After the Sayedee witness recall application, Mizanul Islam, the defence lawyer then continued his cross examination of the Sayedee investigation officer.
Then Justice Zahir asked asked the investigation officer what was the relevancy of the Album of Bangabandhu with this case? 'It is a historical matter; it has already been proved historically. Why have you admitted these documents. Now you are objecting at the time of showing contradiction.'
The witness said that he exhibited this to show the history of our liberation. The judge said (angrily), 'You are not here to investigate on the history of the liberation. You are given specific job to investigate the allegations against the Accused. Why you have exhibited Material Exhibit – II. It is a noble book containing the family pictures of the Father of Nation. Now it becomes part of record. You should have considered these contradictions at the time of exhibiting this document.
The defense lawyer asked the tribunal why it allowed the video to be exhibited if it was not relevant. The char main then said that the tribunal does not see any relevance of your asking question on the tanks and no further questions were asked.
Before the tribunal adjourned for lunch, the chairman asked Mizanul Islam that the cross examination has gone on for 11 days. 'When will you finish?
The defense lawyer said that the investigation officer gave cross examination over 9 days, so the tribunal should allow him at least 3 times that. He said that whilst the investigation officer had 9 full days of cross examination, in their 11 days, only 2 were full days, the other half days. He said that he would not ask any irrelevant question and not take longer than required.
Adjourned for lunch
Defence: The material exhibit-10 is all about a documentary made by the television channel ATN Bangla. Whether part of the documentary “Shei Rater Kotha Bolte Eshechi” which was being directed by Kawsar Ahmed Chowdhury has been inserted in this documentary?
Witness: [He gave a bewildered look]
Justice AKM Zaheer: You could watch it again.
Witness: [After watching] I don’t know whether it was directed by Mr. Kawser Ahmed Chowdhury.
Defence: In 1971, there was no existence of ATN Bangla Channel.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Who was the director of the documentary which has been produced as the material exhibit-10?
Witness: Mahfujur Rahman, Chairman, ATN Bangla.
Defence: From where he has collected the scenes of massacre there? Did you ask?
Witness: No.
Defence: Whether the people who have been displayed in the Army Uniform in the documentary are Pakistan Soldier.
Witness: It seems that they are Pakistan Soldier. But I didn’t conduct any investigation about that.
Defence: The 2nd segment of the documentary [Material Exhibit-10] has referred to a movie file which has been captured by a French Journalist. Did you investigate him?
Witness: No.
Defence: This part states about the historical speech of liberation of Bangabandhu on 25th March, 1971 by using EPR radio. Have you tried to investigate anything about that?
Witness: No.
Justice Nizamul Islam: How come this question is relevant with your case?
Defence: Let me ask the question My Lord.
Defence: Whether there are any sign of blood in the corpse shown in the documentary.
Witness: I think so.
Defence: Please display the multimedia show of the documentary.
[Multimedia Show of the Documentary (material exhibit-10)]
Witness: Yes there are the sign of bloodsheds.
Defence: Please continue the multimedia show.
[***Multimedia Show- (Showing the written document of the liberation speech of Bangabandhu.)]
Defence: Whether you have checked to find out any dissimilarity about the displayed
speech of this material exhibit with the material exhibit-2?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: The material exhibit-2 (The photo album of Bangabadhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.) contains the liberation speech of Bangabadhu in page-94.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Do you know who the editor of this Photo Album is?
Witness: Two noteworthy names of the editors are Mr. late Gaziul Haque (activist of language movement of 1952) and Sheikh Hasina.
Defence: Whether you have checked the dissimilarities of the time and speech of the liberation speech of Bangabandhu in these two material exhibits?A prosecutor, Saiful Rahman objected to the question, and the defense lawyer argued that both these documents have been exhibited by the prosecution.
Then Justice Zahir asked asked the investigation officer what was the relevancy of the Album of Bangabandhu with this case? 'It is a historical matter; it has already been proved historically. Why have you admitted these documents. Now you are objecting at the time of showing contradiction.'
The witness said that he exhibited this to show the history of our liberation. The judge said (angrily), 'You are not here to investigate on the history of the liberation. You are given specific job to investigate the allegations against the Accused. Why you have exhibited Material Exhibit – II. It is a noble book containing the family pictures of the Father of Nation. Now it becomes part of record. You should have considered these contradictions at the time of exhibiting this document.
Defence: There is no relevancy of 3rd, 4th and 5th segment of the documentary and the present case.
Witness: Yes. There is no relevancy.
Question from the Tribunal: According to section-10(h) of the ICT Act-1973, you have seized the Photo album of Bangabandhu Sheikh MUjibur Rahman from the Liberation War Museum and the Prosecution has presented that album as the material; exhibit-2.Whether there are any relevancy of the Album and the present Case?
Witness: No.
Defence: The authority took help from Gita Mehta; Film Division of India; BBC and Liberation War Museum – which was acknowledged them at the last portion of the Documentary. Did you ever tried to make contact with them?
Witness: No.
Defence: After the liberation war a lot of documentaries had been made on the liberation war. Have you ever heard the name of the movie—Bagha Bangali, which has been directed by Anondo Roy.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: There are two other names in the list of the great documentaries or movies; those are---A State in born by Jahir Raihan and another is Stop Genocide.
Witness: I have no idea.
Defence: The documentaries which had been made after the liberation war do not contain any information against the accused. So afterwards some movie clips had been produced before the tribunal by including some distorted information against the accused. It is just because to harass him.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: ATN Bangla is a biased Television Channel. It always prefers to satisfy that political party which is in power. Before producing and transmitting the content of material exhibit- 10 and 15; they have telecast the program of Mr. Delwar Hossain Syedee, the accused for a long time.
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: I’d like to ask the same question about exhibit-1 which I’ve asked about exhibit-2.
Witness: The cassette of the speech of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman has been produced as the material exhibit-1; there is no relevancy with the present case.
Defence: All the movie files of – ATN Bangla and Ekushey Television are fake—which have been produced by you.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: From where you’ve got the information that—Liberation War Museum deposits the 5 voluminous Newspaper Clippings-1971?
Witness: When I went there to investigate at Liberation War Museum on 30-3-2011; I’ve found the volumes on the same day.
Defence: Have you tried to contact Mr. Abdul Matin, the collector of those Newspaper, now living abroad.
Witness: No.
Defence: The Newspapers which have been mentioned in the following material exhibit do not have any relevancy with the present case.
Witness: Yes. There is no relevancy.
Defence: You have produced these documents to make an emotional environment in the tribunal room.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: The Associates of Pakistan is a book, which does not contain any address of the publisher.
Witness: Yes. It has been written under the place of address—“59 Kaji Najrul Islam Avenue, Farmgate, Dhaka-1215.”
Defence: There is no mention of the address of the Publisher.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: There is no description about the writer there on the book.
Witness: Yes, there is no mentioning of the same.At one point during the hearing, the defense lawyer wanted to ask questions to the investigation officer about the military tanks shown in the video (material exhibit – X). One of the judges said that the defense does not need to ask questions about this tanks as it is not relevant. 'This video was about the atrocities at the night of 25th March 1971 and there is no allegation against Sayedee about that incident,' he said.
The defense lawyer asked the tribunal why it allowed the video to be exhibited if it was not relevant. The char main then said that the tribunal does not see any relevance of your asking question on the tanks and no further questions were asked.
Before the tribunal adjourned for lunch, the chairman asked Mizanul Islam that the cross examination has gone on for 11 days. 'When will you finish?
The defense lawyer said that the investigation officer gave cross examination over 9 days, so the tribunal should allow him at least 3 times that. He said that whilst the investigation officer had 9 full days of cross examination, in their 11 days, only 2 were full days, the other half days. He said that he would not ask any irrelevant question and not take longer than required.
Adjourned for lunch
No comments:
Post a Comment