10 May 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 6

At the beginning, Justice Nizamul Huq stated that the application for the review petition concerning the admissibility of the statements of the 15 witnesses be heard on 15/5/2012.

Then the cross examination of the investigation officer, Mr Helal Uddin, continued carried out by the defence lawyer, Mizanul Islam (continuing form the previous day)

Defence: You have produced some reports of NBC News. Have the reports which have been previewed on the multimedia screen involves any incidents relating to any occurrence in 1971 that happened in Pirojpur District?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether there is anything in the following exhibit-VIII; which relates anything about the accused Delwar Hossain Sydee?

Witness: No.

Defence: This movie file contains incident happened in 19 districts of Bangladesh. Now tell us the names of the district?

Witness: The incidents have not been mentioned by District list.

Defence: You have not investigated or taken the interview of any of the family members of the victim whose name or interviews had been provided with the CD?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether there is any incident in Pirojpur district which has been mentioned in the CD? If it is so; mention the name of the place.

Witness: The incidents have not been mentioned by District list. The CD has described some incidents happened in the country.

Defence: This CD does not include the name of the accused in any manner.

Witness: Yes, there is no mentioning of the name.

Defence: Does the CD provide any names of perpetrators in any manner?

Witness: No.

Defence: Though there is no mentioning of the name of the accused here in the CD- which contains the reports of NBC Channel but after editing the pieces the CD and the reports have been produced in the Tribunal.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Whether the CBS News is a TV Channel, whose reports have been provided with the CD?

Witness: Yes. It is.

Defence: Have you tried to find out, from where the channel is located?

Witness: No. It is not on the record.

Defence: I hereby repeating the question- do you know the origin of the channel? You are replying- It has not been provided in the record. It is not my answer. Answer in a strait manner.

Justice Nizamul Huq: The sum of 3 and 2 is 5; after knowing the matter if in case you’d not like to reply and answer- “it is not there in my record.” That will not be an answer, Mr. Investigator.

Sahidur Rahman [Prosecutor]: He has already stated it is not been there in his record. The answer is implicit.

Justice Nizamul Huq: No. It is not the answer.

Defence: Okay. Mr. Investigator; whether you have tried to find out the origin of the channel?

Witness: It’s not been there in my record, so I know nothing about it.

Defence: The report was telecasted on 2/2/1972 in the CBS news.

Witness: I can’t remember.

Justice AKM Zaheer: You can take help of the Multimedia show of the following CD to make yourself remember the information.

[Multimedia Show of the News Clippings]

Witness: Yes is has been previewed on the aforesaid date. I’ve collected the file on the same manner as I did with the files of the NBC reports.

Defence: Do you know- who has affixed the reports of two television channels of two different reporters here in the same CD?

Witness: No.

Defence: Have you tried to investigate about the reports of CBS News or NBC News; whose reports have been provided with the exhibit- VIII.

Witness: No.

Defence: Have you tried to talk with the family members or acquaintances of the following reporters in any manner?

Witness: No.

Defence: This part of the reports of CBS News does not provide either any description of the incidents happened in Pirojpur in 1971 or provide any name of any perpetrators?

Witness: No. But it has provided some of the activities of the perpetrators.

Defence: Whether you have tried to investigate about find out the contact information about the perpetrators whose activities have been provided there in the reports.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Have you succeeded to determine any perpetrator who was involved in the atrocities?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether Mr. Saydee is involved with any of the reports of CBS News, which have been presented before the tribunal?

Witness: In the period of the liberation war in Bangladesh; there happened various kinds of crimes like crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes etc. Some of the incidents have been mentioned in the CD. Mr. Sayedee has committed same sorts of offences, I’ve investigated and presented the investigation report against him.

Defence: Who says Mr. Sayedee has committed same sorts of offences. My Lord, the investigator cannot say so without any proof.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Delete the last line. (Mr. Syedee has committed same sorts of offences, I’ve investigated and presented the investigation report against him.)

Shahidur Rahman [Prosecutor]: We’ve objection.

Justice Nizamul Huq: If you do have any objection; in that cases go for application.

Defence: The video footage of the CBS News report has been edited.

Witness: No.

Defence: You collected the CD from some authority; have you tried to make anyone of them a witness?

Witness: No.

Defence: Exhibit-IX is all about oath taking ceremony of Mujibnagar Government. It does not involve anything about crimes, does it?

Witness: Yes. There is no mentioning of Mr. Sayedee.

Justice AKM Zaheer: Mr. Investigator. Don’t take the risk. You may watch the video again.

[Multimedia show exhibit-IX—Oath taking ceremony of Mujibnagar Government.]

Witness: Yes. There is nothing mentioning Mr. Sayedee.

Defence: Whether the material exhibit-X is made by ATN Bangla.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: What is the starting date of the ATN Bangla Channel?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether ATN Bangla is the first private television channel in Bangladesh?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether the reports have been presented before the tribunal in a consecutive manner?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Do you know the date of the telecast?

Witness: I don’t know it actually.

Defence: Who was the script writer?

Witness: Rahul Raha and Rumi Noman.

Defence: Whether there are any interview of the victim and witness in the exhibit-X?

Witness: I have to check that out.

Defence: You have mentioned the caption of the image no-01 of the exhibit-05 as the seizure list?

Witness: Yes I did it but it has been mentioned underneath that. it is the burnt tin-shed of Manik Poshari’s house. The image is relating to the exhibit matter.

Defence: There is nothing but the signature of two witnesses under the image?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The caption of the image no- 5 (a, b, c) also contains the caption seizure list over the image.

Witness: It is also relating to the exhibit matter.

Defence: Whether there are any signatures over there in the images affixed with series- 05?
Witness: No.

Defence: What is the date of capturing these images, it has not been mentioned.

Witness: These have been captured on 18/8/2010, 11 A.M.

Defence: On 18/8/2010 you have made a seizure list at Manik Poshari’s home. What was the time?

Witness: I have gone there at 10:30 A.M. and stayed till 12:50 P.M.

Defence: Exhibit- V (iii) shows the image of Selim Khan’s house. And the house is not situated at village- Chitholia.

Witness: His house is situated at village: Badura.

Defence: The distance between the houses of Manik Poshari and Selim Khan is near about 1 km.

Witness: Not true. At 12:55 P.M. I’ve went to the house of Mr. Selim Khan.

Defence: When you have made the seizure list of the house of Mr. Selim Khan?

Witness: I’ve not made any seizure list. I’ve just affixed the image of his house.

Defence: Whether Mr. Selim Khan was there in his house at that time? And whether the man standing in front of the house is Mr. Selim Khan?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether there is any signature of Mr. Selim Khan?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether the man standing in front of Mr. Alamgit Poshari’s house is Mr. Alamgir Poshari?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Have you taken the statement of Mr. Alamgir Poshari?

Witness: No.

Defence: Alamgir Poshari was born after the liberation?

Witness: Not true.

Defence: There is no signature of Mr. Alamgir anywhere.

Witness: Yes, there is no signature.

Defence: Who were there with you at the time of going to his home?

Witness: Manik Poshari, Mahabubul Alam Hawladar, Mostofa Hawladar, Shohidul Islam Khan and some other people.

Defence: The house of Alamgir Poshari which is apparent in the image is not usable.

Witness: Not true. Mr. Alamgir Poshari lives there.

Defence: You have provided two photos of burnt wood and tin-shed of Manik Poshari’s house. These aren’t the photos of same place.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: There is no signature of Manik Poshari anywhere in the photographs.

Witness: Yes, there is no signature.

Defence: These photos have been maliciously created for influencing this case. These photos are not relevant with the incident of 1971.

Witness: Not true.

Adjournment until 2pm

Defence: In exhibit no. 11, have you exhibited “Hundreds episode of Ekusher Chokh” as seizure list evidence?

Witness: No, I did not collect it as seizure list evidence. I have sent letter to different governmental and non-governmental organisation then Major Muhammad Rezaul Karim, General Manager, Human crisis and administration, Ekushe Television, has sent me a CD in this regard.

Defence: When did you send the letter?

Witness: On 9. 01. 2011.

Defence: Would you please tell us what is the substance of this letter?

Witness: It is related to the genocide, murder, torture, loot, arson and other crimes against humanity according to sec 3(2) of the International Crime Tribunal Act-1973.

Defence: Did you know it before?

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: When this programme is started?

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: In which year it is launched?

Witness: In 2008.

Defence: In which time it is telecasted?

Witness: It is telecasted after news.

Defence: When “Hundreds episode of Ekusher Chokh” is telecasted?

Witness: I do not know as it is not in my record.

Defence: What is the common subject of of the “Ekusher Chokh”?

Witness: It is related to the information investigation.

Defence: Who is the anchor of this Programme?

Witness: Harun-or-rashid.

Defence: Who is the Photographer?

Witness: Manjurul Islam manjur and khan amin.

Defence: Who is the Producer?

Witness: Afzalul Hasan Tipu.

Defence: Who is the executive Producer?

Witness: Manuwar Shahadat Darpon.

Defence: No one is included in the list of witness and no interrogation is done also.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: In this movie file there is a statement of Mahbubul Alam Hawlader, Manik Poshari, Ayub Ali Talukder Ghulam Mustafa, Abul Bashar Khan, Dhirendranath shaha, S.I azim Hawlader, and Alhaz Mezbaur Rahman Chowdhury and others.

Among them Raghunath shaha, Abul Bashar khan, Ad. Ali haiderb khan, Dhirendranath saha, S.I Azim hawlader and Mezbaur rahman Chowdhury were included in the list of witnesses and you were also not questioning them.

Witness: I was interrogating Azim Hawlader, Raghunath saha, Abul Bashar khan.

Defence: Why are the above mentioned 5 persons is not included as witness?

Witness: Because of getting better witness than them, I did not include them as witness.

Then Defence counsel Mizanul islam pointed out a picture of Manik Poshari and then asked the Investigation officer whether this Manik Poshari and Manik Poshari shown in the movie file are the same person or not.

The Tribunal member did not allow this question to be recorded. There was then a debate between the tribunal and the defence lawyers as to whether or not they could question the investigation officer on contradictions made by this witness. At one point the Judge Anwarul Haq said that the VCD is not evidence and so the defence cannot take contradiction using an interview made to the TV channel in the VCD, but was corrected by the chairman saying that in the tribunal rules a VCD could be evidence.

Justice Nizam: You cannot ask this question because contradiction will arise only from the statement given by Manik Poshari to the Investigation officer not from the statement shown on movie file. Learned defence I can also understand your point, you think that if this statement is taken as evidence then there is a chance of being prejudiced since you are not getting chance to examine them. When we will consider this matter we should keep in mind that cross examination has not been done.

The defence lawyer said that witness was examined and he denied giving any TV interview. Now the investigation officer is exhibiting a VCD of a TV interview which shows that this witness did give an interview to the TV reporter. This VCD was not exhibited when this witness was examined. So we were unable to ask any question to the witness about this TV interview. But now it shows that there are some contradiction between the statements of the witness made to the investigation officer and the TV interview. I should be able to take the contradiction from the PW 28 (IO) since he is exhibiting this VCD. Investigation officer relies upon that document that is the reason it is used as evidence against me.

Justice Nizam: However the decision is, you cannot contradict.

Defence: In this movie file, we have seen Mahbubul Alam Hawlader, Manik Poshari, Ayub Ali Talukder Ghulam Mustafa and Advocate Ali Haider Khan. Statement has been taken from these 5 persons and they are the witness of the case also.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Advocate Haider Ali was the son in law of the SDPO faizur Rahman and sister in law of the Dr. Jafar Iqbal.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Khan Muhammad Saied Muhammad Afzal Chairman, peace committee, Pirojpur, sent a letter to the SDPO Faizur Rahman. Did you try to collect this letter?

Witness: No.

Defence: Why did he send this letter?

Witness: I do not know

Then the court is adjourned.