27 Mar 2012: Azam charge framing response 2

After hearing the bail application relating to Alim, the court then moved onto dealing with the defence arguments against the charging of Golam Azam.

Abdur Razaq referred to his written application (which was read out the at a previous hearing)

He argued that as there was an immense delay in brining these prosecutions there is not much merit of the case. Justice Nizamul Haq contended however that would be the case if the dealy was unjustifiable.

He said that it has been urged in the formal charge that Mr. Golam Azam was involved with Nagorik Committee. Afterwards Nagorik Committee turns into Peace Committee. Neither time- place, date nor witness is present there in the formal charge. Then, he referred to the article- 14(3) (a) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights; which read as follows-

“In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him.”

He argued that the court should either fully discharge the petitioner as the charges have not been properly articulated against the accused.

He then went on to discuss the issue of judicial notice. He said that the Court can’t take judicial notice of controversial facts – and my question is what is fact which is being highlighted by the Prosecution to take the judicial notice of?

Justice Nizamul Haq: In support of their arguments, they have provided various documents and the articles of newspapers.

Barrister Abdur Razzak: The prosecution has urged you to take judicial notice of the Islamic Chatro Shangha, Al-Badar, Razakar. But by law they were not auxiliary forces in that time.Section-2(a) of the ICT Act-1973 defines auxiliary forces as follows- 2(a) “auxiliary forces” includes forces placed under the control of the Armed Forces for operational, administrative, static and other purposes.

Then he contended that the Razakars do not falls under the purview of the auxiliary forces, so Golam Azam would not be held responsible for this. He further contended that- there was no prima facie case, so your Lordship can’t take judicial notice.]

Razzak said that almost all the information have been collected from the newspaper by the Prosecution.

The next date for the prosecution submission was fixed on 29th March, 2012.

The hearing then dealt with an application relating to access to an investigation report