Tuesday, July 3, 2012

3 May 2012: Nizami charge framing response 3

Following the hearing earlier in the day, the defence counsel Mr. Abdur Razzak continued with submitting his arguments against the counts presented by the Prosecution relating to Motiur Rahman Nizami. This follows on from this hearing

He said that in relation to the incident of 9th and 10th September, 1971. There are two paragraphs in the counts presented by Prosecution- which are all about the speech given by the accused at the Jessore BD Hall. It alleged that by the direction of the following accused, the crimes against humanity got the spark on its course.

I’ve some submissions. There were two speeches of the accused. One was about the Pakistan and India recourse and another was about the Sura Tawba from the Holy Quran. About the first one I would like to say that it is a student leader talking against the interference of India in the internal country affairs and about the other it is to be said that the accused has just illustrated the verses of the aforesaid Sura Tawba (ayat-111) from the Holy Quran. There is nothing to seek serious faults in these things.

He also referred to Rule-20 of the ICT Rules which says that “At the time of submitting a formal charge in the form of a petition, it must contain the name and address of the accused person, witness, and the date, time and the place of the occurrence.” My argument is that the submission of the prosecution is thousand miles away from being able to frame a charge. You can go also to the Criminal Procedures Code.

Justice Nizamul Huq: The Criminal Procedures Code is not applicable here, so we’d not like to discuss about it.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: Please you can see the section-220 of the Criminal Procedures Code.

Justice Nizamul Huq: You can go anywhere over this world, but you will find the same provision about the charge making.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: Yes you are right My Lord. Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedures Code have been excluded from the purview of this ACT. [Then he mentioned Section- 67(1) of the Rome Statute]

Now, if the Prosecution could prove that the recital and illustration of Quran by the accused has any direct link about the framing the charge then it may be justifiable. They have raised the grounds from section- 3(2) (a) and section-4(2) of the ICT Act. But is it not any proper ground to frame the charge.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Mr. Razzak here the tribunal is empowered by the Law to decide after perusal- whether there are materials. Afterwards the tribunal at their own discretion may order to frame a charge.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: But from our point of view- there is no prima facie case.

Justice Nizamul Huq: If the tribunal may find anything then charge might be framed and if nothing is found then he may be discharged.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: Your Lordship would kindly please try to specifically relate the matters. If there was any direct instruction of killing or destruction from the voice of the accused then in that case this charge might be framed. Otherwise there are no grounds to do so.

Then he raised issues relating to various counts and raised the following points including

- Lack of information on the time of the meeting;

- the absence of any material fact of Rape, killing or arson

- no allegation of murder of Mawlana Tasimuddin Ahmed against the accused who was abducted on 4th June, 1971, then tortured and was thrown murdered on the Ichamoti river on 10th June, 1971;

- then he mentioned on the count it has been stated that on 8/8/1971 several people were killed on the locality and a paper slip was found over a dead body where the name of Mr. Nizami, accused was mentioned; he stated no specific allegations of the involvement of the accused is there;

- It was stated that at a Razakar Camp has been settled at the Pabna Shathia Government High School which was the place for conspiracy, torture etc—but what kinds of conspiracy was committed there, and who have been tortured and killed- it has not been stated there.

Razzaq finished by saying that it is our humble submission before the Lordship there is no valid ground of framing the charge against the accused.

The hearing was adjourned until the afternoon

No comments:

Post a Comment