Mr Abdur Razzak, the lawyer for Delwar Hossain Sayedee first asked the court if the hearing involving the 15 witnesses application could be heard on Sunday, 21 May since there will be senior members of the bar present. The chairman agreed.
At the beginning of the hearing, the prosecutor Mr. Zead Al-Malum raised with the tribunal an issue concerning comments made by the defence lawyer Fakrul Islam. He said that Islam had uttered such ‘kinds of words against Prosecution Witness Anisuzzaman which are totally against the law of this tribunal. The tribunal had given him a strict warning. By non-complying with the direction Mr. Fakhrul again uttered such types of words at the premises adjacent to the tribunal to the media and several newspapers have reported the issue.’
He said that ‘Mr. Fakhrul Islam has committed a serious offense under section 11(4) of the ICT Act-1973, which is punishable. It is the responsibility of the tribunal to protect the victims and the witnesses. Your Lordship may take proper action against it.
The tribunal chairman asked the defence counsel whether he had anything to say in relation to the issue.
Islam admitted that he had uttered the same words to the media which he had uttered during the tribunal.
The chairman then passed the following order (summary)
At the beginning of the hearing, the prosecutor Mr. Zead Al-Malum raised with the tribunal an issue concerning comments made by the defence lawyer Fakrul Islam. He said that Islam had uttered such ‘kinds of words against Prosecution Witness Anisuzzaman which are totally against the law of this tribunal. The tribunal had given him a strict warning. By non-complying with the direction Mr. Fakhrul again uttered such types of words at the premises adjacent to the tribunal to the media and several newspapers have reported the issue.’
He said that ‘Mr. Fakhrul Islam has committed a serious offense under section 11(4) of the ICT Act-1973, which is punishable. It is the responsibility of the tribunal to protect the victims and the witnesses. Your Lordship may take proper action against it.
The tribunal chairman asked the defence counsel whether he had anything to say in relation to the issue.
Islam admitted that he had uttered the same words to the media which he had uttered during the tribunal.
The chairman then passed the following order (summary)
It appears that yesterday Mr. Fakhrul Islam the learned counsel has repeatedly used the word “Lier” against the witness Anisuzzaman and the tribunal repeatedly warned him against this and said you’ve to know the art of manners.
It has been found that he has uttered the same words again to the media. This has come to the knowledge of the Tribunal through the media and the prosecutor Zead Al Malum.
It appears that the conduct not only comes under section-11(4) of the Act, but also threatens the witness. On this point when we asked Mr. Fakhrul Islam about this he said that he had done so. Despite cautioning him yesterday he has again stated the same words before the tribunal. It appears that he deliberately disobeys the order and he is liable to be punished.
As such Mr. Fakhrul Islam in this case is asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him under section 11(4) of the Act. He is asked to answer the question within 27th May, 2012. And it is an oral order. Respectively if he fails to reply or appear in person on the same day, warrant should be issued against him.
No comments:
Post a Comment