16 Apr 2012: Sangram Feni contempt hearing

The tribunal first considered an allegation of contempt made by the Daily Sangram, a newspaper which had published a report on 2 April, 2012 claiming that a group of Feni lawyers had criticized the decision by the tribunal to allow statements to be admitted as evidence even without the witnesses having to be cross examined. The report claimed that the ruling showed that the court was partisan, and was out to allow false statements to be used in evidence

A rule had been issued for the Feni lawyers and the editor and Feni correspondent of Daily Sangram to respond and be present before the tribunal on this day.

Joynal Abedin appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the tribunal asked whether the 11 lawyers (called them up by their names) and the editor of Daily Sangram and the Daily Sangram representative of Feni District are present before the court. Except one lawyer everyone confirmed their presence.

The Sangram Editor's response to the rule had been to seek an unconditional apology. His response argued that a report sent by the paper's Feni correspondent was not actually sent by him.

1. That the present respondent is the Editor and Publisher of the Daily Sangram, a national daily newspaper. He was appointed as the Editor of the Daily Sangram in ..., and has been performing his functions as the Editor and Publisher of the same with honesty and integrity. He is a respected and peace loving citizen of the country. The respondent holds the highest respect for the judiciary. The respondent has not consciously or unconsciously, nor directly or indirectly shown any disrespect to any order passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. Moreover he has never been previously charged with contempt of court.

2. That on 02.04.2012 a statement allegedly given by some advocates of the Feni District Bar was published on page 3 (at column 8) of the Daily Sangram with the headline "পুলিশকে দেয়া জবানবন্দি সাক্ষ্য হিসেবে গ্রহনের নিন্দা ও প্রতিবাদ জানিয়েছেন ফেনীর আইনজীবীগণ". In the report it was alleged that the said advocates of the Feni District Bar, who are also respondents in the present contempt proceedings, had issued a statement against the Hon’ble Tribunal.

3. That the news item was published on the basis of a report made by the Feni correspondent of the Daily Sangram. Thereafter, the said advocates of Feni District Bar called the local correspondent of the Daily Sangram asking how the false and fabricated statement alleged to be given by them had been published.

4. That on 02.04.2012 the news item came to the notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal and the Tribunal suo motu passed an order in ICT-BD MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 04 of 2012 directing the respondent, the Feni Correspondent of the Daily Sangram and the advocates of the Feni District Bar to appear before the tribunal on 16.04.2012 at 10.30 a.m. to show cause as to why they shall not be prosecuted under section 11(4) of the International Crimes ( Tribunals) Act, 1973.

5. That the Order of the Hon’ble Tribunal dated 02.04.2012 was communicated to the present respondent 08.04.2012.

6. That on 3 April 2012, the said advocates of the Feni District Bar sent a rejoinder to the Editor of the Sangram (present respondent) through facsimile requesting him to publish the same. In the said rejoinder the said advocates stated that they knew nothing about the alleged statement published by the Daily Sangram. It was also stated that they neither signed the statement nor did they send it to any newspaper for publication. Upon being informed of the circumstances, the respondent published the rejoinder verbatim in the first column of the back page of the newspaper on 06.04.2012.

7. That it is stated that the said news item was published by the respondent on the basis of a report sent as an attachment to an email by one A K M Abdur Rahim, who purported to be the Feni District Correspondent of the Daily Sangram. All news published in the Daily Sangram are on the basis of reports by local correspondents. Reports are usually sent to the respondent (Editor) via email, or other convenient means. The present report was emailed to the news section of the Daily Sangram on 01.04.2012 at 1.04 PM by someone purporting to be the Feni Correspondent. On the basis of the email dated 01.04.2012, the said news item was published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012.

8. That thereafter the present respondent was informed that the said advocates have denied making any such statement as published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012. Upon being so informed, the respondent contacted the local correspondent and found that the email had not in fact been sent by him. The news item was published on 02.04.2012 due to an honest mistake on the part of the present respondent who believed that the news was sent by the present respondent.

9. That upon realising the inaccuracy of the new report, the respondent immediately published a rejoinder on behalf of the Daily Sangram on 06.04.2012 explaining the basis of the news report. The said rejoinder published on 06.04.2012 has already been annexed as ANNEXURE-C.

10. That the respondent has allowed the publication of the news report on 02.04.2012 on the bona fide belief that the report emailed on 01.04.2012 was by the Feni correspondent of the Daily Sangram. However, he realises now that the email was not from the Feni correspondent, and the story was inaccurate. The respondent never intended to publish any false report in order to lower the dignity of this Hon’ble Tribunal. It was a bona fide mistake on the part of the respondent.

11. That the respondent begs unconditional apology from the Tribunal, for any unintentional lapse on his part. The respondent has the highest respect for due process of law and has no intention of lowering the dignity of the Tribunal or obstructing the processes of law.
12. That it is submitted that in the situation explained above, this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to discharge the Rule against the present respondent.

Wherefore it is humbly pray that your Lordships will graciously be pleased to accept the unconditional apology of the present respondent, dispose of ICT BD Misc Case No. 4 of 2012 and/or pass such other or further order(s) as may deem fit and proper. 

The Sangram Feni Correspondent's written application supported the argument that he had not sent the e-mail.

7. That it is stated that the said news item was published on the basis of a report sent via email by one A K M Abdur Rahim purporting to be the present respondent, the Feni District Correspondent of the Daily Sangram. All news published in the Daily Sangram are on the basis of reports by local correspondents. Reports are usually sent to the Editor of the newspaper via email, or other convenient means. The present report was emailed to the news section of the Daily Sangram on 01.04.2012 at 1.04 PM by someone purporting to be the present respondent. On the basis of the email dated 01.04.2012, the said news item was published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012. It is stated that the present respondent had never sent the said report to the Editor of the Daily Sangram for publication. The present respondent has no knowledge of any such email, or of the events referred therein.

8. That thereafter the present respondent informed the Editor and Publisher of the Daily Sangram that he had never sent such an email. The respondent was also informed that the said advocates have denied making any such statement as published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012. The news item was published on 02.04.2012 due to an honest mistake on the part of the Editor who believed that the news was sent by the present respondent.

9. That upon realising the inaccuracy of the new report, the respondent immediately published a rejoinder on behalf of the Daily Sangram on 06.04.2012 explaining the basis of the news report, and also stating the fact that the present respondent had not in fact emailed the report.  

10. That the respondent has no knowledge about any email reporting the alleged contemptuous statement by the said advocates. He never sent the email, and has no knowledge as to who it might have been. The Editor, Daily Sangram allowed the publication of the news report on 02.04.2012 on the bona fide belief that the report emailed on 01.04.2012 was by the present respondent. The respondent never intended to report any false statement in order to lower the dignity of this Hon’ble Tribunal.

11. That despite not having any connection with the news item published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012, the respondent begs unconditional apology from the Tribunal, for any unintentional lapse on his part. The respondent has the highest respect for due process of law and has no intention of lowering the dignity of the Tribunal or obstructing the processes of law.

12. That it is submitted that in the situation explained above, this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to discharge the Rule against the present respondent.

And the Feni lawyers stated in their response.

5. That the respondents came to know about the statement first while reading newspapers in the morning of 2nd April 2012. Thereafter, the respondents Mr. Shafiul Alam, Mr. Nur-Ul-Islam and Mr. A.B.M Ashraful Hoque Bhuiyan called the local correspondent of the said newspaper asking how the false and fabricated statement alleged to be given by them had been published. The Feni correspondent of the Daily Sangram informed them that he is also not aware of the circumstances in which the statement has been published in the Daily Sangram.

6. That on 02.04.2012 the news item came to the notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal and the Tribunal suo motu passed an order in ICT-BD MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 04 of 2012 directing all the respondents, Editor and publisher of the Daily Sangram and the Feni Correspondent of the Daily Sangram to appear before the tribunal on 16.04.2012 at 10.30 a.m. to show cause as to why they shall not be prosecuted under section 11(4) of the International Crimes ( Tribunals) Act, 1973.

7. That the Order of the Hon’ble Tribunal dated 02.04.2012 was communicated to the present respondents on 10.04.2012.

8. That on 3 April 2012, respondents Mr. Shafiul Alam, Mr. Nur-Ul-Islam, Mr. A.B.M Ashraful Hoque Bhuiyan, Mr. Moin Uddin, Mr. Motasum Billah, Mr. Mohammad Belayet Hossain, Mr. Aminul Hoque, Mr. Abdul Kaiyum sent a rejoinder to the Editor of the Sangram through facsimile requesting him to publish the same. The respondents Mr. Golam Sarwar and Mr. Kamal Uddin Mojumder were not available at the time due to personal difficulty. As such the rejoinder could not be signed by them. In the said rejoinder the respondents stated that they knew nothing about the alleged statement published by the Daily Sangram. It was also stated that they neither signed the statement nor did they send it to any newspaper for publication.

9. That thereafter on 06.04.2012 the rejoinder of the respondents was published verbatim in the first column of the back page of the newspaper. In the said rejoinder the respondents stated that “We know nothing about the alleged statement. Neither we signed the statement nor did we send it to any Newspaper to publish. We are hurt by the news and we are always respectful to all courts and Tribunals established by law. The statement was sent with a view to humiliate and lower our dignity in the eye of law. We, the undersigned lawyers, deny that the alleged statement was signed and sent by us."

10. That it is submitted that the present respondents did not make any statement whatsoever in relation to the Tribunal. The respondents did not have any knowledge as to the content of the statement published in the Daily Sangram on 2 April 2012. In fact once, they learnt of the false publication in their name, they issued a rejoinder.

11. That moreover, the respondents beg unconditional apology from the Tribunal, for any unintentional lapse on their part. The respondents have the highest respect for due process of law and have no intention of lowering the dignity of the Tribunal or obstructing the processes of law.

12. That it is submitted that in the situation explained above, this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to discharge the Rule against the present respondents.

Joynal Abedin then summarized the arguments by saying that the aggrieved lawyers of Feni Bar Association protested that they had not signed anything and not given any kind of statement as had been reported on 02nd April, 2012. The Lawyers did not give any statements like this and Advocate Golam Sarwar has been seriously sick since 29th March, 2012 and has been admitted to the hospital. Another person’s name is not known by the Feni Bar Association. And the other people are totally ignorant about the remark. As stated in a rejoinder published on 6th April, 2012 no e-mail was sent by the Feni Correspondent Abdur Rahim.

Justice AKM Zaheer: There is a question. If the mail is being sent from another fake account; in that case there would a rejoinder about this matter. And another matter to be considered here is that- it should be checked whether there was any other communications which has been maintained through this account to the Daily Sangram authority.

Joynal Abedin: My Lord, my humble submission is that the news was published as a bonafide mistake, the respondent begs unconditional apology.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Well, the lawyers have not sent the statements and the reporters have not sent the report. Okay, leave the matter of lawyers, but whether the editor can allow this report to be published. These types of reports are regularly being published by the newspapers. We’ve repeatedly told that- the intention and the language of the report should be clear.

Joynal Abedin: My Lord, it will not happen in future.

Justice AKM Zaheer: Even it has been shared on the social network site- Facebook.

Zead Al Malum: So, the matter stands as follows the reporter has not sent the report, as well the lawyers had not given the statements. They are telling a lie. What should happen about this? Daily Sangram has committed a punishable offence under section- 11(4) of the ICT Act-1973.

Joynal Abedin: My Lord, it is my humble submission to apologize the matter unconditionally. I’ll never appear before this tribunal on the same matter.

Justice AKM Zaheer: As you are stating that it has been sent from another account, but nowhere has the reporter even mentioned about it.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Okay, the order will be given on 26th April, 2012 about this matter, and everyone must be present before the tribunal on the same date.