Sunday, July 1, 2012

4 Mar 2012: Cross Exam Abed day 2

The prosecutor advocate Zead Al Malum began the proceedings by drawing the attention of the tribunal to a report which was published on the front page of 29th February, 2012, in Daily Sangram . He read out the report which stated that the prosecution was unable to answer the questions raised by the judges. The report said that Advocate Zaed Al Malum was confused by questions from the honorable justices. But the truth, the prosecutor said, was that these kind of incidents did not take place in this way and that the Report has misled the readers.

Justice Nizamul Huq then took the paper and read it. He then said, from this report it seems to me that the incident was not reported in a proper manner. He said that the reporter of Daily Sangram does regularly come to the court to collect news, ‘so I would like to say him that he should be more cautious before publishing news. The signal given is not a proper one.’

The reporter of the Daily Sangram then stood up.

Justice AKM Zaheer said that it was not fair that he was omitting a part of the sentence. ‘You have written the report by mentioning there that the judges asked the question to the Prosecution, but in fact we asked that the defence party’s contention concerning the trial of 195 accused Pakistani POWs,’ he said

The tribunal chairman then said that the report mentions Barrister Sumon, but Barrister Sumon is a junior Lawyer and he is no one to represent the Prosecution team as you mentioned in your report. So be careful about quoting any person.

Advocate Zaed Al Malum said that he wants there to be a correction regarding the report, but the chairman just said that they would move on

The chairman then asked Abdur Razak to move the application on behalf of Golam Azam Case to allow him to receive home made food as allowed by the Jail code. However, as the lawyer was about to present his application, one of the prosecutors informed the tribunal that steps are being taken and the Tribunal may not need to pass any order in this regard. The chairman then said that Razzak should come again tomorrow to see whether any steps had been taken.

After this exchange, the cross examination of Abed Khan by the defence lawyer, Mr. Mizanul Islam continued (following on from the 16 Feb). The chairman asked the defence lawyer to let the Cross Examination be concise.
Defence: Mr. Abed Khan, you have said that there was remarkable participation of Jamaat-e-Islami in 1971. You’ve mentioned all these conspiracies that are made by the neighboring country. The Constitution of Bangladesh has marked the area of Bangladesh in clear words.

Witness: Yes it is true.

Defence: But the Constitution of India has not marked the area which ought to be total area of the country. Article 1(3) (c) of the Constitution of India says that, Such other area as maybe required.

Witness: It is not known to me.

Then Advocate Mizanul Islam repeated the same Question.
Justice AKM Zaheer: Please concentrate on the matter of Jamat-e-Islami, forget other topics.

Defence: When talking on the last day, the witness mentioned the name of India and Burma.

Justice Nizamul Huq: How come, the Constitution of India is relevant to this case it is not clear to us.

Defence: To find out the reasons of doubt, ambiguity and the difference of opinions. I would like to ask the questions.

Justice AKM Zaheer: Mr. Mizan, I again would like to ask you to concentrate on the matter of Jamate Islami. I think the subject matters of the Constitution of other country are not relevant here.

Defence: My Lord, please let me give the opportunity to ask the question. [Then he asked the question to Mr. Abed Khan.
Defence: You have mentioned the word “conspiracy of the neighbor country”. Now, what do you mean by neighboring country. 
Witness: Should I give the answer with explanation? My Lord, if the learned counsel would like to discuss about the history which is one of my favorite topics, then he is most welcome to discuss about the matter when we’re outside the court. 
Justice Nizamul Huq: He would like to ask that which one is the neighbor country. 
Witness: India. 
Defence: Before and after 1947 it was stated by some India leaders that…[Here, Justice AKM Zaheer stopped him.]
Justice AKM Zaheer: Please concentrate on the matter of Jamaat-e-Islami other than the opinion of other political leaders.

Defence: He has used a quotation from a political leader, so hereby I’m asking these questions.

Justice AKM Zaheer: I would like to say please, concentrate on the matter of Mr. Moududi.

Defence: My Lord, here. Mr. Abed has given statement about some political leaders and he has criticized their statements. Now, I would like to ask question about this matter.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Please be focused on today’s topic.

Justice AKM Zaheer: We’ve asked you to concentrate on the matter of Mr Delwar Hossain Sayede. It is not a trial against Jamaat-e-Islami. The aim of this tribunal is to deal with the matters of trial of the particular accused person.

Defence: It is a historical truth that there were some oppositions came out from some particular political groups. May be there was a notion regarding these activities.

Justice AKM Zaheer: We’re not here to give judgment regarding any particular notion.

Advocate Tajul Islam: It is apparent from the Prosecution team that there is a bad attempt to make the whole party accused of those occurrences. Is it fair to accuse a particular political party?

Justice AKM Zaheer: Have you found Jamat-e-Islami accused in the formal charge sheet, Mr. Tajul? No. So, be seated.

Prosecutor Md. Haidar Ali raised his objection against the words of Defence counsel Mr. Tajul Islam.

Justice AKM Zaheer: Please concentrate on the matter of Mr. Delwar Hossain Sayedee.

Advocate Tajul Islam: Do we need to get the permission from you to ask the relevant questions, My Lord?

Justice AKM Zaheer: No, Mr. Tajul. It’s not like that. Please be seated.

Defence: My Lord, you have disregarded the question about the Indian Constitution. But I would like to ask that what was the reason behind the doubt, prevailing among the rightist groups?

Justice Fazle Kabir: Mr. Islam, we are not happy for you to concentrate on his opinion about this matter.
Defence: My Lord, I would like to ask that whether almost all the inhabitants of the region of India and current Bangladesh and Pakistan got the chance to vote for electing their representatives.

Witness: As far as I know, an election had taken its place there.

Defence: All India Muslim League and Indian National Congress were the main parties in that election. Were there any other parties which had taken part on that election? Did Jamat-e-Islami take part on that election?

Witness: They have not taken part, as they didn’t have belief in the existence of Pakistan.

Defence: Was Indian National Congress in favor of the creation of Pakistan?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: By following the leadership of Mr. Gandhi- Mawlana Abul Kalam Azad and Jahwarul Nehru were the significant leaders in Indian Congress. And Md Ali Jinnah was the President of the Muslim League.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: My Lord, the next question is relevant to my topic. Do you know the educational qualification of Mawlana Abul Kalam Azad?

Witness: As far as I know he has studied in Aligarh University

Defence: Whether, Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy were the famous leaders by following the leadership of Md Ali Jinnah?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Could you please tell me the educational qualification of Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: After the liberation war, there was a tripartite agreement in Delhi on 9th April, 1974 about the repatriation of the confined Bangalees in Pakistan and the Prisoners of War of Pakistan in Bangladesh.

Witness: I’m not sure about the place and date.

Defence: Respectively Mr. Dr. Kamal Hossain, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bangladesh, Mr. Swaran Singh, Minister of External Affairs, India and Mr.Aziz Ahmed, Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs, Pakistan had represented their own countries.

Witness: I’m not sure about it.

Defence: By the application of the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman has consented to repatriate those 195 Prisoners of War by that agreement. Now, could you please tell us, who from Jamat-e-Islami made statement against the language movement of 1952,

Witness: There was not any statement from Jamat-e-Islami. But a book written by Maulana Moududi titled “Shiashi Kasmakash” has argued against the movement. Language Movement, Democracy, Nationalism etc has been mentioned there as outside Islam

Defence: In which language was the book written?

Witness: Urdu.

Defence: Whether the book was written before or after 1947?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether there was any Bangla translation of this book?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: On 1952 Abdur Rahim was the head of East Pakistan Jamat-e-Islami. Whether at that time he has given a statement like ‘language movement is the conspiracy of India?’

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: You’re admitting that Jamaat-e-Islami did not take part in the election of 1954. Now, could you please tell us, whether they have given any statement against the United front.

Witness: There was no statement. Because, in the aftermath the Kadiyani Riot, Maulana Moududi was given a death sentence by the Army Court. They were very aggravated about this.

Defence: Did Jamat-e-Islami give any statement before or after the election?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Was there was any disturbance arising out about the book “Pakistan, Desh O Krishty” on 1962 with the education movement.

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: The philosophy of Maulana Moududi has been inserted in the Autobiography of Mr. Abbas Ali khan. Could you please mention the name and year of publication of the book, as you have read the book already?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: What was the profession of Mr. Abbas Ali Khan?

Witness: It does not need to be known by me.

Defence: Whether Mr. Abbas Ali Khan has joined the Jamat-e-Islami, before or after 1947, do you know?

Witness: It is not necessary for me to know.

Defence: When did Maulana Moududi establish the Jamat-e-Islami.

Witness: May be it was around 1940.

Defence: What is the name of the highest council in the structure of Jamaat-e-Islami?

Witness: Maajlish-e-Sura.

Defence: What is the name of the decision making authority in Jamaat-e-Islami?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether the constitution of Jamaat-e-Islami has declared the election mechanism of Bangladesh, illegal? 
Witness: If there was anything written against the Constitution of Bangladesh in  their constitution that very moment their manual would be declared illegal by the law.
The court was adjourned until 2 pm
Defence: Can you tell me, whether the theory of Moududi exists in jamaat-e-islam’s constitution or not?

Witness: It is not specifically mentioned.

Defence: How many times Mr. Sayedee delivered his Parliamentarian speech in parliament?

Witness: I cannot say.

Defence: Have you ever heard any full speech of Mr. Sayedee’s Parliamentarian speech?

Witness: No.
Defence: He has delivered his speech in numerous Oaj-Mahfil (religious meeting). Did you hear it?

Witness: Yes, I have heard it.

Defence: There are many audio and video CDs of Mr. Sayedee’s speech in Parliament as well as Oaj-mahfil.

Witness: I have heard about audio cassettes but not about video cassette.

Defence: Whether there is any audio cassette where he directly talks about killing, torture, rape in 1971?

Witness: No, there is no such cassette but after hearing his speech it seemed to me that he wanted to justify those offences that occurred in 1971.

Defence: Can you tell me please, in which place he delivered such type of speech?

Witness: No, I cannot say it at this moment. 
Chairman: How could he say about an  exact place, it might be at bus station or somewhere else. 
Defence: But My lord, when a person comes to give his testimony, we always expect specific answer.

Defence: Have you ever given any statement regarding these offences which he tried to justify?

Witness: Yes, I have written article in newspaper. But at this moment I can not say the name of article as well as in which newspaper it was published.

Defence: You and some other political figure are against the religious politics especially against the jamaat-i-islam. Is that true?

Justice Zaheer said learned prosecution you are not allowed to speak about any one else.

Witness: Yes, for my status and ideology, I am against this party.

Defence: That is reason behind your writing against the Jamaaat leader. Is that true?

Witness: No, it is not true.

Defence: There have been published many books nationally and internationally regarding Liberation war, freedom fighters and the person who opposed Liberation war. Is that true?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Can you tell us whether the Daily Azad, Daily Pakistan, Daily Ittefaq, Banglar Bani, Shaptahik Bichitra was continuing their publication in 1971 or after 1971?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether the BAKSAL Government or Awami League Government imposed any censorship upon the news published against the person who opposed liberation?

Witness: There was no Government named as BAKSAL Government.

Note: Tribunal did not take the above question

Defence: Do you know, whether the Government seized any book which has been written describing the person who opposed Liberation?

Witness: No.

Defence: From 1971 to 1990, there is no book stating that Mr. Sayedee opposing Liberation war. Is that true?

Witness: I cannot remember it specifically.

Defence: Whether you have written any article on Mr. Sayedee?

Witness: Though 35 years have already passed still I have not writren anything about him as he was not important for me.

Defence: When he became influential in political field then you wrote about him. Is not it?

Witness: No, I never write against a person rather I write on my ideological basis.

Defence: Have you heard the name of book “ Shadhinater Dalilpatra” written by Hasan Hafizur Rahman” and ‘Pak-juddha-oparadhi 191 jon” written by M.A. Hasan? These two are very important, is that not correct?

Witness: There are numerous documentary books about the liberation war, it can not be said that only these two are very much important. These two books can not also be said to be the perfect books, since different types of research are published in different books.

Defence: can you tell me name of some books?

Witness: Yes, “Muktijuddher baktir obosthan” written by Shamshul Abedin. “Jamaat-i-islam er rajneeti” written by Mawlana Abdul Awal.

Defence: Mawlana Abdul Awal was the director general of Islamic Foundation in the last regime of Awami league.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Have you read the book “Pak juddha-poradhi 191 jon”?

Witness: No, I did not read the whole book.

Defence: In that book, it is mentioned that among 270 war criminal, 191 were the main war criminal, killing of 12 million people, next part of that book mentioned about the aggrieved people of Pirojpur, and how Pakistan army committed offences. Is that true?

Witness: I have said, I did not read the book completely.

Then the chairman said, you will get no result by cross-examining him questioning the content of that book, rather you may produce this book before the Tribunal.

Defence: After the Liberation war, people who are involved in “Malek Ministry” surrendered near Bangladesh. Do you know that?

Witness: Yes

Defence: Malek wanted his trial under Geneva Convention but later it was rejected as he was the citizen of Bangladesh so he should be prosecuted under the Collaborators Ordinance-1972.

Witness: Yes, it was reported in Ittefaq also.

Justice Nassim: How can it be possible for one person to know all those things?

Defence: My lord, he reported to give witness as journalist so he should know all those things.

Witness: My Lord, I have requested it before to the defence counsels “please do not question on my integrity”

Defence: In 2009, 3 lawyers filed cases on war crime to the Dhaka First Joint District Judges Court against Mr. Sayedee along with 66 others. It was published in Daily Shomokal. Do you know that?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: And then the case was rejected. It was also published.

Witness: Then I was not in Daily Shomokaal.

Defence: You have used a word “God Father” in Daily Shomakaal dated 10th February 2007. Basically Godfather means director of unlawful assembly or leader of American Mafia. 

Witness: Actually I used the word God father from the book of “Godfather” written by Mario Pogo.

Justice Nassim: Can the meaning of Godfather be the subject of cross-examination?

Witness: This matter really seems to me irrelevant as this matter was uncontested in last five years.

Justice Nassim: However, what did you want to mean by this word?

Witness: I wanted to mean that they are always out of reach, but they are the master planner.

Defence: In your report, you have published “Godfather of Awami league and BNP” then who are the Godfather of this two party.

Witness: As I did not mention the names of those people then so I cannot say it now also.

Justice Nassim: To whom he indicated was Godfather in 2007 is not possible for him to recall at this moment.

Defence: You have mentioned it also that, Godfather of Jamaat are not less in number than the Godfather of Awami league and BNP. Did you mean that Godfather were those persons who are arrested before your reporting?
Justice Zaheer said this above question is not taken.

Defence: My lord, we are not withdrawing this question, we are seeking a review petition.
Defence: You wanted to mean by this report that there exists Godfather in Awami league also.

Witness: All these matters are clear in my report. I do not want to say anything more than that.

Defence: At the time of the care-taker Government, a case was filed on corruption and terrorism against four people, However, Mr. Saydeee and Gulam Parwar were not included in those four persons.

Witness: Yes, till than he was not included but after that, what happened, I do not know.

Defence: Were they arrested during the caretaker regime?

Witness: No, but they hid themselves.

Defence: Whether any report published against them relating to corruption case?

Witness: I can not remember it.

Defence: Abu Taher, one person among the four persons, was arrested in caretaker regime but after that he was released as there was no allegation against him by the Anti-corruption commission.

Witness: I cannot remember.

Defence: Mr. Shahjahan was aquitted by the High court division as the case was invalid. Do you know that?

Witness: No, I cannot remember.

Defence: Do you know anything regarding the educational background of Mr. Sayedee?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you know which name he has used in his School and Madrasa ( religious school) certificate?

Witness: No, whether it is Saidee or Sikder, I do not know.

Defence: which name he has used in his Dakhil and Alim (equivalent to Secondary certificate and Higher Secondary certificate) certificate?

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: Ever you been to any institution where he studied?

Witness: No.

Justice Nassim: why he will do this it is work of investigation officer.

Defence: My lord, In his report he published that “later on Mr. Saidee gave up his name “Sikder” and named as “Saidee”.

Witness: This information is collected by my reporter.

Defence: Did you justify this report or communicate to any institution where Mr. Sayedee studied?

Witness: No, I have full trust or faith on my reporter.

Defence: Can you tell me what is name of that reporter?

Witness: I cannot remember at this time.

Defence: The name of the reporter must be found at the Newspaper office. Is not it?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Did you give this name to the Investigation officer?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: You did not justify the report before publication. Was it?

Witness: As an editor I observed all my responsibilities. This news comes from different sources, so it is not possible to answer elaborately.

Defence: Have you read the full report?

Witness: Actually I did not compile the report, it was compiled by news-editor and published by me.

Defence: Did you publish the protest given by Mr.Sayedee against this report according to the rules?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Have you any idea regarding the report of mass-investigation commission?

Witness: Yes, I have seen their report.

Defence: One of their report it is mentioned that “Mr. Saydee was not involved in any political party in 1971.’

Witness: I cannot remember it at this moment.

Defence: Are you involved in any other profession other than journalism. I have news that you along with another person involved in shrimp business.

Witness: My lord when I was abroad different types of news was published against me. News like that I have taken loan from Bank etc.

Defence: Do you know Mr. Anisuzzaman, Son of late Mr.Sharif Hossain .

Witness: No., I do not know.

Defence: For publishing against Ibne Sina, a case has been filed against you. Is that true?

Witness: Yes, My Lord, an editor has lots of responsibility. Ibne Sine has filed a case against me for publishing a report.

Defence: In 2010, Mr. Matiur Rahman was editor of Prothom Alo and you were the editor of Kaaler Kontha. That time Mr. Matiur Rahman filed a case against you and you were reproved by press council. Is that true?

Witness: Yes, I want to explain something, actually the report for which I was reproved had been published in my absence. And as a result I left “Kaaler Kantha”

Defence: In 2007, you are involved in Daily Shomakaal. And owner of the Daily Shomakaal was Mr. A.K Azad who was the member of Awami league. Is that true?

Witness: No, It is not true.

Defence: You did not tell Mr. Helal uddin ( Investigation officer) that you have started journalism from 1962. Is that true?

Witness: It is not true.

Defence: You did not tell it to Mr. Helal that Mr. Sayedee formed Razakaar force at Parer haat Bazaar. Is that true?

Witness: It is not true.

Defence: You did not give your Historical speech to investigation Officer. Is that true?

Witness: It is not true. I have said everything which is required by investigation officer

Defence: Your allegation against Mr. Sayedee , founder of Jamaat Mr. Moududi and report published in Shomakaal dated on 10th February 2007. All are totally false statement. Is that true?

Witness: No. It is not true.

Defence: You have given false statement and false allegation against Mr.Sayedee. Is that true?

Witness: No, It is not true.

Then the court was adjourned.

No comments:

Post a Comment