Sayedee trial analysis: limiting defense witnesses

This is a first of a series of posts looking at some of the issues relating to whether or not Delwar Hossain Sayedee, a Jamaat-e-Islami leader accused of genocide and crimes against humanity during the 1971 War of Independence, is receiving a fair trial.

Whilst the daily newspapers in Bangladesh provide reports of some of what goes on at the tribunal, they provide very limited analysis. This and a number of subsequent posts are intended to help provide a better understanding of the trial process. The focus on his trial - rather than any of the others taking place in the two tribunals in Dhaka - is because it is the most advanced; if press reports and rumors are to be believed the verdict will be given just before or after 16 December 2012, a day known in Bangaladesh as 'victory day', the 41 years ago when the Pakistan military surrendered and Bangladesh became independent.

In the past I have written about the issue of national vs international standards and about a number of legislative and procedural weaknesses in the tribunal (these are all listed here). What I am writing about in these series of posts is more fundamental; decisions made by the tribunal that go to the heart of whether or not Sayedee has/had a fair trial (irrespective of whether the tribunal was aspiring to national or international standards).

The 20 witness order

This first analytical post looks at an order made by the tribunal on 14 August 2012 in which it ruled that Sayedee's defense lawyers could present a maximum of 20 witnesses in court.

Summary of facts and concerns
The summary of the facts and concerns are as follows:

In July 2011, the prosecution gave the tribunal 138 names of witnesses it wished would testify before the tribunal to substantiate 20 counts (involving 35 separate offenses) involving crimes against humanity/genocide. 

The defense in December 2011 then gave a list of 48 names of witness it wished to call to the tribunal. This is one third of the prosecution number and was at the time accepted by the tribunal. 

When the trial started, the prosecution were only able to summon a total of 28 witnesses - 20 of which were witnesses of fact - to the tribunal. The tribunal accepted
as evidence a further 16 written statements from witnesses of fact. Substantive statements of 36 people were admitted as evidence

In August 2012, when the prosecution finished its case, the tribunal - without having any knowledge about what evidence any of the defense witnesses were going to give - passed an order saying that the defense could only call 20 out of their 48 witnesses.  

In its order, the tribunal explained why 28 witnesses could not be called by saying that  48 witnesses was 'given with the intention to delay the trial.' 

The tribunal did not have in its hand any information to suggest that any of these witnesses were not relevant to Sayedee's defense, and so how calling them would inappropriately delay the trial

It cannot be suggested that 48 witnesses to defend 20 counts of crimes against humanity/genocide - when conviction for any of them could result in the death penalty - is excessive.  

The tribunal did not deal substantively with the application to review the order - simply saying that the review application of the order was itself also intended to delay the tribunal.

The ability of the accused person like Sayedee to call relevant witnesses is crucial to a fair trial. Cutting by more than half the number of witness that an accused can call to the court, without evidence that these witnesses are unnecessary, is a serious matter, going to the heart of the integrity to the process. One would have expected that the tribunal would have wanted to hear all relevant evidence before making coming to judgement.  

Background
The law: Section 9(5) of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973 requires that at the beginning of the trial, before any prosecution testimony is heard in court, the defense provide to the court (and the prosecution) a list of the witnesses it wishes to rely on. It states:

'A list of witnesses for the defence, if any, along with the documents or copies thereof, which the defence intends to rely upon, shall be furnished to the Tribunal and the prosecution at the time of the commencement of the trial.'

[As an aside, this provision itself is very unusual - and is one example of the many problems in the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. Such a provision is not part of Bangladesh law where the practice is for the defense to provide the magistrate with details of any witnesses it may wish to call after the prosecution has presented its case. It is also unheard of in any international tribunal for the defense to have to inform the court which witnesses it will call prior to the prosecution case. There is good reason why the defense should not be required to provide details of their witnesses at such an early stage; the defense needs to hear exactly the nature of the evidence against them before deciding which particular witnesses should be called. It makes no sense to have the Defense be required to form a witness list before they have heard the Prosecution case]

Prosecution provides witness list/statement: In July 2011, at the time of taking cognizance for offences against Sayedee the prosecution team provided to the tribunal and the defense statements of 60 witnesses (30 of which were witnesses of fact)  that it hoped would testify before the tribunal. Subsequently it gave a further 78 witnesses (of which 35 were witnesses of fact, making a total of 65 witnesses of fact with the remaining as seizure list witnesses).

Trial starts: The prosecution started calling witnesses on 7 December 2011. Prior to starting, the tribunal made no comment or passed no order limiting the number of witnesses that the prosecution could bring, or making any other negative comment. There was no assertion by the tribunal that seeking to bring 138 witnesses as a delaying tactic.

Defence provides list: Seven days later on 14 December 2011 the defense provided the tribunal and the prosecution with a list of its own 48 witnesses. This is a third of the number of prosecution witnesses which the

Prosecution calls 20 witness: The prosecution case lasted between December 2011 and August 2012 (9 months). 28 out of the 138 prosecution witnesses testified at the tribunal - 20 of which were witnesses of fact. In addition, following an application to the tribunal, the judges ruled that the unsigned statements of 15 additional witnesses could be admitted as evidence. [It should be noted that the 1973 Act does not appear to allow the defense to seek the admission of written statements*] An additional statement was also admitted when one witness died. This made the total number of witnesses whose oral or written statements have been admitted to be 44 (36 of which were witnesses of fact). At no point during the prosecution case did the tribunal try to limit the number of prosecution witnesses.

The 14 August Order
On 14 August, just after the prosecution had completed its case, the tribunal passed an order limiting the defense witnesses to 20. A full transcript of this order can be found here. The pertinent part is below:

"It appears that the recording of prosecution witnesses has been completed. Now the next step according to the Act is fixing a date for defence witness. It appears that the defence has submitted list of witnesses and also materials upon which they want to rely with. This case involves 20 charges against the accused Person The witness produced in this Tribunal by the prosecution is number 28 including the Investigation Officer. Upon eye view of them, we find that that out of 28 witnesses the Investigation Officer is witness Nos 28 and there are 27 witnesses more who have been produced in this Tribunal by the prosecution Among them, we find 20 witnesses made statements regarding occurrence and there are more witnesses who have produced documents and are seizure list witnesses. We now find that 20 witnesses have been produced by the prosecution in support of the 20 charges brought against the accused' We have also examined section 11 (3) (a) and (b) of the Act and Rule 51(A)(1)(2) and 53(3) of the Rules. We have given our anxious thought as to the number of defence witnesses to be allowed to be produced. The defence has submitted list of 48 witnesses and we find that this is excessive. There is no reason to allow 48 witnesses to be produced by the defence Rather it has been given with the intention to delay the trial. After due consideration of the fact and laws, we are of the view that the accused may be allowed to produce 20 witnesses in his favour and in that case, ends of justice will be met. As such the defence is directed to submit the list of those 20 witnesses along with particulars of the points and the charges on which the witnesses will adduce their evidence by 23.08.2012 positively' To 28.08.2012 for defense witness."

Section 11(3)(a) and (b) of the Act states:

A Tribunal shall-(a) confine the trial to an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges;
(b) take measures to prevent any action which may cause unreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements.

Rule 53(3) states that the tribunal the right to:

‘regulate the matter of time management as and when it deems necessary, for ensuring effective and expeditious trial’.

Recall and review application
The defense sought to recall the order and, once it received a copy of the written order, sought to review it. (These are detailed arguments in the defense applications can be seen at these links)

In its order of 28 August 2012 rejecting the recall application the tribunal stated:

"In the second application they have prayed for recalling the order dated 14.08.2012, on the ground that limiting the number of Defence witnesses to 20 has been done by the Tribunal without any support of Law and Rules even it violates the principle of equality of arms because of the fact that the prosecution examined 28 witnesses and 16 more statements made before the Investigation Officer has been accepted by the Tribunal as evidence that means they have produced evidence of 44 witnesses. As such equality of arms having been denied, the order is liable to be recalled. He further submitted that the moot question of criminal justice is this that no party should be prejudiced and if the order dated 14.08.2012 is not recalled then the accused will be seriously prejudiced. 

Mr. Syed Haider Ali, the learned prosecutor opposed the petitions, by submitting that they were to submit list of 20 witnesses by 23.08.2012 and that having not been done the order of the Tribunal has been violated and as such the accused should be barred from producing any witness in their favour. 

We have heard Mr. Abdur Razzaq the learned counsel and Mr. Syed Haider AIi, the learned prosecutor. We have found that the petitioner has not submitted the list of witnesses on 23.08.2012 but they have come with the petition mentioning only five witnesses and the particular of charges upon which they will give evidence today and prayed for time to submit the remaining list with a further prayer to recall the order dated 14.08.2012 and in the order passed by this Tribunal on 23.08.201.2 the order dated 14.08.201.2 was considered and found valid, and as such there is no reason to recall that order, and the recall prayer stands rejected." (emphasis added)

This order refers back to an earlier order given on 23 August 2012. In that order (which dealt primarily with an application for adjournment of the trial) the tribunal stated that the review application, which had not yet been filed, would be rejected because it was only being filed for the purpose of delay. It stated:

"It appears that in the Act there is no provision for review application; only to correct mistakes and to give a chance to either parties we introduced review in the rules framed by us. It now appears that this has become a frank stain and is being used for the prayers for adjournment and delay the trial which cannot be done. We do not find any reason to consider the review application if filed as such for preferring review application we are not included to allow any adjournment." (emphasis added)

This 23rd August order does not, actually explain why the order was 'considered and found valid'

When the review application was filed (which happened after the tribunal had given the defense a certified copy of the order) the tribunal dismissed it referring back to these orders. At not time therefore, does it appear that the Tribunal gave a substantive response to the detailed defense application questioning the lawfulness of the 14 August order. Instead the tribunal simply said that the review application was undertaken to waste time.

Safe house witnesses - no flexibility on 20 witnesses
There will be a separate post on this issue, but at one point during the trial the genuineness of a register of the 'witness safe house' became an issue, and the tribunal in an order given on 9 October said that the defense had to prove its genuineness through 'evidence'. However the tribunal subsequently ruled that if the defense lawyers wanted to bring any witness to help provide the authenticity of the register it would have to be within the 20 witnesses. Any witnesses on this issue could not be additional to the 20 permitted witnesses.

Comment
In the context of a fair trial, the August 14th order is significant. Sayedee has to defend himself in relation to 35 offenses. In that context 48 defense witnesses do not appear in any way excessive, in particular when the prosecution had originally hoped to bring 138 witnesses to court. The prosecution's inability to call more than 20 oral witnesses, should not limit the number of defense witnesses. In any case the prosecution is also relying on a further 16 written statements, so if it was parity that the tribunal sought (though parity on number of witnesses should not be the logic that is operating) the tribunal should have allowed 36 defense witnesses - particularly in the context that the the 1973 Act does not allow witness statements to be admitted as evidence.

It is not uncommon for international tribunals to rule that a particular witness should not be brought to court court - but any decisions of the kind taken had an objective basis. The relevant international tribunal will having looked at a summary of the evidence which the particular witness is likely to give, and determined that it was either redundant (since similar evidence has already been given) or because it is not legally relevant; if the tribunal considered that a witness should not be called, then it will pass an order about that particular witness providing reasons.

In the Bangladesh tribunal however: (a) the judges could not assess these issues as they did not have any details about what the witnesses would say; (b) did not make an assessment witness by witness (c) instead it made a decision to reject hearing the evidence of 28 witnesses (why 28?) (d) provided no reasons for this decision other than the defense was trying to waste time (e) provided no evidence to suggest that bringing these witnesses were part of a defense strategy of delay.

Effectively the tribunal appears to be saying to Sayedee; bringing witnesses (other than the number that we allow you) to provide evidence to substantiate your claim of innocence is wasting time. However, one must ask: what is the purpose of the tribunal other than to hear relevant witnesses?

It is also worth nothing how the prosecution and the defense have on this issue been treated differently:
(a) the tribunal was not critical of the prosecution seeking to call 138 witnesses, but it was critical of the defense calling 48 witnesses;
(b) allowed the prosecution to admit evidence of 36 substantive witnesses, but only allowed the defense to admit 20 witness (in fact it only allowed 17 witnesses - a matter that I will come to in a different post.

A further disconcerting matter is the fact that the Tribunal rejected the recall/ review application because the tribunal thought that they were filed in order to waste time. So one has the rather bizarre situation that the tribunal first decides to reduce the number of witnesses of the defense, arguing that the defense is trying to 'delay the trial' by seeking to bring 48 witnesses. And then when this order was challenged, judging the 'review' application itself called a delay strategy.






------------------
* Section 19(2) of the Act states:  A Tribunal may receive in evidence any statement recorded by a Magistrate or an Investigation Officer being a statement made by any person who, at the time of the trial, is dead or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which the Tribunal considers unreasonable.' The reference to 'magistrate' and 'investigation officer' seems to suggest that only the prosecution have access to this opportunity - another problem with the 1973 Act  of course.

23 Aug 2012: Sayedee trial adjournment rejected

This is an out of sequence post relating to 23 August 2012

The tribunal only sat in the afternoon to hear a number of applications.

Tajul Islam, the defense lawyer said that although on 14 August 2012, the defense were directed to file a list of 20 defence witnesses on this day in the case of Delwar Hossain Sayedee, it was not possible for them to do so.

He then mentioned the two applications which had been filed: one sought postponement of submission of defence witness list, adjournment of the start of the case until the accused is medically fit and a six week adjournment to obtain an update from independent specialist medical practitioner as to the Accused-Petitioner’s health. The second application sought an independent medical certificate.

The prosecutor responded to the applications by saying that the tribunal had already agreed that the trial could take place without the presence of the accused; that no extra time is required to get the 20 witnesses as they are part of the 48 witnesses originally listed; that a lawyer should always be prepared after bring instructed by a client; and that the defense witnesses should come on 28 August. [copies of these application are not available at present]

The chairman then said that the two applications are rejected and that the order will be given later on. He said that the defense should come on 28 August 2012.

The full order taken from the original is set out below:

The two applications have been filed by the accused, one praying for postponement of the submission of defence witness list for adjournment of the trial fixed on 28.08.2012 and for hearing whther the accused is fit for the trial and the second application for calling an immediate independent medical report of the health condition of the accused petitioner. It appears that the 3rd prayer of the first application and the second application relates to similar submission. Mr Tanvir Islam the learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that on 14.08.2012 the tribunal has directed them to submit list of 20 witnesses along with the particular of the points and/or the charges on which the witnesses will adduce their evidence by today but they will pray for review of the said order. At the initial stay they submit list of 48 witnesses but that has been limited to 20 witnesses . They have applied for certified copy of the order dates 14.08.2012 but they have not received it as yet and as such they cannot file review application and for end of justice, the direction upon the defence to submit witness list may be postponed all hearing of the review matter. And for that reason an adjournment of the recording of the evidence of defence witnesses on 28.08.2012 may also be allowed. Mr Tajul Islam further submitted that the accused petition is sick for a long time and excepting 08.08.2012 he has not been produced in this tribunal, ends of justice required that the trial should proceed in presence of the accused and as such his health condition may be ascertained by the Tribunal by an independent specialist medical practitioner to decide whether the trial should proceed in presence of the accused other the accused shall be prejudiced.

Mr Syed Haider Ali the learned prosecution opposing the prayer submitted that today is fixed for submission of witness list along with particular and the date is fixed for recording defence witness statement on 28.08.2012 and he is waiting to receive the list of defence witness along with the particulars of their statements. The defence being not doing their functions properly has come with this type of applications just to delay the proceedings and as such the application should out rightly be rejected.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned prosecutor and given our anxious though over the matter. On 13.08.2012, the prosecution completed their examination of witnesses. On that date, Mr Mizanul Islam the learned counsel for the defense frankly admitted to the tribunal that for preparation and for other reasons the next date should be from 14.08.2012 to 26.08.2012, having considered his submissions this tribunal fixed 28.08 for commencement of the trial under section 9(5) of the Act. In Tribunal Rules it has been incorporated that along with the list of witness the particular of the charges and or the points on which the witness proposed to give evidence are to be furnished. As it has been inserted in the rules we did not force the defence to supply the particular earlier and by order dated 14.08.2012 we asked them to supply the particulars and also asked them to submit list of 20 witnesses which we allowed to be examined on behalf of the defence. That order has not yet been complied with rather they have come with this application with a purpose to delay the proceedings in the name of filing review application. It appears that in the Act there is no provision for review application only to correct mistakes and to give a chance to either parties we introduced review in the rules framed by us. It now appears that this has become a frank stain and is being used for the prayed for adjournment and delay the trial which cannot be done. We do not find any reason to consider the review application if filed as such for preferring review application we are not included to allow any adjournment. The defence is to submit their witness list positively by today and the adjournment prayer stands rejected. In our rules, Rule 43(a) shows that if an accused cannot be brought before the Tribunal due to his long ailment, the tribunal shall have the authority to proceed with the proceedings in presence of his counsel or pass any order which it deems fit and proper. This is clear that due to illness if the accused is not produced in this tribunal the tribunal can proceed with the case in his absence and the accused Delwar Husain Sayedee being sick and cannot be produced in this Tribunal them the Tribunal is authorized to proceed with the case. Further more prayed for independent medical certificate by an independent specialist medical practitioner is not at all called for. There is no merit in this application and as such those stand rejected.

Previous analysis of the law and tribunal process

Analysis of the International Crimes Tribunal

Here are a number of op-eds I wrote about the ICT at the pre-trial stage of proceedings - looking mostly at law and procedure.

3 Mar 2012: Further Bias is no answer

1 Oct 2011: A Crucial Period for the ICT

8 Aug 2011  ICT: The age of Reasons

5 Aug 2011  Convicting the guilty of fair trial for the accused

15 Jun 2011 A question of Standards

26 Apr 2011 What to do about SQC?

1 Apr 2011 Taking a leaf out of the prime minister's playbook

1 Jan 2011 Seeking justice that Bangladesh can take pride in

Other analysis on this blog

An analysis of the Sayedee indictment in four parts, written in November 2011
1. Charges

2. Legal

3. 1971 deaths

4. Tribunal history

A couple of posts on the media coverage of the tribunal in Bangladesh

1. 15 Feb 2012 Malicious journalism against Al Jazeera

2. 20 Feb 2012 - Daily Star's attack on Al Jazeera

Evidence of abduction? Look at the tribunal CCTV

The International Crimes Tribunal may have important evidence that could help determine the truth of the allegation made by the defense lawyers that one of its witnesses, Sukhoranjan Bali was abducted by the law enforcement authorities from outside the tribunal gates on 5 November.

This is the footage from at least 16 CCTV cameras which are located throughout the inside of the tribunal and outside. A screen showing images coming from these cameras is on both the desks of the registrar and the tribunal chairman, Nizamul Huq.

Officials within the tribunal have confirmed that footage is kept for 30 days in the computer hard discs before it gets wiped off. The registrar also confirmed to me that no-one has looked at the footage in the context of the alleged abduction on 5 November to see what it shows (though see below).

There are images from a number of these cameras that might assist in helping to corroborate different aspects of the incident and surrounding circumstances.

Rule 46A of the Tribunal's rules of procedure states:

"Nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Tribunal to make such order(s) as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process.”

This power can easily be used - indeed should already have been used? - to initiate an independent investigation (with perhaps both the involvement of a defense and prosecution representative) into this incident.

Since, the footage has not been looked at till now, the tribunal should immediately take action to ensure that (with the assistance of the defense, prosecution and registrar) it is is looked at carefully to see whether it can provide any further information on the alleged abduction that took place on 5 November.

Below is set out what the footage could show.

Bali in court on the 4th
The incident happened on the 5th morning - but the credibility of the abduction allegation is increased if  it can be substantiated that, as the defense lawyers claim, the day before Bali was in court hoping to give evidence.

The defense claim that Bali was in the court's defense room (which is located on the first floor of the tribunal) for most of the day on the 4th November. This, they say was because the defense's application to allow Bali to attend as a witness at the tribunal was due for hearing. Md Hasanul Banna Sohag says that he was the defense lawyer who brought Bali into court on that day and says that he wrote a false name, 'Atis sen' in the register to ensure that there was no problem in his entering the tribunal, and the register book appears to support this. However, it is possible that 'Atis Sen' refers to another person and not Bali.

Bali's presence in the defense room has been corroborated by another lawyer  - but since this lawyer represents another Jamaat accused, this will not be seen by many to amount to independent confirmation.

There are two CCTV camera which are right at the entranceway of the main court building, in the alcove where the registration takes place. Looking at the footage from these cameras should be able to confirm whether or not Bali came to the tribunal that day.

In addition inside the foyer of the tribunal, there are cameras that should also show whether or not Bali entered into the tribunal.

Outside the front gate of the tribunal on the 5th

From inside tribunal grounds: camera on pole directly in
front of the front gate where Bali is alleged to have been
taken by the plain cloths police.

There is a CCTV camera (see picture on right) that appears to cover an area that includes around the front gate of the tribunal premises where defense lawyer's car stops. It is at this point the three lawyers and Bali are supposed to have got out of the car, and then three plain clothes police man stepped in to take him away.

The tribunal registrar says that this camera does not cover this area, but covers the inside area of the tribunal. If so, then then the camera was very oddly located as its view would then be obstructed by the post on which it is located as well as by the tree which surrounds it.

From outside the front gate: White pole, directly in front of
tree and white van, has the camera located on it 

It appears that this camera is moving through a 180 /360 degree turn and so even assuming that this camera covered the front gate, may not have covered the incident at the time.

However all the pictures of that morning need to be looked at










Movement of police car from inside the tribunal

These is a close up of the
type of CCTV camera
close to two gates

The lawyers claim that the police car  into which Bali was put came from inside the tribunal premises to a different gate (at the back of the tribunal).

The mobile phone picture of the police car (see picture numbered 1 on this page) does suggest that the police car did come from inside the tribunal, but there is no other independent evidence.

There is a CCTV camera in the car park, which would appear to be able to see up the narrow path toward the gate - and so it is possible that it would have captured the movement of this police car being first parked inside the tribunal premises and then moving towards the back gate of the tribunal. This camera was also, it appears, a moving camera, so it may not have been looking in the right direction when the police car was moving

Deputy Registrar, Mesbahuddin Ahmed
The deputy register says that he was present at the gate at a time shortly after the abduction is alleged to have taken place, whilst the defense argue that whilst he did come to the gate, it was some time after the abduction - after when Tajul Islam had berated the security guards at the gate. A number of CCTV cameras both inside and outside the tribunal building should have captured the time when he went out of the court and walked towards the gate.

The CCTV footage may well hold important information about this alleged abduction. It is important that it is looked at in a way that all parties consider credible.

Correction/Amendment
- A change was made on 28 November: Originally the last section said that the 'deputy register says he was present at the gate when the abduction would have taken place.'

This has been changed to  'The duty register says that he was present at the gate at a time shortly after the abduction is alleged to have taken place ..' It also adds the phrase ' - after when Tajul Islam had berated the security guards at the gate.'

Exclusive: Wife of abducted witness speaks out

Aruti Rani Bali, the wife of Sukhranjan Bali outside
her village house

Last weekend I went down to the district of Pirojpur in Bangladesh to, amongst other things, meet the family of Sukhoranjan Bali who is alleged to have been abducted by law enforcement agencies outside the International Crimes Tribunal.

In the village where she lives, we found Bali's wife Aruti Rani Bali, and their daughter, Monica Mondal.

Monica lives at her in-law's house in Barisol and had come over to her mother's house when she heard what had happened to her father. It was not clear exactly when she arrived.

Bali's son had left the village after the abduction of his father and gone, the family thinks, out of fear to Mongla port.

Below is a slightly edited transcript of a videoed interview. It is edited simply to avoid repetition or irrelevant non-sequiturs in the answers. Everything stated of any relevance is in the transcript. The interview was done in the presence of myself and an assistant who has, like me, no connections of any kind with the Jamaat or any of the newspapers supportive of Jamaat/BNP. The interview was in Bangla, and below is a translation. The wife generally answered the questions but but when the daughter did so, it is made clear in the transcript below.

The interview is important in that it seems to help corroborate a number of issues relating to the alleged abduction of Bali: (a) that Bali had gone to Dhaka in the first days of November (b) that he was on his way to to the tribunal on the 5th morning (since she says that he called him at that time) (c) that he was willingly going to give evidence on behalf of Sayedee (d) that he has been missing since then - the family have not received any calls from him on the 5th.

Please see further comments at the end of the interview. 

Background: Bali was originally a prosecution witness, who apparently did not want to give evidence to the tribunal, and ran away to India at around the time that the trial started (November 2011), then came back - and then appears to have agreed to give evidence for the defense, to the effect that his brother's death was committed by the Pakistan military.

INTERVIEW

Distraught wife of Bali

Wife: Where is my husband, bring him home. He went to the court and then he was picked up ….. My son out of fear left home, maybe to gngla port to work … People say that my husband is no more. He used to say I will speak the truth at the court that my brother was killed by the Pakistani army. Where is he, where is he? ….



Q: When did Bali go to Dhaka
A: (Wife): Nov 3rd. On the 5th he went to court

Q: Where was he on the fourth, who did he stay with?
A: (Wife): I don’t know

Q: Did he go alone?
A: (Wife): I don’t know that.

Q (to daughter): To check that it was Nov 3rd
A: (Wife): yes. It was raining that day, it was Tuesday.
A: (Wife): no it was Monday.
A: (Daughter): Oh, yes, it was Monday.

Q: Were you threatened/intimidated after the incident?
A: (Wife): Yes, people came and I asked who those people were. And then the OC (officer in charge of police station) came.

Q: Who intimidated you? The local people?
A: (Daughter) I wasn’t here. Mother was here.
A (Wife): I want my Husband.

Q: Who intimidated you?
A: (Wife): The OC came.

Q: What did the OC told you? Did he tell you not to speak to anyone? Did he take your signature in any paper?
A: (Wife): No he wanted us to sign a blank paper but we denied.

Q: When did he come?
A: (Wife): The next day, 6th of November.

Q: Are you sure that Bali went to Dhaka on Nov 3rd. Did you see a calendar?
A (Sister): We had communication over phone. Since our father is not home we have to check the dates properly

Q: Did he have a mobile phone?
A (sister): yes

Q: Is it switched off now?
A (sister): Yes, it is switched off

Q: Did the OC from the Sadar Thana came? ?
A: (Wife): I am not sure. It could be from Zianager or from Shodor

Q to (Daughter): Which OC came?
A: (Wife): I don’t know. I came day before yesterday.

Q: Do you remember his name, or his face?
A: (Wife): I don’t know the name but he was fat. Neither fair nor black.

Q: Did he have a moustache?
A: (Wife): No I didn’t look at him. He wanted me to sign, but I told him don’t ask for that. We are in tension, don’t ask us to sign, I won’t be able to do that. OC asked me 'don’t you need your husband back. Do you know where he is?' Then I said yes, I must get my husband back but I will not sign. I don’t need to file a GD, find my husband.

Q: Why did he want your signature?
A: (Wife): He said that he would file a GD

Q: Why didn’t you file the GD? Filing a GD often helps as the police legally becomes responsible to investigate your husband?
A: (Wife): Oh, I didn’t do that, I didn’t understand. Now people tell me to file a GD.

Q: Filing a GD is good. Suppose someone is threatened, then people file GD.
A: (Wife): Against whom will I file a GD?

Q: If you don’t know who did it, then the police will take the GD as a complaint that your father is missing. Because it must be recorded in the book of police that this incident happened. You need to file a complaint if any one intimidates you. This GD is a complaint. You can file a GD even if you don’t know who have done this.
A: (Wife): Can I do it now?

Q: Yes you can but you need to talk to the OC
A: (Wife): I don’t have anyone do it for me. ….Will I be able to find my husband?

Q: Still there is hope, don’t lose hope so fast. Was he with [family member] in Dhaka?
A: (Wife): I don’t know

Q: Didn’t he tell you? Didn’t he call you after going to Dhaka?
A: (Wife): Yes he called me on the day when he was going to the court on the day he went to the court to give testimony he called me. … They took away my husband from in front of the court.

Q: When did he start from Dhaka on the third? Did he start at night or in the morning? We are just trying to get a sense of the time.
A: (Wife): I heard that he was supposed to get on the bus at 2pm. He started from home on Friday.


Q: Don’t you know where he was on the next day, where did he live who did he travel to Dhaka with
A: (Wife): I don’t know

Q: Are you sure that he did not go to the court on the 4th?
A: (Wife): Yes, I am. He went to the court on the 5th?

Q: If it was Friday, then it was Nov 2nd
A: (Wife): I don’t know, he went to Dhaka on the 3rd. It might be Saturday.

Q: So he started from home on the 3rd and he called you on 5th and told you that he was going to the court?
A: (Wife): yes, he told me that,” I’m going to the court.” He said only this and nothing else.

Q: Do you know where he got on the bus?
A: (Wife): No I don’t

Q: Who was with him?
A: (Wife): I don’t know

Q: Did he tell you why he was going to Dhaka?
A: (Wife): No he didn’t tell me earlier, but called me after reaching Dhaka. He was not at this place before going to Dhaka. He was at my sister place. He was hiding in fear?

Q: How long he had been hiding?
A: (Wife): Around a year. He is out of home from last Kartik (October/November)

Q: What do you mean? Didn’t he used to come home?
A: (Wife): No.  

Bali's daughter, Monica Mondal

Q: Where is your sister’s home?
A: (Wife): He normally stayed at my sister's place. He used to roam around here and there?

Q: Where is your sister's home?
A: (Wife): The day when he went to Dhaka he told my sister that he was going to the local market

Q: Who was he afraid of? Why was he hiding? Which party he was afraid about?
A: (Wife): Let me tell you. He was asked to testify. My brother in law was killed by the military. This is what he wanted to say. And to say this he went to Dhaka to speak this truth.


Q: Why was he afraid for the last one year?
A: (Wife): Because they wanted him to give false testimony

Q: When was he asked to do that?
A: (Wife): For a long time. … He communicated with us but didn’t come home.

Q: Where is your son?
A: (Wife): From the day when [Bali] was taken away, he went away. He was afraid that pressure would come upon him as well.

Q: Do you have any contact with your son?
A: (Wife): Yes, he has gone too far from here, but he called me over the phone. He said that he would work in a ship in mongla port. We are poor people, we have to work in order to feed ourselves. This why he told me that, “Mother, I’ll go”.

Q: Where is the ship? In Khulna?
A: (Wife): Yes, near Mongla Port.

Q: Did the OC show you any paper when he asked you to sign it?
A: (Wife): No, he just asked for signature

Crying: where is my husband ....

Q: Do you know there was another GD filed in February? [
A: (Wife): yes, when I was in a relatives house, after completing some work [at home], then the OC came and wanted our signature and I refused to give it. Then some other people signed it including my daughter. There was a blank piece of paper.

Q: Why was the GD filed, is it because he was missing?
A: (Wife): Because he was missing. The OC said that since your father cannot be found, no one knows whether he has been killed. You better file a GD.

Q: Was there anything written on that paper where you signed?
A: (Wife): No, it was blank
A: (Wife): (sister): No it was blank

Q: How many people signed [the paper]?
A: (Wife): 4 including the daughter

Q: Did people from the tribunal come to your home?
A: (Wife): Yes, they came many times

Q: Did Bali talk to them
A: (Wife): No, he was never home

Q: Did the tribunal people want Bali to testify against Sayedee?
A: (Wife): They didn’t say anything, they said ‘where is he?’, they wanted to know where the killings took place? Which people were there?

Q: Didn’t they tell him to testify?
A: (Wife): They said that they wanted him to testify but they didn’t get him to do it?

Q: When did the problem start first?
A: (Wife): Just after that, when the case was filed against Sayedee.

Q: When did he flee? Is it around 1 year?
A: (Wife): For around a year, from Kartik (from Mid Nov). Then he want to India in Poush (December/ January), he came back on Falgun (February/March)

Q: So Poush, Magh, Falgun? He was there for three months?
A: (Wife): He came back in Choitro (Mid-March to Mid April). He want there to see his brother who later died. ...

Q: You said a very important thing that he was afraid after filling the case, and the tribunal asked him to testify, then he fled the house. But the tribunal people didn’t try to force him to testify, right?. He was not home. Do you remember if he had told you anything?
A: (Wife): No. Before he want to India, I heard that his brother had a heart attack so he went to India. His brother had little children, he asked them to come stay in our house, but they didn’t

Q: Did the investigators [try to] force him to testify?
A: (Wife): First when they came to do video, we didn’t know that a case has been filed . Then my mother died and there were many people at my place the next morning. Some people told us that a case has been filed regarding the killing of my brother in law. Then my husband told some people – including a BNP person - that his brother was killed by Pakistan army.

Q: Is it after filing of the case?
A: (Wife): Yes. He told people that his brother was killed by Pak army. He was not shot. He was killed with a bayonet. He wanted to speak this truth, and welcomed danger on his own life.

Q: Have the jamaat people, supporters of Sayedee, come to your house?
A: (Wife): Yes, they came only once, then never came again?

Q: didn’t they come since when he is missing?
A: (Wife): No. They came only once.

Q: When?
A: (Wife): Many days ago

Q: Is it after filing of case
A: (Wife): Yes, with the BNP person. He won’t lie.

Q: Did he tell you that “I’ve come to testify”. What did Bali say to you when he spoke on the 5th?
A: (Wife): He just said that I am going to the court, he didn’t say anything else.

Q: What did he say when he reached Dhaka? Was he happy?
A: (Wife): He said I am in Dhaka now. I asked who did you go with? He did not answer clearly. I was angry at the matter and told him “Why you’ve gone to Dhaka?”

Q: So he did not tell you when he was going to Dhaka? He called you from Dhaka?
A: (Wife): Yes, he told me [from Dhaka], but earlier he said that he would go to Dhaka and speak the truth.


Q: As you mentioned the BNP and Jamaat people came after the case was filed, did they tell him that “you should say this in the court” or something like that?
A: (Wife): They came to how his brother was killed. He told that his brother was killed by the military.

Q: Didn’t they tell him to say any particular thing in the court?
A: (Wife): They also did video recording and showed that on TV and published in the news paper.

Q: Did they tell him to say any particular thing in the court?
A: (Wife): The Awami league people told him so. … But he went there to testify in favor of Sayedee. The Awami league is not supposed to say like that. The case was filed by the Awami league but he was going to testify otherwise. This is why he didn’t want to be a witness.

Q: Did the Jamaat/BNP supporters offer any benefits/money?
A: (Wife): No he didn’t tell me something like that. He was a very simple man and that is why he wanted to say the truth. What he knew. ... Brother bring my husband back, I don’t want anything else. We are very poor people. …

Q: Do you have any relatives around your place where you husband stayed when hiding?
A: (Wife): No, no. Those places are too far from here.

Q: isn’t there anyone from Pirojpur.
A: (Wife): No, they live far away.

Q: Did he come for a night or several hours since leaving home last November
A: (Wife): No
A: (Wife): (sister): No, [He did not come] to the in-laws house

Q: Did you contact over the phone
A: (Wife): Yes, he called from India. He asked me to go to India but I did not go

Q: Where did he used to stay in India, in West Bengal? Siliguri or at which place? I mean where his brother used to live?
A: (Wife): I don’t know. He was a very simple man. He didn’t tell me anything in detail. He was worried because his brother died.

Crying: where is my husband ... We don’t have contact in the last ten to 12 days, but earlier when I was ill he used to call ten times a day .. Are you still alive? When will you come back? Please bring my husband back ....

Q: How do you know for certain that he was picked up by police?
A: (Wife): I watched it on the TV I saw his back and people also told me about it. Also saw that the word 'police' was written on the white car.

Q: Is there any possibility that Sayedee supporters picked him up?
A: (Wife): Yes, as he was going to speak the truth, can’t you realise yourself. He refused to testify when the AL men asked him. He wanted to say the truth. He wanted to say that his brother was killed by the Pak army. So it is clear.

Q: How long have you been living in this area?
A: (Wife): After my marriage in the 80s, from 8 or 10 years after the 1971 war

Q: Is it not surprising Bali being from a Hindu family, that he would support Sayedee [a Jamaati] in his trial. I’m saying this as generally it’s rare.
A: (Wife): [no clear answer] My brain is not working.

 COMMENTS

1. The mother was very distraught about her missing husband, and broke down many times during the interview. There is little doubt that she is in a terrible state and genuinely believes her husband to be missing

2. The interview seems to corroborate a number of issues relating to the alleged abduction of Bali. (a) that Bali had gone to Dhaka (b) that he was on his way to to the tribunal on the 5th morning when he called her (c) that he was willingly going to give evidence on behalf of Sayedee (d) that he has been missing since then - the family have not received any calls from him on the 5th.

3. The wife believes that he was abducted by those who are against Sayedee.

4. There is confusion about the dates when Bali left Dhaka and she has no information about who he went with or with whom he stayed

This is a copy of the page of the register on the 4th
November. The third name from the bottom of the page
is 'Atis Sen' written in Bangla. Next to it, is 'Md Hasanul
Banna' which is the name of the defense lawyer who brought
Bali into the court on that day

5. She says that her husband did not go to court on the 4th - though Jamaat lawyers claim that he was in court on that day (i.e day before abduction). There is though other information to support the claim that he was in court on that day: (a) an application about him giving evidence to the tribunal was to be heard that day, the day before the tribunal was to hear the prosecution closing arguments, and so it would have been appropriate for him to have been there; (b) although Bali's name is not in the register, the lawyer who brought him into the tribunal, Md Hasanul Banna Sohag says that on the 4th he did obtain a pass for him but under another name, Atis Sen just so that the court authorities did not know he was there. I have seen the page in the register on the 4th where Sohag has written his own name and there is the name of another person (who is not a lawyer or otherwise known as a person who come to the tribunal) 

7. It is interesting that a police OC came to the wife's house on 6 November, the day after the alleged abduction to get her signature for a GD on .

(a) on the night of the 5th November, Sayedee's lawyers tried to file a GD in Dhaka but the police refused to allow them to do it. So, why did the police come to the family seeking a GD?
(b) a visit by the police to seek this GC is an implied acknowledgement that the state accepted Bali had gone missing - in contrast to the position of the Attorney General (at the High Court during the Habeas Corpus proceedings) and the tribunal prosecution at its press conference which suggested that nothing had happened.
(c) the police simply wanted the wife's signature on a 'blank' piece of paper which would have allowed the police to write on it whatever the police wanted.

8. Previously, according to the interview, in February 2012 the OC had come to the house and asked the wife to sign a blank piece of paper so he could write a GD. She had refused - but the daughter and other relatives did. The fact that the police came to the house to get the family to sign a GD suggests that the police were more interested in getting a GD filed than the family.  

[It should be noted that it has been suggested that there is a well known practice in Bangladesh that police and others often persuade/intimidate people to sign blank pieces of paper on which false allegations are then written and filed as a a GD so the daughter and wife's comments are perfectly reasonable.]

Correction/Amendments
A. in the final paragraph, from saying that there is a 'widespread practice' of obtaining signatures on blank pieces of paper, it has been changed to saying that 'it has been suggested that there is a well known practice.'

31 Oct 2012: Azam IO cross exam, day 5

Ahsanul Huq, lawyer for Chowdhury said that the name of today’s witness has not been given to us in time, this is a new witness to us, so we require time for our preparation and I need the instruction from my client.

Chairman: Okay let the matter be fixed afterwards.

Chairman: Okay. Mr. Mizanul we would like to say that we have gone through the record. The Prosecution has taken 5 sessions in 4 days to complete the examination in chief of this witness and the defence has taken already 7 sessions in 5 days. We hereby requesting you to complete the cross examination within tomorrow, which means you will get 11 sessions. It is not an order it is a request to you.

Mizanul Islam: It is okay that the examination in chief has been completed within 5 sessions and the defence has already taken 7 sessions. But it is not possible for us to complete a matter in 1 line whereas the Investigation Officer is taking 1 line to complete that in the examination in chief. He has submitted huge documents and video. So it might be tough for us to be confined in this frame.

Chairman: We know you can do it. And the Prosecution we expect that- you will not interfere randomly except the matters of utmost urgency.

The cross examination of Motiur Rahman, the investigation officer continued (following on from here)

Defence: When and where the peace committee has been formed outside Dhaka at first?

Witness: On 3-5-1971 at Narshingdi.

Defence: Whether Narshingdi was under Dhaka district in 1971?

Witness: I can’t recall.

Defence: Who was the convener of the meeting at Narshingdi?

Witness: I have no note who has called the meeting but Mr. Mia Abdul Majid has been made the convener of this meeting. The Daily Sangram on 5-5-1971 and 12-5-1971 has published the information.

Defence: Whether the quotation in the report of 5-5-1971 has mentioned about the formation of the central peace committee at the meeting of Narshingdi?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether the clippings of the newspaper of 5-5-1971 mention the detail information about the members of the Peace Committee?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether you have found any information in your investigation about the presence of the members of the Peace Committee which has been formed by the leadership of Khaja Khoyer Uddin?

Witness: No.

Defence: At where the Peace Committee has first been formed outside Dhaka Division?

Witness: At the Rajshahi Divisional town.

Defence: Do you have any information when the force has been formed at Rajshahi, Khulna, and Chittagong?

Witness: No.

Defence: What was the number of the members of executive committee at the central peace committee?

Witness: 21. Among these 21 members as far as I know there were two members from Jamaat-e-Islami.

Defence: Whether there was another committee by the leadership of Moulovi Fariduddin?

Witness: I don’t find the information in my document.

Defence: Whether Moulovi Farid Ahmed was involved with the 140 members of central peace committee?

Witness: A person named Farid Ahmed was involved with central peace committee but I don’t know whether he was the aforementioned person.

Defence: Have you collected any working paper of the central peace committee during your investigation?

Witness: No.

Defence: Have you collected any report of a newspaper about the general meeting after the formation of the central peace committee?

Witness: Yes. Those are of Daily Ajad, Daily Pakistan, Daily Poigam published on 13-4-1971 which are of material exhibit number- 39.

Defence: Whether the report published on Daily Ajad has been collected from APP?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: This report talks about a public procession.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether there is any mentioning in this report about when and on which meeting of the central peace committee the matter of this procession has been discussed off?

Witness: No. But there is a mentioning about the arranging of procession by the central peace committee. There is no mentioning of the name of any person who has given speech about the topic.

Defence: Whether the same matters have been discussed in the Daily Pakistan and Daily Poigam?

Witness: Yes. But it has further been added on the Daily Poigam that- a peaceful procession will be held at the premises of Baitul Mokarram by the central peace committee.
Defence: Have you got any information- what was the conferred duty on the organizational committee of the central peace committee on the general meeting?

Witness: The organizational committee has been formed to run the flow of central peace committee very smoothly and several other duties have been conferred also.

Defence: Whether there is any mentioning on these reports about reviving the normal condition of the country.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Have you found any document about the formation of the peace committee in each District and Mohokuma in 1971?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: How many Coordinators of these central peace committees of the Districts and Mohokumas were involved with Jamaat-e-Islami?

Witness: It is not possible to answer it specifically.

Defence: By whose direction the activities of the district peace committees were running on?

Witness: By the direction of the central peace committees.

Defence: By whose signature the directions of the central peace committees were being sent to the district committees?

Witness: I don’t have any specific information regarding the matter in my hand now but the activities of the central peace committees were being circulated over the newspapers and the radio- television and those were mandatory over the subordinate peace committee.

Defence: Can you say the radius within which the Dhaka TV Centre’s programs were broadcasted?

Witness: No.

Defence: How much times it’d take to reach the Daily newspapers to Technaf and Tetulia from Dhaka on 1971?

Witness: It took more time than today because the communication system was slow on that time.

Defence: Whether the Daily Sangram and Daily Poigam were being circulated on Potuakhali and other districts on 1971?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: How many daily copies were being circulated of Daily Sangram on 1971?

Zeyad Al Malum: My Lord. Whether it is relevant question? I don’t think that.

Justice Anwarul Haque: Whether the investigation is supposed to be asked this question.

Mizanul Islam: If anyone got inspired after reading those papers then I have to through question about the circulation.

Justice Anwarul Haque: Whether he is an appropriate person to ask this question of?

Chairman: I think that the matter of the number of circulation is irrelevant.

Mizanul Islam: Okay withdraw the question.

Defence: How many people have been asked by you- who were in the command of Thana, Jila and Mohokuma Liberation War Command?

Witness: I can’t say the exact number.

Defence: How many District freedom fighter commanders have been given notice by you?
Witness: I have not given notice to anyone to be present.

Defence: How many sector commanders are alive now and how many of them have been asked by you?

Witness: I have asked two sector commanders.

Defence: How many sub sector commanders have been asked by you?

Witness: One.

Defence: Mention those commanders’ and sub commander’s name.

Witness: They are- General KM Shafiullah (Bir Uttam), Major (Rtd.) Abu Osman Chowdhury, Mahbub Uddin Ahmed (Bir Bikrom)

Defence: In which area Mr. Mahbugb Uddin Ahmed was assigned on?

Witness: He was the sub sector commander of sector-8 of the Satkhira area of Khulna.

Defence: You have gone to how many districts for your investigation purpose?

Witness: On 15 districts as follows- Chittagong, Kumilla, Brahmonbaria, Kushtia, Rajshahi, Meherpur, Tangail, Khulna, Kishorgonj, Narayongonj, Faridpur, Sherpur, Moimanshingh, Netrokona.

Defence: You have gone to how many Upazilas?

Witness: I can’t say it now.

Defence: Whether you have investigated alone or with your team?

Witness: I have investigated this case alone but some of my associates were with me during investigation.

Defence: Whether these associates have recorded any statements?

Witness: Yes by my direction they have recorded statements and sometimes seized the documents.

Defence: Whether any other information of other cases of International Crimes Tribunal has been used in this case during submitting the report?

Witness: Yes, some of the information has been used.

Defence: Which cases has been used in this case for the source of information?

Witness: Complaint Registrar Case No- 01 Date- 21/7/2010; Complaint Registrar Case No-3 Date- 26-7-2010—some information from these two cases have been used in the present case.

Defence: How many statements of the witnesses have been submitted during the submission of the formal charge?

Witness: I can’t answer it without checking the record.

Then Zeyad Al Malum has raised objection about the presence of the defence witness during the deposition and the cross examination of the prosecution witness. Miznaul Islam has said- No to our information, no one was there. Then Zeyad Al Malum again said that, No we have saw the son of the accused Delwar Hossain Syedee who himself is a defence witness was present during the deposition of the prosecution witness.

Chairman: Okay the Tribunal is adjourned till 2 P.M.

Defence: How many witness from Complaint Register No-2 dated 21/07/10, you used in this case?

Witness: I used the deposition of 3 witnesses from CR-2.

Defence: What is the name of the accused of case no CR-3 dated 26/07/2010?

Witness: I don’t have this information in my record.

Defence: What are the names of the Investigation Officer of those 3 cases?

Witness: Abdur Razzaq Khan, Helal Uddin and Nurul Islam.

Defence: Did you make them witness in this case?

Witness: No.

Defence: Are the person who seized information and the IO same?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Did you record the deposition and seizure list collected by the Investigation Officer Monowara Begum?

Witness: I didn’t use her seizure list but use her recorded deposition.

Defence: In this case you filed some confidential documents, isn’t it?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: A document regarding the offensive activities of Professor Golam Azam done in 25 March to 16 December of 1971 was handed over to you, what is the subject matter of that document?

Witness: Its subject matter is confidential that’s why I can’t say it now.

Defence: Did you submit that document to the Tribunal?

Witness: No, I didn’t submit that document but I submitted another document containing the information of that document.

Defence: Did you take permission of the Ministry of Home Affairs to produce this document?

Witness: I took the permission of proper authority.

Defence: Did the Government give any bar to use this document? [This question was not taken by the Tribunal]

Defence: When you took permission from proper authority and how many documents they permitted to use?

Witness: I got permission to use all those documents which were necessary for us.

Defence: Did you get permission to use all those documents which you collected from ‘Ekpakhsa’ magazine?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: You scrutinized the writings of how many writers?

Witness: Many writers but I don’t remember the names at this moment.

Defence: Tell some name of books which you scrutinize through your investigation.

Witness: I scrutinize the book named ‘Bangladesher Mukti Shongramer Etihas’ accomplished by Salauddin Sarkar, Menon Sarkar and Dr and Nurul Islam, another book named ‘Lokkho Praner Binimoye’ accomplished by Shamsul Arefin, another book named ‘Why Bangladesh’, ‘Bangladesher Shadhinota Juddher Dolilpotro’ etc.

Defence: Did you scrutinize exclusive DVDs on the history of our freedom fight and the DVDs of our National Museum?

Witness: Yes, I did.

Defence: Did you go on ‘Chuknogor’ killing field?

Witness: No, I didn’t go there.

Defence: Where this killing field is situated?

Witness: It is under Dumuria police Station in Khulna district.

Defence: You could not find out the liability of the killing, looting, setting fire of those districts where you didn’t go.

Witness: It’s not true.

Defence: How many killing fields were that Mohokuma (a division prior independence) where ‘Tetulia’ (a place of killing field) is situated?

Witness: There we got the existence of 8 mass graves.

Defence: Who made this list or who provided you with this list?

Witness: This list is made by local UNO and the common people of that locality.

Defence: In which date the list of killing fields of ‘Panchagar’ (a district of Bangladesh) was decided?

Witness: I can’t say this right at this moment.

Defence: You did not determine the liability of the offences which was occurred in 1971 in Panchagar in your investigation.

Witness: It’s not true.

Defence: How many women were raped in Panchagar?

Witness: I don’t have this information.

Defence: You did not record any interview or deposition of any woman who was raped in 1971 or even her father/mother or any of her family member.

Defence: Yes. I didn’t.

Defence: You don’t have a single name of any raped woman.

Witness: Yes, it’s true.

Defence: In your investigation not a single date of mass killing in Panchagar has been recorded.

Witness: I can’t say right at this moment.

Defence: Did you summon the report of DC and UNO or the Investigation Institution did?

Witness: Investigation Institution.

Mizaul Islam: Could you say the date?

Witness: Without watching record I couldn’t say.

Defence: Then see the record.

Witness: I don’t have record right at this moment.

Defence: Did you have that documents by which you asked information from DC and UNO?

Witness: I don’t have that document, it is in office.

Defence: Did you know how many depositions of witnesses have been submitted with formal charges?

Witness: Without looking at the record I couldn’t say.

Defence: Which deposition of other cases did you use in this case?

Witness: I had not use any deposition of other cases in this case.

Defence: I think you used. Please try to remember.

Witness: Yes, three depositions of another case regarding the conversion of religion, I used in this case.

Defence: What is the name of the accused of that case?

Witness: His name is not in my records.

30 Oct 2012: Azam IO cross exam, day 4

Zeyad Al Malum: My Lord, we are expressing our warm regards towards the Tribunal after the Eid vacation. And now I would like to say- The Tribunal would be kind enough to fix the cross examination into the relevant subject matters whereas we’re finding that- the Prosecution witnesses are facing so many non relevant questions at this Tribunal by the defence.

Chairman: We will look at the matter and pass order if it seems necessary afterwards.

Mizanul Islam: We think nothing irrelevant has been asked by anyone of defence.

Chairman: Okay start the cross.

 The Cross Examination of Motiur Rahman continued (see previous hearing)

Mizanul Islam: Whether there is a river named Titas in Brahmonbaria?

Witness: I have heard that.

Defence: What is the distance in between the Mass Grave near the Poirotola Rail-bridge to the nearby place of Titas River?

Witness: I can’t say.

Defence: Whether the Titas River is visible from the Poirotola Rail-Bridge or the Mass Grave?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: State two or three peoples’ name which as a result you went to visit the following place?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: Whether the coupon and the attached photograph of material exhibit- 519 is a single photograph or an amalgamation of two photographs?

Witness: I can’t say. But as far as I can understand the photograph of the right side is the photograph of Mr. Motiur Rahman Nizami.

Defence: How many coupons under material exhibit- 519 have been collected by you?

Witness: I have not collected any coupon which contain a photograph in one side and a coupon on another side.

Defence: Have you investigated who was the Chief of Razakar force before the Government took its control?

Witness: I have found in my investigation that the force has been formed at the Ansar Camp of Khan Jahan Ali Road of Khulna with 96 members under the leadership of Mr. AKM Yousuf.

Defence: What is the source of information about the formation of this Razakar force?

Witness: The statements of the local people and the findings of my investigation.

Defence: Did you collect any Newspaper reports or any documents from any news agency about the formation of the force under the leadership of Mr. Yousuf?

Witness: I can’t say it at present.

Defence: Whether any reports have been published about this since the liberation till 1975?
Witness: Yes but I can’t state the names of the reports at present.

Defence: What is the oldest document or information you are holding about the formation of the Razakar force under the leadership of AKM Yousuf?

Witness: I can’t say at present but I have found that in my investigation.

Defence: Who was the Chief of Razakar force after the Government took its control?

Witness: Md. Younis was the Chief who was involved with Jamaat-e Islami and right now who is assigned in Higher positions of several organizations as well as with Islami Bank.

Defence: Do you have any information that Mr. Younis was appointed in any Government job before or after 1971?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Who was the Chief of Ansar Force during the formation of Razakar force?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: Whether Mr. Abdur Rahim- DIG of Police was the Director General of Razakar force after its formation?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Who was the Chief of the Razakar force after it has been taken under the control of Pakistan Army as an auxiliary force?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: Which officer of the Military Force was assigned to control the Razakar force as an auxiliary force?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: Have you contacted with the Pakistan Army or the Bangladesh Defence Ministry to get to know about the information of the officer of the Military force who was assigned to control the Razakar force as an auxiliary force?

Witness: No.

Defence: After assigning Mr. Khaja Khoyeruddin as a Coordinator in the Peace Committee whether anyone has been assigned as a coordinator/ President/ Chairman of the same organization?

Witness: I don’t have any information regarding the matter.

Defence: There is a mentioning in “Ek-Pokkho” that- “Ghulam Azam was not the Chief of Razakar or Peace Committee.” Is it right?

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Mr. Siru Mia was not the Sub Inspector of the Police?

Witness: Not true.

[In the meantime the mobile of an IO of the investigation agency rang while he was sitting at the Observers row and the Chairman has warned him to switch it off. ]

Defence: There is a mentioning in “Ek Pokkho” that- Siru Mia was at the house of one of his relatives at Dhaka on the night of 25th March, 1971.

Zeyad Al Malum: Is it necessary to ask this question My Lord?

Chairman: I would like to say- it is not necessary to get the information about where he was staying on that night.

Mizanul Islam: We think it is relevant.

Justice Anwarul Haque: The statement about the matter has not been given to the IO by the wife of Siru Mia, so it is not a matter of relevancy to the IO whether he was there or not.

Chairman: But I would like to say that- it is not relevant question.

Mizanul Islam: We are leaving it.

Chairman: Next question.

Defence: There is a mentioning in material exhibit- 519 that- “The brother of Anwara Begum named Fazlu Mia has gone to Comilla on 1 November with the letter. After perusing the letter the Razakar Commander has stated that- let Kamal be freed after the day of Eid and let Siru Mia be sent to join his duty.”

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Who were the complainants; judges or the relevant persons in the People’s Court- have you investigated?

Witness: No.

[Here Zeyad Al Malum has raised serious objection about asking this question. But the Tribunal took the question.]

Defence: You have not found any information regarding the material exhibit- 519 after your investigation.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You have prepared the sketch map under material exhibit number- 520 and the index under material exhibit number- 521 by the assistance of the local people.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: There was no road to go to Poirotola Mass Grave on 1971?

Witness: There was not a Big road rather there was a road to follow by walking.

Defence: What is the distance of the nearby place of the Railway Station of Brahmonbaria from the Poirotola Mass Grave?

Witness: About 400 yards east.

Defence: Have you identified the photograph of the front side of Brahmonbaria old Jail under the material exhibit number- 522/2?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: The date of establishment has been written as 11-7-1988 in the photograph.

Witness: Yes. But most probably it is the date of conversion into the District Jail from the Mohokuma Jail.

Defence: Have you found the date of establishment of the nameplate of the Mohokuma Jail?

Witness: No.

Defence: Have you interrogated Romjan Mia, Abdul Khalek, Shajahan Mia, Sona Mia- whose names have been stated in the index?

Witness: I have interrogated many people during the investigation, but can’t remember the names.

Defence: Whether Dana Mia is alive who is the owner of the house mentioned in the material exhibit number- 522/3?

Witness: He is not alive. His brother’s name is Mizanur Rahman Molla. His sons are right now living at the house.

Defence: When did you first gone to the Bangla Academy for the investigation purpose?

Witness: On 22-2-2011 at 10.00 A.M. and I have prepared a seizure list at 2:00 P.M. on the same day.

Defence: Have you seized the papers after reading all of those?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Have you read all the Newspapers of Daily Sangram which are there in Bangla Academy since 18-5-1971 to 29-11-1971?

Witness: Yes and have seized 30 copies.

Defence: Whether there was any report about Mr. Ghulam Azam on the other Newspapers which have not been seized?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: On which date the censorship over the newspapers have been imposed on 1971?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether any censorship has been imposed over the newspapers on 1971?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Have you interviewed any journalists or any editors about the matter of censorship over the newspapers on 1971?

Witness: No.

Defence: Whether all the attesters of the newspapers which have been submitted to the Tribunal are alive now?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Whether the depositor of the material exhibit number-1 named Mobarok Hossain to whom all the main copies of the seized newspapers have been submitted is alive?

Witness: Yes. And the main copies of the newspapers are now at Bangla Academy.

Defence: You have watched the main copies of the newspapers which have been submitted under material exhibit number-1 but you have not seized those.

Witness: True.

Chairman: Okay the Tribunal is adjourned till 2 P.M.

Defence: In 22-02-2011 at 11 pm did you seize the paper cutting of ‘Doinik Shongram’ published in 01/05/1971- 30/11/1971 from Bangla Academy?

Witness: No.

[Here prosecution raised a dispute that defense cannot ask this type of question. Then Justice Nizamul Haque said that defense can ask any type of question. Then mentioning sec-53(2) of International Crimes Tribunal Act-1973, prosecution said that then this section may not have any value]

Defence: Tell me the names of newspaper that you mentioned in exhibit-2.

[Here also prosecution raised dispute that this question also cannot be asked and finally Witness did not answer this question.]

Defence: Did you execute any bail bond in 22/02/2011 in Bangla Academy?

Witness: Yes, I did.

Defence: In whose favor and when?

Witness: In favor of Mobarak Hossain but I couldn’t remember the time right at this moment.

Defence: Did you seize any paper cutting containing the news of the construction of ‘peace committee’ before 18 May, 1971 published in ‘Doinik Shongram’?

Witness: No, I didn’t get any copy of ‘Doinik Shongram’ before May 1971.

Defence: From which date Bangla Academy keep copies of ‘Doink Shongram’?

Witness: After the inauguration of all newspaper Bangla Academy collects all copies of every newspaper.

Defence: Who was the news correspondence of AAP of Dhaka in 1971?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: As mentioned in exhibit-1, M. M. Abul Kashem was in which political party?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Is he alive?

Witness: I didn’t investigate that. [Here also prosecution protested a lot on a point that, the whole content of every news is not relevant with the investigation. Investigation Officer is not bound to go for the every minute details of all the information he got. They also raised question that the defense should mention clearly the absolute time they need to cross examine the I.O. Prosecution said that if the time of cross examination extends this way it may hamper their interest]

Defence: Major General Umrao Khan, Mominul Islam, Professor Golam Azam, Azahar Uddin, Abul Kashem, Dewan Warasat Hossain Khan, Mr. Toha bin Khan among them except Golam Azam who else were related with Jamat-e-Islami?

Witness: Golam Azam was the chief of Jamat-e-Islami, I don’t know the political identity of others.

Defence: Did you get any information of any meeting where Professor Golam Azam was endowed with the power of making and directing the peace committee and taking decision of it?

Witness: No.

Defence: When ‘peace committee’ was established?

Witness: In 09/04/1971.

Defence: On which maxim ‘peace committee’ was constructed?

Witness: Declaring the peace loving people as militant, their motto was destroying them fully.

Defence: Had this ‘peace committee’ any constructional structure?

Witness: Yes, the way central peace committee was constituted in same way the district, Thana and Mohkuma peace committee were constituted and they followed the directions of central peace committee.

Defence: Was there any government notification of constructing this committee?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: What was the way of taking decision of ‘peace committee’?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: How many members were there in central peace committee?

Witness: There were 144 members in central peace committee.

Defence: How many meetings of peace committee were held in 1971?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Did you collect any paper cutting containing the news of meetings to be held of the central peace committee after 9 April 1971?

Witness: Yes, the dates of meetings of central peace committee after 9 April 1971 were 13/04/71, 15/04/71, 22/04/71, 17/05/71, 18/05/71.

Defence: Where the meeting of peace committee dated 17/05/71 was held?

Witness: In Dhaka. It was published in ‘Doinik Shongram’ and ‘Doinik Pakistan’ dated 18/05/1971.

Defence: In the report of 18/05/71 where was it written that it was a meeting of central peace committee?

Witness: In exhibit-2, the report of 18/05/71 it was written at the very beginning that, ‘Yesterday Monday, a meeting was held for discussing the current condition of East Pakistan by the leaders of people of all level” along with this there were lots of other information.

23 Oct 2012: Chowdhury 16th witness cross exam

After dealing with the Sayedee case, the tribunal then moved onto the Salauddin Quader Chowdhury case and the cross examination of Nizamuddin Ahmed (see his testimony here)

Ahsanul Haque: Where have you passed your childhood?
Witness: At Chittagong. I knew Goods Hill area from my childhood. But I have gone to the area on the day of incident for the first time. KB Abdus Sattar Road is at the East side of the Goods Hill, Goni Bakery is at the East side of Abdus Sattar Road, then some grocery shops and houses are standing on serially.
Defence: Whether there was any Christian area at the western side of Goods Hill?
Witness: I can’t remember. But some people used to reside there.
Defence: Whether the CNB office and United Chemicals are standing beside the hill?
Witness: Yes CNB Office is locates there but I can’t remember whether the United Chemicals was there also.
Defence: What is the distance in between Aziz Nagar and Abu Nagar?
Witness: Almost 5 KM.
Defence: Whether it is necessary to cross the bridge if you’d have to go to your village?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: Whether the Muslim High School was open in June- July, 1971?
Witness: I can’t recall.
Defence: Whether the Fouzdarhat Cadet College and other school- colleges were open at Chittagong on that time?
Witness: I can’t recall.
Defence: All the school- colleges were open then- but you are acting that you know nothing about it.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Whether there was military check post beside the Kalurghat Bridge?
Witness: I’m not sure about that.
Defence: Whether the Hazari Goli was a densely populated area and there were some medicine shops at that place?
Witness: I can’t recall but there were some residence of the minority people.
Defence: Whether many of the houses have been burnt at Hazari Goli on May to June of 1971?
Witness: Yes.
Defence: What was the holding number and the name of the owner of the house where you have taken shelter?
Witness: I don’t know.
Defence: To enter the Hazari Goli someone may follow the way of Andorkilla or the north side of Cinema Hall Palace.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: How much amount have you collected as a donation for the freedom fighters?
Witness: I have not collected the amount of donation on myself. I have gone to some people with Siddique and they have assured that they will help us.
Defence: Have you ever stated anywhere that- you have collected the amount on yourself?
Witness: No. I have just stated about my assistance.
Defence: Did you know the IO of this case before he has gone to you for the purpose of this case?
Witness: No. I have only given my statement for only one day. Most probably the day was 24th January, 2011.
Defence: Have you given any statement to the IO on 26-7-2010?
Witness: No.
Defence: Where did you give your statement at?
Witness: At the office of the Investigation Agency at the Baily Road.
Defence: Have you gone to Goods Hill with the IO to verify the place?
Witness: No.
Defence: Whether the garage of Goods Hill is made of Tin?
Witness: There was an accommodation of two or three vehicles at the garage and the roof of the garage was made of Tin and there were fence around the garage. I’m stating that was not used for the purpose of garage.
Defence: Have you seen any vehicles at the place when you were there?
Witness: No but I have watched some Pakistan Armies, they were giving guard.
Defence: On June-July, 1971 there were no Pakistan Military at the place.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: Their duty was to check the vehicles of the front road.
Witness: Not true.
Defence: The Chittagong College, Chittaging Intermediate College, Kajim Ali High School, Darul Ulum Madrasa, Saint Merry School were there near the Goods Hill.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: How many brothers and sisters do you have?
Witness: I have 3 brothers and one sister. On 1971 all of us were residing at the houses rented by my father at Chawkbazar. My elder brother Doctor Kutubuddin used to sometimes stay at the Hospital for duty.
Defence: Many of the Student Leaders used to stay at Chawkbazar.
Witness: There were some leaders.
Defence: Whether you were a follower of revolutionary Student Union?
Witness: No.
Defence: Whether Advocate Mridul Guho was your leader?
Witness: No.
Defence: What is the head office of Reuters?
Witness: London. This is a foreign base news agency.
Defence: Who was the Chief Correspondent of Reuters at Bangladesh on 1971?
Witness: Anis Ahmed.
Defence: Have you stated to Mr. Anis about your being tortured?
Witness: Yes for several times.
[Then the defence counsel threw some questions to the witness about the termination of his Job at Reuters but the Tribunal had not accepted the questions to ask and the Chairman strictly warned the journalists to not to mention that part in any of their report.]
Defence: What about the extension of your contract of service?
Witness: To save the funds the Reuters have not extended their contract with me.
Defence: Reuters never intend to involve politically in any country.
Witness: Yes.
Defence: After giving your deposition the authority of Reuters has assumed that- you are politically involve.
Witness: They might think so.[With objection of the Prosecution.] 

Here the Prosecution raised serious objection about asking this question and the defence has also answered that- the question is must justifiable and in no way harass the witness, then the Prosecution has urged before the Tribunal to take the note besides the recording that- the Prosecution has raised objection on this topic.

Chairman: Okay the Tribunal is adjourned till 2:00 P.M.

Defence: Did you know what was sent against you to the Jail in writing?Witness: No I didn’t find that ever.Defence: Do you know there is a hospital in Chittagong Jail?Witness: Yes I know.Defence: Were you given treatment there?Witness: Yes, it’s true. I was given treatment there because of my wound.Defence: Which lawyer was appointed by you?Witness: I didn’t appoint any lawyer because it was not possible for me then.Defence: Did you take any injury certificate from Jail Doctor?Witness: No, there was no system of taking injury certificate.Defence: After releasing from jail did you consult with any doctor or take any certificate?Witness: No, there was no such necessity.Defence: Did you get any fracture because of torture?Nizamddin Ahmed: No.Defence: When you were taken to the cantonment did they torture you?Witness: Of course they did.Defence: Did you eat anything there?Witness: No, they didn’t give me any food.Defence: How many days were you in Stadium Army Camp?Witness: I was in Stadium Army Camp from 6 to 13. Every day I was tortured by them.Ahsanul Hauqe: Do you know those who were arrested from countryside they were taken to the Stadium Army Camp and those who were arrested from inside the city were taken to the Circuit House.Witness: I don’t know.Defence: How far the Circuit House is from Stadium Army camp?Witness: I don’t know.Defence: What you have told in your deposition that you were arrested from Hathajari, you were taken to the Goodshill, you were tortured everything is false and taught by prosecution.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: When did you go to Italy?Witness: In 1994, as a representative of a cultural group.Defence: Mr. Saiful Alam from ‘Doinik Jugantor’, freedom fighter Bodiul Alam were with you in that trip?Witness: Yes, they were.Defence:  You were helped by Chowdhury family isn’t that the case?Witness: I don’t know whether Chowdhury family had any contribution or not but that program was sponsored by Al-Italia.Defence: Giyasuddin Qader Chowdhury gave you 1000 US dollar isn’t it?Witness: No, it’s not true.Defence: At the time when the accused was a minister you went in Goodshill as a journalist?Witness: No, it’s not true.Defence: You had hostility with Mr. Chowdhury or with his family?Witness: It’s not true.Defence: You didn’t see Salahuddin Qader Chowdhury before 1971?Witness: No.Defence: Your father had good relation with the father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury isn’t it?Witness: I don’t know.Defence: You were arrested by the Police and taken to the Jail.Witness: No, it’s not true.Defence: What were the names of other who were with you in the cell?Witness: I can’t remember right at this moment.Defence: At the time of freedom fight Captain AR Ali Khan, Captain M. A. Safa, Professor Jogesh Shing and Nurul Momen of Daily Ettefak took shelter on Goodshill.Witness: I didn’t hear that.Defence: Did you met with Mohiuddin Chowdhury, Ebrahim Hossain, Chowdhury Babu, Moslehuddin Chowdhury in jail in 1971?Witness: No.Defence: Who was the owner of ‘Doinik Azan’ (a daily newspaper) of Chittagong?Witness: No, I don’t know.Defence: Who was the owner of ‘Shadhinota’ (another daily newspaper)?Witness: Abdullah-al-Harun.Defence: Did you know that both Doinik Azan and Shadhinota were published from same place?Witness: No, I didn’t know that.Defence: When did you come in the profession of journalism?Nizmuddin Ahmed: In the year of 1981.Defence: You were with how many newspaper/ agency?Witness: I was in 4 newspaper/agencies including one of myself.Defence: You are unable to hold a job for long time.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: Did you read Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s speech at Columbia University, November 06, 1971?Witness: No, I didn’t read.Defence: You are not a freelance journalist at present you are connected with Financial Express.Witness: Obviously I am a freelance journalist.Defence: Who is Beluja Ispahani?Witness: He is an honorable member of board of directors.Defence: You didn’t tell about USTC military training to the I.O.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: In your deposition you have told that, ‘After continuous attack, the Bengali soldiers did not stand and they started scrolling back towards Chakbazar (another area of Chittagong)’ you didn’t say this to I.O.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: In your deposition you have told that, ‘Afterwards I tried to leave Chakbazar and to communicate with those who were fighting freedom fight and I tried to help them. Then I made a decision on my mind that I would help those freedom fighters who returned to the country after taking training. Then two months were passed’. You didn’t tell this to I.O.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: You didn’t tell to the I.O. which you told in your deposition that, “On 5^th July we were waiting for Siddique from afternoon. Suddenly at evening we heard ‘Hands UP’ but prior to this we heard the sound of coming a Jeep. Looking on window we saw that Pakistani army was pointing their gun (Chinese Rifle) on us and they wore their uniform.’’Witness: It’s not true.Defence: You told in your deposition, ‘On gunpoint they fastened our hand tightly on our back and pulled us on Jeep. We saw there were another Jeep and there were lots of Pakistani Army on it. We reached in Goods Hill just on 5/6 minutes though the distance from Hathajari to Good Hills was one or one and half kilometers. After reaching Goods Hill the smart boys who were that operation stepped up from the Jeep and shouted with joy saying, ‘mission successful’”. You didn’t tell it to the I.O.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: You told in your deposition that, I saw there was another 15/20 people like us waiting in the garden. We three were taken into the house. There I saw 10/15 familiar leaders. I saw there Mr. Fazlul Kader Chowdhury who wear Kurta and Pajama and a Zinnah cap. When we three were taken to him and made him known about us, suddenly he got very excited and told that, ‘you are freedom fighters’. You didn’t tell this to the I.O.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: You said in your deposition, ‘Then he held me very tightly and punched me on my face’. You didn’t tell this to the I.O.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: You told in your deposition, ‘I was brought into a drawing room beside this small room for a while. In that room a young boy aged 18 or 19 years old and a teenager girl came and teased me. It seemed to me that I was brought to them for exhibition.’ You didn’t tell this to the I.O.Nizmuddin Ahmed: It’s not true.Defence: You told in your deposition that, ‘In the next morning though any Bengali from Goodshill didn’t bring any breakfast for me a Punjabi soldier brought my breakfast that was one porata (kind of bread) and tea. It was like heavenly breakfast for me.’ You didn’t tell this to the I.O.
Witness: It’s not true.
Defence: You told in your deposition that, ‘In next evening I was again taken to that small room and they tortured and interrogated me again and again. Then they brought me and my other two friends to the Army Camp of Stadium by a Jeep’. You didn’t tell this to the I.O.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: Did you recognize anyone who was with you in that garden?Witness: No, I didn’t.Defence: You told that, ‘I came to know that those who brought me to GoodsHill among them there were the son of Mr. Fazlul Kader Chowdhury. Afterwards I came to know that he was Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.’ It’s false and made by the prosecution.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: You went to Ajijnogor in a non bengali institution and there you got catch with arms, they handed over you to the Pakistani Army and they directly took you to the Stadium and then Jail.Nizamudin Ahmed: It’s not true.Ahsnul Haque: In the month of November you negotiated with Pakistani Army and got release and started working against the spirit of freedom fight.Witness: It’s not true.Defence: You gave totally false evidence.Witness: It’s not true.