23 Jan 2012: Chowdhury charge framing

Privileged communication
Before the hearing on the charge-framing of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury started, Justice Nassim asked the Chief Prosecutor to come forward. He said, that 'in respect of Matiur Rahman Nizami’s matter the defence has submitted a petition to review the Tribunal’s decision in respect to ‘privileged communication’ as the Jail Authority did not allow them to consult their client more than 30 minutes. They Jail authority told them as per ‘Jail Code’ the time fixed for privileged communication is limited to 30 minutes. Do you have submission opposing that petition?'

Prosecutor Ziad-al-Malum came forward and tribunal chairman Justice Nassim asked him, “Do you want to submit anything opposing the petition?” Prosecutor Ziad-al-Malum replied, “Yes, my Lord. I want to draw your kind attention to some provisions of Jail Code in this regard.” Then he submitted as follows: “As per sections 682, 683 and 684 of Jail Code privileged communication can be made with an accused once in a week and duration should not be exceeding 1 hour.”

Tribunal Chairman Justice Nassimul Huq then stated, “We should increase the time because it is the privileged communication between client and his counsel. We were not aware that there is such limitation in the Jail Code. Thus, we need to amend the word ‘Jail Code’.”

There was no defence counsel for 5 alleged Jamat-e-Islami leaders present in the courtroom except Barrister Munshi Ahsan Kabir (who is the counsel for Ali Ahsan Mujahid) as the day was fixed for charge hearing of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury. However, Barrister Kabir came to the dais and wanted to submit something in this regard as defence counsel M Tajul Islam (who is dealing with the matter basically) was not present. The Tribunal permitted him and he submitted, “Previously your Lordship had allowed us 10 am to 5 pm for such privileged communication.”

Justice Nassimul Huq replied, “This time we shall not allow that much time, however, we shall increase it surely.”

In response Barrister Kabir submitted, “My Lord, the numbers of volumes of the documents are too big. I shall request you to mindful about the fact.”

Prosecutor Ziad-al-Malum then submitted, “My Lord, may we please know by which mechanism you are going to increase the time ignoring the Jail Code?”

Justice Nassimul Huq replied, “By the Order of the Tribunal.”

He made the following order:

“An application has been filed and we are revising the Order ‘subject to Jail Code’ on 21.01.2012. When the petitioner’s counsel went to Dhaka Central Jail to meet the accused petitioner, after half an hour elapsed, the Deputy Jailer did not allow the meeting to continue as per there is a prescribed duration for such privileged communication for such privileged meeting. Upon hearing the counsel, nobody appear for the petitioner, as such we are in the view that the Jail Authority has not done anything wrong denying the counsel to continue the conversation. This is an offence under International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973, it is a new law, as such counsels should be given sufficient time to consult the accused petitioner. We are in the view that they need more time. As such the earlier Order dated 12.01.2012 we are inclined to increase the time. Let the Jail Authority allow 2 of the learned counsels from 10 am to 1 pm on each dates – 28.01.2012 and 11.02.2012.”

Daily Sangram
Justice Nassim then asked whether there was a “Reporter of Daily Sangram, can you please stand up?” The reporter stood up and Justice Nassim said to him, “You had made a report yesterday that the prosecution did not put any page mark in the Golam Azam documents. You should not write everything in the newspaper. Mistakes happen, but that does not mean you can make anything as news.”

The reporter of Daily Sangram begged sincere apology before the Tribunal and thus the matter was resolved.

Salauddin Quader Chowdhury Charge framing
On 15 January, the prosecution presented its application for charge framing, along with a response by a tribunal appointed advocate. He has now appointed his own lawyers. The Tribunal Chairman Justice Nassimul Huq then called the next matter and the accused Salauddin Quader Chowdhury stood up and said:

“Mr. Chairman, I owe you an explanation. You complained on the last day hearing on my matter that I did not meet the lawyer appointed by the Tribunal. However, this was not true. The Jail Authority mistakenly informed Nassimi and he refused. It was not me. In last 13 months I have been transferred to 7 jails. I do not have any complaint about that as it is not barred by law. However, the Jail Authority is asking me to give (bribe) them BDT 3.5 lacs taka (350 thousands) from me to provide me necessary facilities. They also said to my family members that if they want to meet me then they have to give (bribe) them (Jail authority) BDT 10,000 taka each time. They have not given me cloth, saving kit or food. I am surviving on just biscuits for last 3 days! I am now saying same before your Lordship to give it to your knowledge.”

Justice Nassim asked him, “Why did they ask money from you? Did they give you any explanation?

The accused replied, “Yes, they said they need to give the money to the higher authority. Now, I am in your (Tribunal’s) custody and I understand by the term ‘higher authority’ is you (the Tribunal members).”

Justice Zaheer then suggested, “You just ask your counsel to make an application for ‘privileged communication’ and we shall pass order on that. Your family members do not need to give money (bribe) to anyone for meeting you.”

Tribunal Chairman Justice Nassimul Huq then asked the defence counsel to proceed with the charge hearing. There were some applications due to be heard at the Tribunal in respect of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury’s matter, and the chairman further explained, “You please start your charge hearing, we shall hear other applications afterwards. We shall hear everything today.”

At this point defence counsel Ahsanul Haq’s junior (associate) submitted that the volumes are too long and they could not finish reading out the charge and other documents yet. Justice Nassim did not accept it as a ground and asked the defence counsel to make his submission continuing from the submission of the State Defence Counsel M Bodiuzzaman. Defence counsel Ahsanul Haq came to the dais and then submitted in this way:

Today is the day for hearing application on discharge the matter. I shall submit the submission made by the state defence counsel in addition to my submission. My submission is the prosecution has messed up the entire case with that of the accused’s father who was the President and Speaker of the Pakistan. They claimed Good’s Hill was a torture where it was basically a ‘shelter home’ for the elite families of Chittagong. At the time of the incidents the accused petitioner was just 21 or 22 years of age. Goods Hill is his ancestral home where he was brought up with his 3 brothers.

Prosecutor Rana Das Gupta, Justice Kabir and others were the junior (associate) of my father. My house and prosecutor Mr. Rana’s house is very near to accused petitioner’s house. The entire allegation is full of falsehood. The accused petitioner has been elected in each and every parliamentary election since 1979 including the elections under care-taker government when the then Chittagong City Mayor ABM Mohiuddin’s deposit was forfeited. If he was that bad why would have the people elected him as a Member of the Parliament?

The accused petitioner is the eldest son of the Late AKM Fazlul Quader Chowdhury who fought for the Independence of Pakistan in 1947. When the father of the Pakistan nation Mohammad Ali Zinnah came to Dhaka after the Independence in 1947, he looked for accused petitioner’s father saying that, ‘where’s the naughty boy!’ He was one of the defence lawyers of Sheikh Muzibur Rahman in the Agartola Conspiracy case. The regional politicians did not like him because when he became the acting President of Pakistan, he took/transferred everything to Chittagong which includes transferring a university (University of Chittagong) from Comilla to Chittagong. Even Abul Monem Khan, the then Governor of East Pakistan did not like him because late Fazlul Quader Chawdhury supported the cause of East Pakistan. That is why he was sacked from the post of the Speaker of Pakistan and present cabinet member Rashed Khan Menon’s father replaced his post. General Ayub Khan took away his protocol and everything. In an occasion, when the accused petitioner’s father late Fazlul Quader Chawdhury was his way back to home, Pakistani army opened fire on his car. In Chittagong, peace committee was formed by late Farid Ahmed and Nobin Chowdhury of PDP (Pakistan Democratic Party).

Now let us come to the point of Goods Hill. There was EPR (the then East Pakistan Rifles, now Border Guard Bangladesh) and Pakistani Army everywhere. Prosecution claimed that the accused was a ‘self-proclaimed’ Brigadier. My Lord, he was just 22 years then and it was Pakistani Army, not a guerilla force like in Sierra Leonne or in Congo.

Further, it is evident from the book written by Nokul’s son that Nokul and Profulla of Kundeswari was the friend of late Fazlul Quader Chawdhury and all the elites took shelter in the Goods Hill including them that is why it was called as ‘shelter home’.

At that time, the West Pakistan Police was incorporated with the East Pakistan Police by the Order of Inspector General of Police (IGP) of Pakistan. They just checked/searched the cars and people for ensuring the security of the people in the Good Hill area. There was no army in the Goods Hill area.

Now your Lordship may ask- “where was he then in 1971?” or “what was he doing then?” For your kind information, it is my pleasure to let you know that he left Bangladesh for Karachi (capital of the then West Pakistan) in April, 1971 and stayed at Yousuf Ali’ house.

Further, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act came in force in 1973, before that the law under which such offences were tried was the Collaborator’s Ordinance 1972. I humbly ask your Lordship, what happened to those cases?

I shall also refer to articles 28A, 28B and 28C. My submission is - one cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence as per the Constitution of Bangladesh. Nokul’s case is pending before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court Bangladesh as stated in page 86.

At the this stage, the Tribunal members made some queries about that said Nokul Chandra’s case.

Justice Kabir: Is the matter disposed of or not?

Defence: No, My Lord.

Justice Zaheer: As per the witness statement submitted with the formal charge, the witness stated he does not know further. Have you made any enquiry on the status of that case?

Defence: Yes.

Justice Zaheer: Where is the report?

Defence: We have tried our level best to collect that. You know that involves great hassle. We shall submit that in due course.

Then the defence counsel Ahsanul Haq again continued his submission:

Late Fazlul Quader Chowdhury gave shelter to late Ataur Rahman Khan and his family, Nomeni Rakshit s/o Mridul Rakhsit- that is why accused petitioner is submitting that it was shelter home for the elite. Late Fazlul Quader Chowdhury, father of the accused, was great admirer of Netaji Shubash Chandra Bose. Why would he persecute the people of Hindu religion then? How has he become Member of the Parliament (MP) of six consecutive times? He is a MP at present.

Further, Mahatma Gandhi said, ‘If you quarrel with your past, you will lose your future.’ Now we need to move forward. Even Bangabondhu (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) also said, ‘Bengalis know how to forgive.’ When he (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) used to go to Chittagong, he never came back to Dhaka without having Shutki (dry fish) curry from the accused petitioner’s ancestral house.”

Justice Nassimul Huq clarified, “There were good relationship among the politicians in those days; it was not like relationship among the present politicians.”

Defence counsel Mr Ahsanul Haq added, “I have personally seen that our great leader (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) went to accused petitioner’s place to have lunch and dinner.”

However, Justice AKM Zaheer reminded the defence counsel Mr Haq, “Whatever the fact is prosecution submitted formal charge backed by evidence.”

Defence counsel Ahsanul Haq then continued his submission

“A bad guy can be elected once. However, it is impossible for a bad guy to be elected 6 times. Further, the 3rd son of late Fazlul Quader Chowdhury was at Chittagong Cadet College during the war of 1971; he was 1 year junior to me in the Cadet College. The college was open and class was going on then.

The accused petitioner was not a member of the peace committee, rajakar force or its auxiliary force. Even he was not the president, secretary or member of the student wing of Jamat-e-Islam. The history has been fabricated. It is basically an attempt to keep away the accused from the next parliamentary election.

It has been said that the accused petitioner was arrested with one and half mond (60 KGs) gold and BDT 7 lac (700 thousands) taka while he was fleeing to Burma (now Myanmar) after the liberation war. He humbly wants to know, ‘where are those seized gold and money? in whose custody?’ He was basically going to his eldest sister’s in-law’s place in a sampaan (one kind of boat popular in Chittagong region.

It is further stated in the formal charge that there was a grenade attack on the accused petitioner’s car and his driver died. In that case, crime against humanity was done against him.”

Justice AKM Zaheer asked, “Are you saying such incident did not happen?”

Defence cousel Mr Haq replied, “Yes, my Lord. The accused was in Pakistan at that time and then he went to London from there.”

Then he further submitted,

“The then Foreign Minister Dr. Kamal Hossain stated ‘in relation to 195 war prisoner the State Minister for Defence and Foreign Affairs that the Government of Bangladesh do not want to proceed.’ They were the main culprits and they got the indemnity. As per the International Law, abettors cannot be tried in the absence of the principle - it is the universally accepted legal maxim.

Now let us come to the grounds for dismissing the charge:

(a) He was no way connected with the allegation. He has become a victim for political gain;

(b) He is a MP and he is a renowned politician;

(c) He is the member of the Standing Committee of Bangladesh Nationalist Party;

(d) He was Political Advisor of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia;

(e) He has become MP from 2 seats- Raujan and Rangunia;

(f) He was not a member of Peace Committee or its auxiliary force;

(g) Goods Hill was his father’s residence and his father was the master of the house. It was no way under the control of the accused where his father was speaker and president of Pakistan. He was just living there with his parents and 3 brothers;

(h) No army was invited to set up their camp at Goods Hill. They did not listen to anyone. The army was withdrawn from the Goods Hill and they took over the Circuit House. The accused never been to Circuit house. Thus the allegations against him are false, motivated, fabricated and without any substance;

(i) Basically, he has been charged in this case to prolong his custody because he was arrested in another case;

(j) The law has been enacted in 1973 and lots of governments came to the power in the meantime including current ruling Awami League. Thus, there is an unreal delay in filling the case in 2010. No adequate reason has been explained for this undue delay. The son of Nokul Chandra wrote a book and he did not mention his name then. Now, suddenly they are saying the accused petitioner opened fire on them grabbing rifle from the army. Thus this case has been filed due to political reason. The case has no parentage. The undue delay in filing the case give a serious doubt about the motive of the case;

(k) Goods Hills was in the possession and control of the petitioner’s father, not of the petitioner.

Defence counsel Mr Ahsanul Haq further draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that in the formal charge the prosecution has mentioned 5 meetings where they mentioned the name of the Father of the Pakistan Nation Mohammad Ali Zinnah as just ‘Zinnah’; He said, 'it seems that Zinnah was there servant. They could not even put ‘Mr.’ before his name. He is one of the most renowned politicians of this sub-continent. And one of the meeting dates is stated as 1974 when he was not alive even.'

Justice AKM Zaheer and Tribunal Chaiman Justice Nassim agreed on the defence counsel point and they scolded the prosecution for not putting at least ‘Mr.’ before Mohammad Ali Zinnah’s name i.e. not showing proper respect to such a great leader.

The prosecution did not say anything on the ‘Mohammad Ali Zinnah’ issue. However, he explained that 1974 should be 1947; it was just typing mistake.

However, defence counsel Ahsanul Huq however responded by saying that is vitally important for a charge to have correct date. He further argued the video tape of the place of incidents has been captured recently, whereas, there has been a drastic change in the the area, e.g. trees have grown bigger. Thus it cannot be considered as the video of that area. Further, in the formal charge the prosecution has been mentioned that the torture cell was in the 1st floor of the garage. However, there is no stairs in the garage.

Justice AKM Zaheer then argued, “May be it has been changed over 40 years as you have claimed.”

The Tribunal Chairman Justice Nassimul Huq adjourned the hearing until 2 pm.

The afternoon session started without any prosecutor present. Adv. Ahsanul Hoq continued with his submission on behalf of his client Mr. Salahuddin Kader Chowdhury.

The submitted news articles in this tribunal are merely news. They are basically views. They are biased and have hardly any fact or proof. Let me quote Shakespeare here. Shakespeare once quipped that, there is a beginning and an ending but nothing in the middle. I think the great poet used this definition to describe a perfect comedy. This definition can also be used in this case. There were allegations and newspaper articles in 1971 and 2010. All articles were published in a certain newspaper at a time which seems peculiar. There wasn’t single news against my client prior to 2010 after the liberation. What happened in the middle?

All these articles in the advent of this tribunal! That’s quite astonishing. There are two popular newspapers in Chittagong. They are Daily Purbokon and Daily Azadi. Every article enclosed in the charge sheet are from Daily Azadi. There is not a single report published in the Daily purbokon. The editor of the Daily Azadi is a neighbor of my client and he has some land dispute with my client.

We can infer the situation and the intention of publishing these sorts of articles by using simple common sense. These articles were published to humiliate my client.

Justice Chairman: We will see to it when the charges will be finalized.

Defense: My lord, the prosecution put a lot of rubbish in name of a formal charge. However, this case will go on. There are some points in the formal charge sheet. I am not going to say that, there isn’t any case. Prosecution has to prove that their charges are correct and they also have witnesses. The basis of defense counsel depends on the charges placed by the prosecution. Suppose, there is a case filed under the weapons act. Someone finds arms under the bed. The prosecution placed the charge against my client because it is his house.

Justice Zaheer: Well then take the arms to the stable.

Defense: The witness will do that, my lord. A witness will say that, he has seen it. Due to this account, there will be another case. That will be State vs. Cow. As far we can see the prosecution has given account of 8 cases. If we are here to have a fair trial then the prosecution must provide every document they have seized from my clients house to the tribunal.

Their problem is basically that they always think as a defense counsel. Take Adv. Rana Dasgupta; he is a family friend and was like foster son to my father. He never worked as a prosecutor while I was a prosecutor. I can read his strategy whereas he doesn’t understand mine. I can understand who wrote the drafts. 

The collaborator act is now revived by the 15th amendment. However, which act [the 1973 Act or the Collaborators Act] is going to suppress the other is the basic question. The 1973 Act and collaborator acts are restraining one another. No one is going to do anything about the 1973 Act. Furthermore, they will use it as a political tool like the current government. There are tribunals legally existing under collaborator act. The cases from Supreme Court cannot be shifted here owing to the status of this court.

Justice Zaheer: There is no way to transfer a case into this tribunal from the Supreme Court.

Defense: There is not any rule in ICTB for that.

Justice Zaheer: Then we must make an enquiry.

Defence: All those tribunals are practically dead.

Justice Chairman: Are they in hibernation?

Defence: They exist legally but they don’t exist practically. Your lordship, this case is void. Why now the government is taking actions? They were in power twice before. They didn’t have done a thing. Why now?

There wasn’t a general diary between 1971 and 2010. However, the police started their investigation suddenly and filed the charges.

My lord, we have filed an application to the tribunal for proper time to prepare the case. Moreover, we need to go to the described localities to prepare our stand. In addition, we need police protection to avoid any type of misunderstanding.

Justice Chairman: If the charges framed, you will be given fair chance. Mr. Hoq, are you satisfied with your submission?

Justice Zaheer: You have given a wonderful submission. We are speechless. Submit your documents and other things as soon as possible.

Defence: I will obey the tribunal wholeheartedly.

At this moment Prosecutor Ziad Al Maloom stands before the tribunal to reply the defense.

My lord, I won’t be taking long. My learned friend Mr. Hoq has raised two questions. They are respectively; question of authority and the aspect of reviving the collaborator act after the 15th amendment. It is true that there are 178 collaborator tribunals under the guidance of Supreme Court but they don’t exist in reality. However, they legally existed. The history of constitutional journey of Bangladesh shows us about the importance of 1st Amendment despite the special act on Collaborators. My lord, under structural procedure, ICTB, 2010 is a part of our constitution. Hence, this case against the accused Mr. SaKa Chowdhury is under the jurisdiction of this tribunal.

Justice Zaheer: Mr. Prosecutor, the accused urged this tribunal to render his full name. You need to do that.

Prosecution: My lord, He calls me Haloom!.

Prosecutor then continued:

Article 35 also points that out to us. There were and will be always talking about the capacity and other things in national and international press. It was in Nuremberg, Tokyo or in Cambodia. Upon hearing from my learned defense counsel, there isn’t sufficient ground to presume that it shall discharge the accused. The accused have committed offense. We will prove that, through our formal charges and statements. It is apparently a case and these charges are according to rules.

My lord, I would raise the final and most important point in my speech. The defense has taken the jurisprudence alibi. If they plea for an alibi then they have to prove it. It’s their job to prove that alibi in this tribunal.

Justice Chairman: Leave that alibi issue.

Justice Zaheer: Defense has brought up this alibi issue.

Prosecution: if they brought up the plea of alibi. This means that, there is a case.

Prosecution: We can show the tribunal about extortions and genocide. There are three charges. We have witnesses. We have already submitted the documents on these charges in page 98, 99 and 100. The tribunal will certainly be satisfied.

Justice Zaheer: Where is Sobhan? Is he dead or alive?

Chairman: Sobhan from page 17.

Justice Zaheer: Is he a witness or not?

Chairman: you have submitted a lot of documentation against Sobhan but nothing against Mr. Chowdhury. Where is Sobhan? If Sobhan is alive then what is Mr. Chowdhury doing here?

Prosecution: The accused and Sobhan collaborated with the occupied forces and helped them to burn the village named Andharmanik. They talked about destroying the house of Anindya Sarkar and converting them. After hearing this, the people of that household ran away and hid in India. The accused and his father were involved in 7 extortions and let one free from their custody. Sobhan did all this under the instruction of the accused. He has done 5 criminal offences under the instruction of the accused.

Chairman: if Sobhan is alive then he must be the accused in this case, where is he?

Prosecution: We have the time and scope to prove Mr. Chowdhury as the mastermind of this crime in this court.

Chairman: Mr. Prosecutor if Sobhan is alive then you has already weakened the case.

Prosecution: We are working on Sobhan’s whereabouts.

Justice Zaheer: I have told you earlier that, you need to find Sobhan. Mr. Chowdhury was not anyhere near the incident.

Prosecution: We have presented documents regarding Dr. Makhan Lal Saha and killings of other Hindus in Raujan at 13/04/1971 in page 19 and 20.

Chairman: It is there.

Prosecution: we have scrutinized 25 cases out of 32. We are trying to help and satisfy the tribunal.

SQC shouted in the tribunal about those charges were not in the list because the prosecution fears him.

Justice Zaheer: Then you place this?

Prosecution: My lord, the idea of placing this sort of charge sheets in these cases are new in our country while we are confident that these 25 cases are confirmed enough to make charge sheets.

Justice Kabir: you still haven’t clarified about Abdus Sobhan.

Justice Zaheer: Even the first one is not properly done!

Prosecution: My lord, your statement will send a wrong message to the journalists.

Chairman: Everyone is doing his best in the tribunal. I think the journalists are doing their job with excellence.

Justice Zaheer: Don’t be afraid of the journalists.

Prosecution: A lot of newspapers are not writing the truth. They are publishing fabricated news.

Chairman: Maybe one or two are writing those articles.

Justice Zaheer: The tribunal is open for all. The journalists should write what they observe here. What about Oli Ahmed of Peace Committee from charge 14?

Prosecution: We will be prepared to meet up all your queries.

Justice Zaheer: There was a murder case under the collaborators act. Maybe, the Notun Kundu case but same case cannot be proceeding in two different courts. If those tribunals revived then it will be very complicated about the fate of that case.

Prosecution: There are seven IF’s in this case. The government has already withdrawn the cases but there is some technical issues regarding this.

Justice Zaheer: If the Notun Kundu case is still pending in the Supreme Court then how this court can proceed on this case?

Prosecution: My lord, what about this applications?

Justice Zaheer: What about them?

Prosecution: The prosecution thinks that, the application of the interviews submitted by defense is not in option. According to the petition…

Chairman: We won’t be checking all those paragraphs. The defense wants to interview and we will look into it.

Prosecution: They should follow the Jail code. There are 26 acts and 66 rules. The tribunal has some limitations in this case too. The same limitation is applicable for the prosecution and the defense.

Justice Zaheer: The defense wanted to secure themselves from being accused of intimidating them

Prosecution: My lord, there is nothing written in the rules.

Defence: My lord, the prosecution took the help of Police and RAB in its investigations. We should be given the same power through the tribunal. The tribunal should write new law.

Chairman: Defense, can you give us specific dates?

Defence: My lord, I will provide the date later.

Chairman: Well, I am giving the order regarding this issue. Submit the date in two days.

Defence: My lord, if the tribunal informs those police stations then it will be easier.

Chairman then passed an order:

An application of four lawyers was placed in the court by the defense counsel about consulting the accused in the jail. It will be privileged to the defense as we have already done in some other cases. Let the jail be directed to allow two counsels from a list of three to meet the accused in jail on 28th January which is Saturday. This consultation is permitted between 10 and 1 in the morning. Then the counsel raised before us about the permission on visiting three police stations namely Raujan, Rangunia and Goalkhali. We direct the O.Cs of those stations to cooperate the counsels. There will be two counsels with three extra men will be permitted to conduct the interviews. In case of any emergency, the police will take other measures.

Defence: We will be two people to do these interviews.

Chairman: The hearing of this charge matters will be in the court on 4th February. Defense, do you have any problem?

Defence: No, My lord.

Chairman: The framing of the charges will be discussed in 13/02/2012. Moreover, the left two charges will be held on the same day.

The tribunal was adjourned for the rest of the day.