhan
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

Today in the pre-trial proceedings against Abdus Sobhan the Tribunal was scheduled to receive either a progress report of the investigation of the Prosecution’s proposed Formal Charge against the suspect. The Prosecution submitted a progress report. They also filed an application requesting permission to interrogate the suspect in the safe home. The Tribunal set 22 August 2013 for arguments on this application.

In the case of Motiur Rahman Nizami, the Tribunal recorded the testimony of Md Jane Alam, alias Janu, Prosecution witness 16. He testified in support of Charge no 7. The Defense conducted its cross-examination. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 25 August 2013.  Continue reading

27 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Prosecution Application for Additional Witnesses

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

Today Tribunal the Tribunal heard an application filed by the Prosecution in the Nizami case requesting additional witnesses be admitted under section 9(4) of the ICT Act 1973. The Prosecution argued that under section 19(1) of the ICT Act 1973 the Tribunal is not bound by technical rules of evidence and so there is no bar to allowing additional witnesses at this stage of the proceedings. They further argued that during the investigation material witnesses were found and requested that they be allowed to testify in the interest of justice.

The Defense opposed the Prosecution’s  application. They noted that the Prosecution specifically mentioned that the Investigation Officer was conducting further investigation for the purpose of collecting additional witnesses. Citing Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure, the Defense submitted that the investigation cannot continue for such an uncertain period of time. They asserted that the Prosecution applied for these additional witnesses because their case was insufficent. The Defense argued that the Prosecution did not even explain why they had failed to bring the witnesses from the previous list, a list containing more than 100 witnesses. They deemed the application to be demonstrative of malafide intent and submitted that if Tribunal allowed the additional witnesses at this stage of the trial it would hamper the Defense’s ability to prepare and thereby prejudice the Accused. They requested the Tribunal to reject the application.

After hearing both the sides Tribunal passed an order allowing five additional witnesses. The Prosecution then requested permission to call one of these witnesses to testify as he was present at the Tribunal. The Defense objected and the Tribunal questioned how the Prosecution had seen fit to bring the witness to the Tribunal when they could not have known how the Tribunal would rule on its application. The Defense requested an additional 10 days to prepare for the additional witnesses. The Prosecution opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no scope under law for giving such time. The Tribunal scheduled 29 August for recording the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 18 and 1 September for cross-examination.

26 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Cross-Examination of PW 17, Mobarak Hossain PW 8

Today in the Nizami case the Defense concluded it cross-examination of Jamal Uddin, Prosecution witness 17. Jamal Uddin testified in support of charges 2, 4 and 6. 

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Tribunal recorded the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 8, Abdus Samad, who testified in support of Charge 2. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 4 September 2013.

Continue reading

25 August 2013: ICT -1 Daily Summary: Nizami PW 17

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

Today the Tribunal recorded the testimony of Jamal Uddin, Prosecution witness 17, in the case against Motiur Rahman Nizami. Jamal Uddin testified in support of Charges 2, 4 and 6. The Defense Counsel began its cross-examination of the witness but did not complete it before the close of the day’s session.

Prosecution witness 17, Jamal Uddin, testified in support of charges 2, 4 and 6. Charge 2 alleges that Motiur Rahman Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the ICT Act 1973, resulting in murder, rape and deportation of victims as Crimes Against Humanity. He is accused of being liable as a party to a joint criminal enterprise under section 4(1), and due to his superior responsibility under section 4(2) of the Act. Under Charge 4 the Prosecution alleges that Motiur Rahman Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the ICT Act and was complicit in murder, rape, looting and destruction of properties as crimes against humanity in the village Karamja, He is therefore charged under section 3(2)(a), 3(2)(h), and 3(2)(g). The charges cite both section  4(1) and 4(2) as the relevant modes of liability. Charge 6 alleges that Motiur Rahman Nizami raided the homes of Dr. Abdul Awal and others in Dhulaura. Having detained a number of persons it is alleged that Nizami was involved in first handing over at least 30 persons to the Pakistani army to be killed and later killing an additionally 22 persons who initially escaped. He is charged under section 3(2)(a), with liability specified under sections 4(1) and 4(2).

Continue reading

24 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 15, Chowdhury Defense Application and DW 4

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

In the Nizami case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 15, Aminul Islam Dablu.

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal had scheduled today as the deadline for producing Defense witnesses 4 and 5, Salman F Rahman and Shamim Hasnain. However, the Defense filed an application stating that they were facing difficulties in producing the witnesses and requested that the Tribunal allow another Defense witness, Abdul Momen Chowdhury, to testify in place of Salman F Rahman. The Prosecution opposed the application, noting Abdul Momen Chowdhury’s name did not appear in the original list of 1153 witnesses submitted by the Defense. They argued that section 9(5) of the ICT Act states that if the Defense intends to rely upon witnesses, the list of witnesses must be submitted before the Tribunal and the Prosecution at the commencement of the trial. The Prosecution additionally submitted that there is no scope under the ICT Act of 1973 or the Rules of Procedure to allow alternative witness. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal verbally granted the Defense’s application and asked the Defense if they would be able to produce the witness by 12 pm. The Defense agreed and the witness testified and was cross-examined by the Prosecution. After concluding the cross-examination, the Defense requested that the Tribunal allow them to produce Shamim Hasnain (on of the 5 DWs) on 28 July. However, the Tribunal passed an order and stated that the examination-in-chief of Defense witnesses has been concluded. They noted that they provided two additional opportunities for the Defense to produce the witness and that they did not now find any new ground for reconsideration. The Tribunal finally scheduled 28 July for the beginning of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments and 31 July for the beginning of the Defense Closing Arguments.  Continue reading

21 July 2013 ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury DW 3 cross-examination; Nizami PW 14

Today the Tribunal hear matter in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Prosecution completed cross-examining Defense Witness 3, Qayyum Reza Chowdhury. The Tribunal also heard an application filed by Defense requesting the admission of 55 additional documents. Having heard both sides the Tribunal passed an order. The  Defense then verbally requested adjournment and Tribunal  set 23 July for examination-in-chief of Defense Witness 4.

In the Moborak Hossain case today was fixed for the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 6, Abdul Malek, who is to testify in support of charge 5. However, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 22 July 2013.

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 14, Abdus Salim Latif, who testified in support of charges 7 and 9. The Tribunal then adjourned the case until tomorrow, 22 July 2013. Continue reading

11 July 2013: ICT-1 Nizami PW 13 Cross-Examination

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

In the Nizami case the Defense Counsel concluded the cross-examination of Shamoli Nasrin Chowdhury, Prosecution Witness-13. She testified in support of Charge 16. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the case until 21 July 2013.

Cross-Examination of PW 13
The Defense continued their questioning, asking the witness about the case which was filed earlier regarding the killing of Alim and disposed of by a district court. They noted that Nizami was not an accused in that case. The Defense asked Shamoli who the complainant of that case was. She replied that she does not know. The witness admitted that she heard that all of the accused in that case were acquitted. The Defense asked the witness whether she testified in that case. She replied that she did not. The Defense then asked the witness whether she gave a statement to the Investigation Officer (IO) of that case. The witness replied that she was interviewed by the IO but could not say whether that constituted a statement or not. Then she stated that she wasn’t certain whether the person who interviewed her was the IO or not, but made it clear that the person came from the police station. The Defense claimed that the accused of that case was acquitted while Bangabondhu was President of Bangladesh, and that at that time there was no organization called Jamaat-e-Islami or Islami Chhatra Shangho. The witness admitted that. Defense asked the witness whether there was any appeal against the decision of that case. The witness replied that she did not file any appeal as they she was not a Party in that case. Defense asked the witness whether she searched for the reason behind the acquittal of the accused and whether she knew Zahir Uddin Jalal, one of the witnesses of that case. The witness replied that she did not. Continue reading