Tag Archives: Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

23 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 28

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Prosecution and Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs SalauddinQader Chowdhury: Cross Examination of PW 28, Accused Present
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs MobarakHossain: Charge Framing Order, Accused Present

Today Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury concluded the cross-examinination of Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit.

The Tribunal also issued the official Charge Framing Order against Mobarak Hossain. They rejected the Defense’s request for acquittal and also rejected an application for bail. Mubarak Hossain submitted a plea of not guilty. The Tribunal scheduled the opening of the trial for 16 May 2013. Additionally the court requested that the Prosecution and Defense submit their proposed witness lists on 16 May as well.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Cross-examination of Prosecution Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit, was cross-examined by the Defense. His examination in-chief took place on the 22 April.

The Defense began by asking whether Poritosh or his brothers had filed a case before or after the Liberation War regarding the alleged killing of his father. Poritosh replied that he did not know if anyone he or anyone else had filed such a case at the Rawzan Police Station. He testified that the  Rawzan Police Station is about half a kilometer from his house. He could not say whether his father visited the Police Station before he was killed. He testified that after 25 March 1971 the Pakistani Army went to Rawzan but could not give an exact date.

The Defense then asked him questions about his job as a teacher at RABM high school. He testified that the head master of his school was Abdur Rashid. He stated that when he left the school in 1971  he did not submit the resignation letter or application for leave. He claimed that there were no students from Palit Para or Biswash Para in his school. He testified that his house was about 10 kilometers from the school. He stated that while he was a teacher he also worked as the house tutor for Abul Kashem Chowdhury’s son, Abu Bakar. He acknowledged that Abu Bakar is still living. He stated that he knew the neighbors and that he stayed ab Abul Kashem Chowdhury’s house for over a year. He testified that he did not inform anyone when he left Abul Kashem’s house in 1971.

The Defense asked Poritosh to describe the trip between the scene of the killing and where his family was hiding. He testified that along the road there were shops on both sides of the road, and the houses of wealthy and important people. He admitted that he did not attempt to tell anyone about the killing on his way back. However, he claimed that others were aware of the incident, though he could not say how people heard about it. Continue reading →

22 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination of Prosecution Witness 28

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit. The witness is the son of an alleged victim of the Accused.

Prosecution Examination-in-Chief
The witness first provided personal details about his education and where he lives.  He testified that in 1971 he was 27 years old and a teacher at the R.A.B.M High School in Rangunia, Chittagong. He testified that on 25 March 1971 there was widespread political unrest in the country and activists from the Muslim League in his area torched and looted houses of the Hindu community and additionally raped many women.

At the time his father worked writing GDs, Complaints and Diaries. Around 10 or 11 April 1971 his father decided that the family should seek shelter at Khetro Mohon Biswash’s home, which was 3 or 4 miles away from their house. The father remained at their home.

Poritosh testified that on 14 April 1971, after the death of the Principal of Kundashori, Notun Chandra Shing, he went to visit his father and asked him to leave the house and return to Biswash’s home with Poritosh. His father refused to leave. The witness testified that after that he saw Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, along with members of the Pakistani Army, come to the house. He testified that he hid himself in a bush and watched as  Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and Panjabi soldiers engaging in an altercation with his father. At one point the witness alleged that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury shouted to the soldiers “that person is dangerous, kill him!” Poritosh testified that after hearing this the Panjabi soldiers told his father to go into the house, but when he turned the soldiers shot him two times in the back. His father fell and the soldiers then covered him with two blankets which they covered with some sort of chemical powder and lit on fire. The witness stated that once the soldiers left to inform his family members about his father’s death. They later left the country for India because they felt unsafe. Continue reading →

21 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury –Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard both the direct and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 27, Dr. A.K.M Shafiullah. Shafiullah was first a medical student and later the Assistant Registrar at the Chittagong Medical College in 1971.

Prosecution’s Examination-in-Chief
The witness testified that he obtained his medical degree from Chittagong Medical College in 1970 and that he joined to Surgical Unit 1 of the Chittagong Medical College as an institutional trainee. He became a medical officer in the same ward in July of 1971, and in August was assigned to the post of Assistant Register. He testified that toward the end of September he received a call around 10pm that he was needed urgently at the hospital. He arrived at the ward within half an hour and found army, police and others there. He further testified that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, son of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, was seriously injured. According to his recollection Chowdhury was wounded in the leg and and received primary treatment at the hospital, staying 3 or 4 days. The witness said that he later heard that Salauddin was taken to Dhaka or outside of the country for better treatment. He stated that he had been interviewed by the Investigating Officer identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Defense’s Cross-Examination of Witness 27
The Defense began by questioning the witness about his personal details, including where he lived during his employment at the hospital and the location of his home district. They then asked him about his work at the hospital. Shafiullah testified that he is aware of the rules and regulations for the admission of an injured at the medical college hospital. He testified about the staff hierarchy at the hospital and identified the director in 1971 as Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel. He named the Principal, Head of Medicine and Head of Surgery in 1971. Continue reading →

Weekly Digest 10: March 24-28

We apologize for the delay in publishing this week’s digest.

The Tribunal was in recess on 26 March 2013 in honor of Bangladesh’s independence day. Additionally, opposition parties declared hartals on the 27th and 28th of March. Therefore our coverage of those days is gathered from media sources as well as discussions with the Defense and Prosecution. Our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days due to security concerns.

Tribunal 1:
Proceedings in Tribunal 1 continued to center on the Defense’s Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case this week, with counsel completing their submissions regarding factual issues and Charge 5. Senior Defense counsel Abdur Razzaq is scheduled to present arguments on legal issues and Charges 1-4 next week. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witnesses 22 and 23. Additionally, The Tribunal heard Chowdhury’s Defense application for police escort to the Tribunal on hartal days.

Tribunal 2:
Tribunal 2 dealt with two cases this week. In the Kamaruzzaman case, Defense witness 5 completed providing testimony, and the Prosecution began Closing Arguments. The Tribunal also heard testimony from Prosecution witness 17, the Investigating Officer, in the Mujahid case.

Please read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 10 – March 24-28

9 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witnesses 25 and 26

Due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. The following summary is compiled from media sources and Prosecution and Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The senior Defense Counsel for Chowdhury completed the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 25, Abu Taher Chowdhury, and Prosecution witness 26, Md Solaiman. See here for coverage of their examination-in-chief. Once the cross-examination was completed the Tribunal adjourned the case until 17 April 2013.

Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 25
The Defense questioned Abu Taher Chowdhury about personal details such as his schooling, national ID card, and memory of the location of the homes of UP Chairman Shamsu and Motaleb Chowdhury.  He was also asked about the victim, Saleh Uddin. He stated that in 1971 Saleh Uddin was a student of Chittagong University, but he did not know what year of studies the victim had completed at that time. The witness also could not say whether Saleh Uddin was a resident student at Alaol Hall of the Chittagong University or not.

The Defense asked Abu Taher about the political situation in 1971. He testified that he did not know whether the Muslim League was divided into three parts in 1971: the Kaiyum Muslim League, Council Muslim League and Convention Muslim League. He claimed that Shamsu Miah, Badsha Saudagar and Nurul Huda Qaderi Maizha Miah  were supporters of the Muslim League but did not know whether they supported the Kaiyum Muslim League in particular. The witness could not say whether Sultan Miah was the head of the Kaiyum Muslim League at that time. Continue reading →