30 May 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 16

The proceedings started with the prosecutor Zead Al Malum drawing to the judges attention the content of two newspapers. Those reports have been published in Daily Sangram. The first one has been published on 25th May, 2012 in the Newspaper. It states that- Siru Bangali the Prosecution Witness-3 against the accused Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury is a fake freedom fighter.

How come they get the liberty to humiliate a prosecution witness and his credibility on the matter of his being or not being a freedom fighter? He was not even asked by the Defence team whether he is real or a fake freedom fighter. They didn’t raise any question about his certificate also. Now; how has reporter has got the freedom to utter words like this? Daily Sangram is doing such kinds of reports for many days; I pray to your Lordship to take strict steps against such kinds of activities.

Now, I would like to say about the second report which states that Jamaat Islami acting Chief Mokbul has stated that charges have been framed against Delwar Hossain Syedee on false and baseless grounds.

My Lord, I would like to object on this baseless talking of the political leader Mr. Mokbul. He as with other citizens are not free to say anything about the charge framing procedure of this honorable tribunal.

Justice Nizamul Huq: At first I would like to say some words about the second article. It is the practice of the citizens of this country to be in favor or against a charge. Nowadays we are trying to avoid those words; otherwise it will not be possible for us to proceed. Regarding this article we would not like to say anything. But about the first one we would like to say something. There is no mention of the name of reporter in the abovementioned report; it has stated only staff reporter. Who is present here as the representative of Daily Sangram? From where has the reporter got this heading? What harm does the reporter and the Newspaper authority want to inflict by such kind of heading? Whether a freedom fighter is fake or real, how is the reporter the person to ascertain that? We just can’t understand. This is a non-acceptable heading. If we would like to pass order against that, in which case the reporter and editor should have appeared before the tribunal. We are sorry, we are really sorry to watch such kinds of headings again and again.

The cross examination by defense lawyer Mizanul Islam of the investigation officer, Helal Uddin into the Sayedee trial continued (following on from the previous day)

Defence: I would like to ask some other questions from the last day’s material exhibit-8. Here is the mentioning of the name of Helal Uddin Poshari. Did you question him?

Witness: No.

Defence: You didn’t try to find out where his house is situated.

Witness: No I didn’t make any investigation about that.

Defence: In the following report it has been alleged that there was looting of the house of Amjad Hossain and the shop of Helal Uddin Poshari. Do you know anything about that?

Witness: I did not make any comment about that.

Defence: Whether in 1971, there was any shop of Helal Uddin Poshari?

Witness: From my investigation I came to know that in 1971 he had a shop.

Defence: Still he possesses a shop. Knowingly you are trying to conceal the matter.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: If you would have made him a witness, in that case there was a possibility to reveal the truth; so that you didn’t make him a witness.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: From your comment [reference given] it has been found that you said, ‘the workless Sayedee used to sit on a shop and continued chitchatting.’ Did you have find out the shop?

Witness: No.

Defence: In 1971 he was a student.

Witness: No.

Defence: In the investigation report [reference given]- it has been stated that a woman was sought the justice for the murder of her husband. From where has she sought justice for?

Witness: She did not go to any Police Station or any Court. When someone appears before her, she cried out by saying. ‘I seek justice… I seek justice.’

Defence: That woman has also stated that- Sayedee maintained a strong connection with the powerful people. Who are those powerful people; did you investigate?

Witness: She has not mentioned anyone’s name.

Defence: Please go to Exhibit- 11. It is about the report of Bhorer Kagoj dated: 4-11-2007. Have you ever tried to contact Ashish Kumar Dey, who is the reporter of the highlighted report?

Witness: No.

Defence: The heading of the report is “Razakarer Ekattornama”. This is a part of a serial report.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: You have produced the report before making any investigation.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: The names of Muktijuddher Sriti Songrokkhon Kendra and Monthly Nipun has been stated there as the source of the news. Did you find any similarities?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Where was the Muktijuddher Sriti Songrokkhon Kendra situated?

Witness: I didn’t visit Muktijuddher Sriti Songrokkhon Kendra; I became confused by assuming it as Muktijuddho Jadughor [The Liberation War Museum].

Defence: Then you have stated wrong that you have visited Muktijuddher Sriti Songrokkhon Kendra.

Witness: The statements as has been stated mistakenly.

Defence: You didn’t collect the Monthly Nipun either or didn’t try to find out any similarities.

Witness: I have tried to collect the Monthly Nipun but didn’t find that out.

Defence: Did you investigate anything about what was stated in the report about the 7th National Parliamentary Election?

Witness: No.

Defence: It has stated in the report that- he was not a political leader in 1971 but he was a so called Mawlana and operated the movements against the liberation war. Did you investigate anything about that?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: He was not a political leader on 1971—did you find anything in support of that statement?

Witness: I have found it from the investigation that he was a leader of Islamic Chhatro Sangha [ICS] in 1971.

Defence: He was a Mawlana--- did you find anything in support of that statement of the report?

Witness: No. He was not a Mawlana.

Defence: It has stated in the report that he has passed Alim degree in 1960 did you find anything in support?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: He has not continued his education after 1962, did you find anything in support of that verse of the aforesaid report?

Witness: He was a student after 1962. I didn’t find such typs of things from my investigation.

Defence: Who was the Chief of ICS of Pirojpur?

Witness: I didn’t investigate.

Defence: Did you investigate anything about the organizational structure of the ICS at Pirojpur and Jessore district.

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether the former student league leader Mizanur Rahman and the acting treasury officer Syed Mizanur Rahman whose name has been mentioned in the charge is the same person?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Did you investigate anything about the murder of the school headmaster Abdul Gaffar Mia, as has been mentioned in the report?

Witness: Yes. I didn’t make any comment about that.

Defence: Did you investigate anything about the murder of the social worker Shamsul Haque Faraji, as has been mentioned in the report?

Witness: Yes. I didn’t make any comment about that.

Defence: Are you bound to make comments about the matters as you have investigated already?

Witness: No.

Defence: It has been mentioned in the following report that- Mr. Vagirothi was killed by being tiedwith a motorcycle and dragged towards 6 miles. Did you investigate about it?

Witness: I didn’t find any proof of the incident.

Defence: Did you interrogate Alauddin Khan, Former Chairman of Parerhat Union- whose name has been mentioned in the report?

Witness: Yes, But I didn’t make him a witness.

Defence: Did you investigate about the matter of uprooting the house and properties of Nikhil Pal and using it as the “Gonimot’er Maal” at Parerhat Jame Masjid (Mosque) [Gonimot’er Maal, is a term meaning plunder won in war, which could include women]?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you ask about the following matter to the Imam, Muazzin, and President of the Parerhat Jame Masjid [Mosque]?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you find anyone named Hori Sadhu as has been mentioned in the following report?

Witness: No.

Defence: The contents of this report might prove false, and apprehending that, you didn’t made the reporter, Helal Uddin, Former Chairman Alauddin Khan and the Imam, Muazzin, President of the Parerhat Jame Masjid [Mosque], witnesses?

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Look at exhibit-34 [Report of Daily Samakal; dated 10th February, 2007.]

Defence: “Jamat’er Godfather ra Dhora- Choyar Baire” [The Godfathers’ of Jamat have gone away]—the report is titled as follows and is a compilation of some news.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Shohidul Alam Shacchu of Daily Samakal was the local reporter of the part relating to Mr. Syedee’s news on that compilation. Did you interrogate him?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether you have took any initiative from the tribunal to make him present before this tribunal?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether his house is situated at Pirojpur?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: When you questioned him he was not sick and working with the Daily Samakal.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: In total 14 to 15 people of Pirojpur have been made witnesses in this case also comprising a man over 80 years.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Did you interrogate any other reporter than the reporter of Pirojpur portion of the following exhibit-34?

Witness: No.

Defence: In the following report- Mr. Sayedee has been mentioned as a worker of a shop.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: It has been mentioned in the report that- after the liberation; Mr. Sayedee the accused has left his Sikder title and started using Sayedee as his title. Did you collect any documentary evidence about this?

Witness: No. I didn’t find anything.

Defence: Who is Fosiul?

Witness: I didn’t investigate.

Defence: It has been mentioned in the report that when Mr. Syedee was an Member of Perliament, he was arbitary in thisdevelopment initiatives, about the recruitment in the educational sector, about the transfer of the Government service holders--- did you investigate anything about that?

Witness: No.

Defence: I would like to say, if you would have presented the reporter before the tribunal, there was a possibility to prove the materials of the material exhibit-34 as false; so that- you have claimed that it is not possible to present him before the tribunal.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Look at exhibit-46 [Daily Janakantha, dated- 11-8-2010]

Defence: The report is titled as follows--“Sayeede’er nirmom hotyakander shikar shohid Mizan.” [Martyr Mizan was the victim of Sayedee’s brutal activities of killing]. Did you ask anything to the Rifat Bin Toha (reporter of Norail District) about this report?

Witness: No. I didn’t ask.

Defence: It has been mentioned in the report that Mr. Syedee has given an open declaration about capturing the aforesaid late Mizan. Did you investigate?

Witness: During my investigation I didn’t find.

Defence: It has been mentioned in the report that Mr. Mizan has been chained with an Army Jeep and dragged towards the whole Pirojpur District by running the Jeep. Did you find any witness in support of this statement?

Witness: No.

Defence: There is no River named Balu in Pirojpur District?

Witness: No there is no river named Balu-- as has been mentioned in the exhibit-46; but locally Bolesshor River is known as Balu River.

Defence: Do you have any document [either report of newspaper, Government documents or the deposition of any witness.] in support of the title Balu instead of Bolesshor River?

Witness: It is being called locally.

Defence: You have given wrong information about the name.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You have not produced the reporter, in the apprehension of finding the aforesaid report a false one, before the tribunal.

Witness: Not true.

The court was adjourned

Before cross-examination of the Investigation officer by the defence counsel Mizanul Islam continued, the prosecutor Saydur Rahman filed reply to the Application for Review of the 19(2) order and chief defence counsel Abdur Razzaq stated that the defense wanted to file a reply. Sunday was fixed for filing reply and order.

Defence: You have submitted 13 books. Among them there is a book of Muntasir Mamun “Alokchitro songkolon Dhaka, 1948-1971. Thiss book has no relation with this case.

Witness: Yes, this book has no relation.

Defence: Does the book “Mahan Ekusher Suborna Joyonti” have any relevancy?

Witness: The only relevant part is the “Convocation Dhaka University 24th March 1968” and speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah has been taken.

Defence: Muhammad Ali Jinnah said in 68th Convocation Dhaka University that “Only Urdu will be the state language Pakistan”. And my question is whether this statement has any historical contradiction or not?

Witness: No, there is no historical contradiction.

Defence: This statement has no relation with the incident of Pirojpur during 1971 Liberation war and Delwer Hossain Saydee.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Did you analyse the book “Muktijuddher Itihash” written Dr. Jafar Iqbal who is a son of Faizur Rahman who was killed in Pirojpur.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: In this book no where name of Mr. Delwer Hossain Saydee was mentioned.

Witness: Yes, his name is not mentioned.

Defence: This book is only attached for increasing number of books nothing else.

Witness: It is not true.

Defence: You have seized Daily janakantha on 14.04.2001 and exhibited it on exhibit no.6

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Two freedom fighters challenged that they will prove that Delwar Hossain Sayedee was a Rajakaar. Did you collect any information in this regard?

Witness: I have heard that freedom fighter Amjad Hossain Gazi and Royes Poshari wanted to challenge but after trying a lot I have failed to communicate with them.

Defence: Did you any find any newspaper report regarding their statement?

Witness: No.

Defence: Do you tell us whether it was prohibited to attend any religious meeting while Mr.Saeydee attending religious meeting.

Witness: No.

Defence: You have exhibited the newspaper Daily Azad as no.18 In Daily Azad 3 February 1972, reported the killing of Bagirathi and it was published only after the one and half month later of the Liberation War.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: It was the first report relating to the killing of Bagirathi. And there was no information on this report that Mr. Sayedee was involved with the killing of Bagirathi.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Did you tell us whether Daily Azad published any other news regarding the killing of Bagirathi?

Witness: I do not know

Cross examination of the investigation officer was concluded for the day.