After the Sayedee defense witness threat claim, the tribunal then moved onto an application relating to Golam Azam (following on from the previous day's argument)
Chief Prosecutor: We have one application in our hand My Lord. Yesterday the defence has submitted a prayer for issuance of summons of two foreign witnesses named General Sir Jack Deveral KCB OBE and Professor William Schabaz. They are well known in their area of expertise. [Then he has read out section- 10(1) (h), 11(1) (A) of the ICT Act- 1973 and Rules- 48 (2), 51(A) (2).]
Justice Jahangir Hossain: If the Tribunal may issue the Summons the production of the witnesses would be made easier, so the defence has prayed for the summons.
Chief Prosecutor: This Tribunal is the highest authority to deal the matter arising out of ICT Act and Rules of Procedures. It may summon anyone as it thinks fit. But here we find no relevancy to issue summons over this witnesses as we don’t find any relevancy of their deposition in this cases.
Chairman: The defence is stating that they are experts and you are wondering about their expertise in this issue. It is the discretion of the Tribunal to fix the matter.
Zead Al Malum: The Chief Prosecutor has stated the contents of the section- 10 (1) (h) of the Act which is solely the discretion of the Tribunal.
Among those 61 counts there are 4 counts about the charge of Siru Mia and others are about other charges.
It has not mentioned anywhere that- General Daveral has anything to do with 1971. There is no mentioning that General Deveral has worked for or with the auxiliary force. So his presence is not required here.
About William Schbaz- I personally read his books. He is a renowned writer and lawyer on International Laws. There is no mentioning in the petition about the ‘Sovereignty’. Then how the defence is making it relevant in this case?
We think defence is trying to attract the attention of the International Communities by producing these witnesses. Section- 10 (1)(h) along with section 11(1)(A) do not leave any scope for the production of these witnesses. There is no bona-fide ground of the petition of the defence, so the humble submission of the Prosecution before your Lordship is to reject the petition of the defence.
Abdur Razzaque: May it please your Lordship. Prosecution has said that it is a mala fide petition. Under section- 11(1) (A) the Tribunal has the power to deal the matter. What are they intending to say by this malafide intention it is not clear to us as we have not yet produced any witnesses.
Chairman: Mr. Razzaque, you are the senior counsel. You can’t say like this after this long debate.
Abdur Razzaque: Then you could say that Mr. Razzaque you are wasting the valuable moments of this Tribunal. You may stop here.
Chairman: Some of the counsels reacts that much in cases when we just tell them to take their seats, now you are asking to stop you. It is simply not possible. But could you please tell us how could these people come to your benefit in cases if they would be presented as the witnesses before the Tribunal?
Abdur Razzaque: To establish the meaning of effective command and control, their presence is required.
Chairman: Whether the Army person is required to establish the effective command? Whether the commander of British or American force is required in this case?
Justice Jahangir Hossain: You have stated in your petition in the paragraph- 7 that- Professor Schbaz is a famous lawyer. Does he possess any specialized knowledge in this regard?
Abdur Razzaque: The Tribunal has charged the Accused. Now I have to work on behalf of the petitioner and to prove my case. Professor Schbaz is an expert to me. So we would like to produce him.
Chairman: Okay the order is on tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment