Tag Archives: Nizami

4 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 10, Chowdhury PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Defense conducted the cross-examination of Tofazzal Hossain, Prosecution Witness 10, who testified in support of Charge no 15. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 5 June, 2013. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer, Md Nurul Islam (IO), Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
Cross Examination of PW 10
The Defense asked the witness about the location of his village and neighborhood. During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that Nizami was his classmate in Boalmari Madrassa. The Defense asked the witness about the witness’s education and when he was first admitted to Boalmari Madrassa. The witness answered that he entered in class one but could not remember the year. The witness further stated that in 1954 he passed Dakhil and in 1959 he passed Matriculation from Sathia Pailot School.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that he is a teacher by profession. The Defense asked the witness when he retired from Sathia Pailot School, and whether or not he applied for an extension of his service. The witness replied that he applied for extension.

The Defense claimed that the witness went to Mohammad Ali, the Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami and Principal of the Sathia Degree College, for a recommendation to extend his service, and that his application for extension was not granted. The witness admitted that his application to extend his tenure of service was not approved but denied that he went to Mohammad Ali for recommendation; he further added that Mohammad Ali was his student. The Defense asked the witness about a school, which was previously known as Imam Hossen Academy and now known as Upozilla Parishad Primary School. The Defense claimed that the witness is now the headmaster of this school. The witness replied that he is the acting headmaster of that school. Then, the Defense claimed that the witness took this post as acting headmaster just two years ago at the age of 72, although even with extension the retirement age for teachers is 65. The witness admitted that a teachers’ retirement age is 65 with extension, but denied that he took his job as acting headmaster at the age of 72. The Defense then asked him when he took the post as acting headmaster. The witness replied that he did so in October, 2012.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that Nizami was his classmate in Boalmari Madrassa. The Defense asked the witness when he saw Nizami in his class, and asked about how the witness or other classmates referred to Nizami, with the aim of verifying whether Nizami was actually the witness’s classmate. The witness answered that the classmates called Nizami by the name the name of Moti or Motiar, and that he himself called Nizami “mamu.” The witness added that he saw Nizami in his class when he was a student of Ebtedaye Chahram (class four), but could not say which year Nizami entered that Madrassa.

The Defense asked the witness numerous questions about the general election of 1970, about Moulana Ishaq, who was elected in that election, and about when he first heard the word Razakar with the aim of casting doubt on his testimony. The Defense asked the witness about different posts, such as Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the school, and how the witness collected his government allowance from the school after the school was closed in May 1971, with the aim of casting doubt on whether the witness was actually a teacher at Sathia Pailot High School in 1971. The witness answered that Amanullah, an assistant teacher of the school, would communicate with the witness every three months and provide him the government allowance on behalf of the school. Defense then asked the witness where he used to reside during the Liberation War. The witness answered that in the beginning of the war he lived in his village home, but that after that he resided in different places. The witness further testified that when he had received his government allowance, Amanullah would take his signature.

During examination-in-chief, the witness testified that the Razakar camp was inaugurated in the middle of May, 1971, and that he saw Nizami, Moulana Abdus Sobhan, Moulana Ishaq and some 100-150 Razakars there. The witness also testified during examination-in-chief that he learned from people who had attended that at a meeting at the camp, the participants decided to kill people who joined the Liberation War and to motivate the youth to join the Razakar force. The Defense asked the witness whether he had seen any government employee attend this meeting and from whom he heard about the decisions of the meeting. The witness answered that he did not see any government employee attend the meeting, and that he heard about the decisions of the meeting from Sayed Ali Khan, Muslem Uddin, Samad Pramanik and many others who attended The Defense asked the witness who, other than himself, is still alive from colleagues in 1971. The witness answered that other than himself, headmaster Khorshed Alam, and assistant teacher Abdul Hakim, he could not say specifically who is still alive.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified about the incident of 17 November, 1971. The Defense asked the witness numerous questions about the incident, including whether he was present when the freedom fighters attacked the Razakar camp located at Sathia Pailot School and what happen to the Razakars who were killed at that alleged incident. The witness answered that he was not present at the site, but came to the site after the incident and heard that the corpses were buried. The Defense then asked the witness whether he saw the spot where the corpses were buried. The witness answered that he did not. The Defense asked the witness whether he saw who had taken the detained Razakars. The witness replied that he heard that the freedom fighters’s commander Mukul took the detained Razakars to Sahjadpur by boat. The Defense asked the witness about Sattar Razakar. The witness answered that among the 14 detainees was Sattar Razakar, who was killed in Darirampur.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Cross Examination of PW 41
The Defense asked the witness numerous questions about the Accused’s political career, the number of times the Accused was elected as a Member of Parliament, where he was elected from, etc. The Defense claimed that when the Accused was a minister, he helped the people of the Hindu community by providing relief. The Defense claimed that one of the chief executives of the Accused is Hindu. The Defense asked the witness whether he knows how many people from the Rawzan, Boalkhali, Hathazari, Kotoali and Pachlaish areas left for India before 25 March 1971, and how many people remained in India after the war. The witness answered that he does not have any statistics regarding this. The Defense asked the witness about the family members of the Accused, including his father, mother, siblings, cousins, uncles, etc. The Defense claimed that except for the Accused’s father, Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, none of his family members were involved with the politics of the Convention Muslim League, and they were involved with the politics of the Awami League. The witness answered that he does not know. The Defense asked whether the witness asked cousins of the Accused, who are MPs of the Awami League, about the Accused and where he was in 1971. The witness answered that he interviewed them, but did not keep the interviews on record. The Defense asked whether the witness asked the family members of the Accused about where the Accused was in 1971. The witness answered that he did not.

The Defense asked the witness whether he received any documentary evidence showing that the Accused was a leader in 1971, or that the Accused gave any speeches against independence or against the Hindu community. The witness answered that he did not have any such documents. The Defense claimed that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury and the Accused were not members of the 104 members Peace Committee. The witness admitted that. The Defense claimed that there was only one Peace Committee in Chittagong, and that Mahmudum Nobi convened it. The witness denied the suggestion.

2 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary, Nizami PW 10, Mubarak Hossain PW 3

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases: 

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mubarak Hossain

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Tofazzal Hossain, Prosecution Witness 10. Thereafter, the Defense requested time to prepare for cross-examination, alleging that the Prosecution informed them about PW-10 just before the beginning of today’s proceedings (normally the Prosecution informs the Defense about the witness who is going to testify on the day before, so that Defense can prepare). The Tribunal allowed the prayer and adjourned the proceedings of the case until 4 June, 2013.

In the Mubarak Hossain case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Md Rafiqul Islam, Prosecution Witness 3, who testified in support of charge no 3. Thereafter, Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena conducted cross-examination. After the conclusion of the cross-examination, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 9 June, 2013. Continue reading →

27 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 9, Mubarak Hossain PW 2

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mubarak Hossain

In the case against Motiur Rahman Nizami , Defense counsel Mizanul Islam conducted cross-examination of Prosecution witness 9, Aynul Haque, who testified in support of Charge 2. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 2 June 2013.

In the case against Mubarak Hossain case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 2, Khodaza Begum. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow 28 May 2013. Continue reading →

26 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mir Qasem Ali Cognizance of Charges, Nizami PW 9, CHowdhury, PW 41,

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. The following summary has been compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and the Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Mir Qasem Ali
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury  

On 26 May 2013, the Tribunal took Cognizance of the charges against Mir Qasem Ali and fixed June 27 for hearing arguments for and against framing the order.

In the Nizami case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 9, Aynul Haque. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 27 May 2013.

In the Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 41, Investigation Officer Md Nurul Islam. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 28 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami
Md Aynul Haque, Prosecution witness 9, testified in support of charge no 2. The charge alleges that Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act, resulting in murders, rapes and deportation of victims as Crimes Against Humanity. He is  charged under section 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(g) read with Section 4(1), providing for accomplice liability and section 4(2), providing for command responsibility.  Continue reading →

21 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 8, Chowdhury PW 40, Mubarak Hossain PW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the Nizami case the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witness  8, Khalilur Rahman, who testified in support of Charge 6. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until 26 May 2013.

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Kawser Shaikh, Prosecution witness 40, who testified regarding documents collected by the Investigation Officer. Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena then conducted the cross-examination.

In the Mubarak Hossain case the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Darul Islam, Prosecution witness- 1, who had testified in support of Charges 1, 2 and 3. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until tomorrow, 22 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Cross-examination
The Defense asked Prosecution witness 8, Khalilur Rahman, about  Dhulaura village, its location, where the witness stayed before entering the village, the location where he allegedly found the corpses of those killed, the location of the banyan tree in which he hid, etc. These questions were aimed at undermining the witness’ version of events and casting doubt on the assertion that he was actually present during the commission of the alleged crimes. The Defense asked the witness whether he saw any Pakistani Army members before 27 November 1971. He answered that he had seen them in Dhaka, but could not remember when between 25 March and 16 December 1971 he visited Dhaka. The Defense asked what the intention was behind going to Dhulaura village. He answered that his group went in order to meet with the freedom fighters of the village. Specifically he named Nizam Uddin Chairman, but he could not identify the location of Nizam Uddin’s freedom fighters’ camp.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that at about 3:30 am he heard the sounds of the army approaching. He opened the window and saw Nizami, other Razakars and members of the Pakistani occupation forces coming towards the house. The Defense claimed that at 3:30 in the morning it would have been too dark to recognize anyone through the window, particularly given there was no electricity in the area. The witness answered that there was moonlight. The Defense asserted that this was impossible given it was after Eid-ul-Fiter and the moon set at 1:23 am. Additionally they noted that the weather at that time was foggy, further undermining the witness’ testimony.

The Defense claimed that his initial interview with the Investigation Officer the witness did not acknowledge that Mazed was alive, and that he did not claim that he saw Nizami with other Razakars and members of the Pakistani Army. The Defense also claimed that the Witness did not originally allege that he saw members of the Pakistani Army enter a house with two young women. Additionally they stated that the witness did not tell the Investigation Officer that he knew Nizami before the Liberation War or that Nizami’s house was just 1 kilometer away from the witness’ house. The witness denied these suggestions and claimed that he had stated all these things during his initial interview.  TheDefense asked the witness about books written by Zohirul Huq Bishu and Rezaul Karim and claimed that the witness read the books and used them for his testimony. The witness denied the suggestion.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury
Kawser Shaikh, the official book-sorter of the divisional government library, testified as Prosecution witness 40. He testified as to the contents of documents being entered into evidence on behalf of the Prosecution.

Examination-in-Chief
Kowser Shaikh, Prosecution witness 40, exhibited photocopies of two news reports published in the Daily Pakistan in 1970, nine news reports published in the Daily Ajadi in 1970 and 17 news reports published in the Daily Ajadi in 1971.

Cross-Examination
The Defense claimed that on 10 March 2011 when the newspaper cuttings were seized from the divisional government library the witness did not hold the post of ‘Assistant Librarian in Charge.’  The Witness admitted that he did not hold that title and added that he was the book sorter. The Defense claimed that all  the headings (heading, date, paper name) of the exhibited newspaper reports (Exhibit 37, 38/1 to 38/25) are computer composed and that the reports were scanned. The witness admitted that the headlines were generated via computer and the reports scanned. The Defense claimed that the editor of the Daily Ajadi newspaper ran against Fazlul Qader Chowdhury (father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury) in the election of 1970.

Chief Prosecutor vs Mubarak Hossain
Cross-Examination
The Defense claimed that Rina Begum filed Case No. 26 against Mubarak Hossain in the Akhaura police on 28 May 2007. They stated that the witness also testified against Mubarak Hossain in that case as Prosecution witness 4. The Defense noted that Mubarak was acquitted in that case. The witness denied giving any testimony against Mobarak Hossain. The Defense asked if the witness knew that in Mubarak Ali had been acquitted on appeal. The witness said he did not know anything about the case. The Defense also claimed that the witness, as a non-commission officer following the Pakistan Military Rules, cannot obtain leave more than three months at a time. Witness denied this suggestion.