6 Dec 2012: Sayedee defense closing day 14

Mizanul Islam then continued with the defence closing arguments relation to Sayedee, following on from the previous day. (The summary of Sayedee defense closing arguments partly draws from defence lawyer's own notes of proceedings)

)Sayedee as Razaker (continued)
- Investigation Officer (IO) – admitted that he went to Pirojpur for investigation for the first time on 18.08.2010 – but on 2.7.2012 he admitted in cross examination that he checked the list of rajakar of Ex 35 with the freedom fighter commander of Pirojpur on 17.08.2010 – how can this be possible? How he can be in Pirojpur before the day he went there? This is sufficient to discredit the IO. He did not check the list of rajakars. He was telling lies about the dates and other events. Whenever you checked his case diary it was found that he was incorrect. I can guarantee you that you will find lots of inconsistencies in his statement and case diary which is with you. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was a rajakar.

- PW 12 claimed that the accused was Rajakar. But this PW is sufficiently discredited earlier. He admitted recommending PW 4 to be a freedom fighter but PW 4 admitted that he was not a freedom fighter.

Chairman then said that if defence wanted to submit on the Prosecution’s yesterday’s 19(4) application – they should do so now as they would not hear you on this application later. Defence said that they needed time to submit on that application. You should allow us to produce DW to controvert those allegations if needed. Chairman said that they would not allow any further defence witnesses.

Alibi
The defence lawyer then submitted on the defence argument of ‘alibi’

- Exhibit151 (Nomination paper of the Accused) and all other prosecution documents show that the accused was always ‘Sayedee’. No document show that he was ever known as ‘Shikder’ the prosecution wants to establish that now. The PWs who said that the Accused was known as ‘Shikder’ 1971 are sufficiently discredited earlier.

- The prosecution claims that after liberation war the accused fled to Jessore and took shelter in Rowshan’s house in Bagharpara in the beginning of 1972. PW 15 and 16 supports this. But none of them are Rowshan’s neighbor. PW 24 said that the accused may be in Jessore in Rowshan’s house before or after the liberation war. So one PW support that it may be that the accused was in Rowshan’s house before the liberation. The prosecution did not call him hostile.

- These PWs of Jessore also claims that they saw Mr. Sayedee in 1970 addressing a election meeting for one Jamaat leader. This contradicts the prosecution claim that the accused was selling salt, chili on road at that time. Though not admitted, it shows that he was at least of some status who could address a public meeting. It should also be noted that none of the PWs said that the Accused was ‘Shikder’ at that time who claimed to have seen him addressing the public gathering. All of them described him as ‘Sayedee’.

- The defence case is that the accused did take shelter in Rowshan’s house and in Bagharpara. That was during the liberation war from April to mid of July 1971, i.e. at the beginning of the liberation war. Most of the charges are of during this period.

- PW 15 – admitted that he went to jail for four times. His credibility is lost. He admitted that his statement about the accused is hearsay. He is present Awami League leader of Jessore – he cannot be relied upon.

- PW 16 – admitted that his knowledge was hearsay. Awami League leader. In fact he was Rajakar

- These witnesses of Jessore said that in a public gathering in Jessore in 2005/2006 the accused admitted that Rowshan gave him shelter in his difficult time. If the Accused was really a rajakar, why he would have admitted that voluntarily in public gathering in 2006 – this does not make any sense.

- The prosecution gave four different version of the Accused’s whereabouts after the liberation war – which one is correct; (a) PWs claim that he fled to Rowshan’s House, Bagharpara, Jessore; (b) Exhibit 8 – the Daily Janakantha dated 05.03.2001 – after liberation war the accused was living in the house of Abdur Rashid in Jessore town who was collectorate of Jessore at that time. (c) The police report of Khulna which was served by the prosecution but not exhibited shows that the accused was in Khulna after the liberation war; (d) Material Exhibit – XII shows that the Accused was in Dhaka addressing public gathering after liberation war.  We have cross examined IO about the above versions. Which one will you believe.

At this stage the tribunal passed an order relating to a call he received from the Economist

The defense lawyer then continued. 

- The IO has admitted in cross examination that he went to Rowshan’s house and recorded his statement. Why did he not bring Rowshan as PW? Probably Rowshan was not ready to support the IO’s lies. The IO could not bring any neighbour of Rowshan to establish that the Accused was in his house hiding after the liberation war.

- This Rowshan became DW 6 who clearly said that the Accused stayed in his house in Bagharpara, Jessore until middle of July 1971. The prosecution could not discredit Rowshan. This is supported by DW 4, 8, 12 and 14. Prosecution could not discredit any of these DWs. After these clear statements of the DWs it is clear that the Accused was in Jessore in and not in Pirojpur during the period when the incidents of the charges took place.

Exhibited burnt tin and wood
The exhibited burnt tins and woods (Material Exhibits III, IV and V) are alleged to have been seized from PW 6’s house:

- the prosecution relied upon the ETV news report (Material Exhibit XI) which it contains PW – 6’s interview where he was seen to have said that there was no sign of burning in his house. The same video also contains an interview of the Investigation Officer of PW 6’s case filed in Pirojpur on 12.08.2009. That police officer also said in interview that he could not recover any burnt material from PW6’s house. If this is the case then how PW 28 (IO) could recover the burnt tin and woods from PW6’s house later on.

- The prosecution has objected on many occasions about the journalists visiting any PW when the new report goes against them. But they have exhibited interviews of PWs taken by TV journalist. Isn’t it self contradictory.

Chairman: but those interviews were not regarding or during the proceeding of the Tribunal. If media publish affecting the pending proceeding then this is interference to the trial process of the tribunal.

Defence: but if the journalists are not allowed to visit PWs during trial, can they visit them during investigation. Moreover the prosecutors and even Investigation officer has been regularly attending the talk shows in TV channels and making comments about the merit of the case. You never objected to those things.

- PW 28 claimed that the burnt tins and woods were seized from PW 6’s house on 18.08.2010. But PW6 said that those were seized on 8th May. He did not say the year. If we take May 2010 then it is before commencement of the investigation. If we take May 2011 then it is after conclusion of the investigation. This indicates that these seized tins and woods were concocted. We have been complaining that IO started investigation before he was appointed and continued even after conclusion of the investigation. This proves that IO did not conduct the investigation independently. He was following instructions from different sources on different times.

- PW 6 claimed that his brother Alamgir Poshari’s house was also burnt (Charge – 8) by the accused in 1971. But he said that his age is 65 and he admitted in cross examination that Alamgir Poshari was 30 years younger to him. It clearly proves that Alamgir Poshari was born long after the liberation war. It conclusively proves that PW6 was lying about burning of the house of Alamgir Poshari in 1971.

- PW 8 who admitted that PW1 was not given custody of the burnt tin and woods in his presence. But PW 28 claims that PW 8 is a witness to the Custody Letter of those burnt tins and woods.

- PW28 (p125) claimed that he went to Pirojpur on 18.08.2010 in the morning then to circuit house, then to DC office, then to Selim Khan’s house at 12.05 pm and then to PW6’s house. But in the Seizure List of the burnt tins and woods of PW6’s house he recorded as 11.00 am as time of seizing those materials. It was impossible for him to do all these things in such a short time.

After the lunch adjournment, the defence lawyer continued

19 (4) applicationI will now submit on the 19(4) application of the prosecution submitted yesterday.

- Prosecution claimed in the application that local PWs of Sauthkhali have said that the Accused’s family was known as ‘Shikder’ and not ‘Saydee’. This is not correct. You may note there is no PW from that area.

- Section 9 and 16(2) of the Act provides that all the prosecution documents must be submitted before commencement of trial. The prosecution may however submit additional document under section 9(4) during the trial subject to the permission of the Tribunal and sufficient notice to the defence, so that the defence can rebut any allegation brought in the new documents. These procedures are not complied with for these documents where the prosecution is claiming that the Accused’s family name was ‘Shikder’ NOT ‘Sayedee’. This is one of the main point of this case. All the prosecution documents submitted earlier shows that he was ‘Sayedee’ since his birth. On the other hand most of the PWs are saying that the atrocities committed by ‘Shikder’ who was later on named as ‘Sayedee’. We could show from defence document there was one rajakar called ‘Shikder’ who was killed by ff. PWs are not trying to shift the burden of ‘Shikder’ on the Accused.

- Section 19(4) is applicable for government documents. The certified copies of the record of rights of lands are not government documents and are not admissible under 19(4). We should be given reasonable opportunity to rebut these documents.

- These records were published in official gadget on 14.04.1956. At that time Pirojpur was not a District. Pirojpur became district from 1983. But these RS records of 1956 mentioned Pirojpur as district. It must be a concocted document. Pirojpur cannot be district at that time. We are applying to the relevant office to get copies of these land records. Then we can give detailed reply on these documents. You should allow us reasonable time for that. We may need to bring witness to controvert these documents.

Chairman: you may file reply on Tuesday. But there is no scope to bring any DW now.

Defence: but the accused has right to rebut any document by producing necessary DW.

Charge 10 - Prosecution relied upon Exhibit 269 – 19(2) statement of Mukundo. In the 19(2) application dated 8.8.2012 the prosecution claimed that Mukundo died on 21.04.2012. But Exhibit-38 and 39, which are sketch map and index of Charge 10, prepared by IO on 20.08.2010 recorded Moken Thakur as dead at that time. IO has admitted in cross examination that Moken Thakur’s another name was Mukundo. If Mukundo was dead on 20.08.2010 then how the prosecution can say that he died on 21.04.2012 and pray to admit his alleged statement under 19(2). This proves another fraud of the investigation officer. How can you can believe this IO. It is clear that Mukundo was dead at the time of IO’s Investigation. Despite that he submitted a written statement in his name. It is clear that Exhibit 268 was concocted by IO.

- Exhibit – 260 – 19(2) statement of Shukhoronjon Bali – this person wanted to be DW but the law enforcing agencies has abducted him from the premises of the Tribunal. After this can you believe the prosecution on Charge 10.

- All other PWs upon which Prosecution relied upon for this charge admitted that their evidence was hearsay. We have already discredited all these witnesses which I do not want to repeat here.

- So the prosecution failed to prove charge 10.

Charge 7 (torching Selim Khan’s house)
- Selim Khan was a proposed PW, but he did not come to support the prosecution case. His alleged statement was received under 19(2) which was already been dealt with. You may recall that this person was brought to Safe House and the tribunal, but despite that the prosecution did not call him to give evidence – why?

- The witnesses who testified on charge 8 also testified for charge 7.

Charges 8 and 13  (8-destroying PW 6’s house, killing Ibrahim Kutti, abducting and torturing PW 8, 13-Killing Shaheb Ali and torturing his mother)
- Exhibit A is certified copy of the FIR lodged by Ibrahim Kutti’s wife Momtaz Begum in 1972 which shows that her Husband Ibrahim Kutti and brother Shaheb Ali was killed on 1st October 1971 and her mother tortured on the same day. She filed the case in 1972 against 17 named individuals and the accused is not named as an Accused in this case. But the prosecution claims that Ibrahim Kutti was killed on 8th May 1971 in PW 6’s house. This single document is sufficient to destroy the whole prosecution case against the Accused.

- Prosecution raised objection against Exhibit A saying it is concocted. We wanted to exhibit copy of GR book of that FIR. But you did not allow us to exhibit. it We filed an application under Rule 40 to call for record of that case. But you ordered to keep that application on record. It is now up to you. It is very easy to identify whether Exhibit A is a fake one or not. You can call for the record of that case and check authenticity of Exhibit A.

- Prosecution claims that Exhibit A mentioned about killing of Siraj Ali and not Shaheb Ali. But the prosecution has exhibited 19(2) statement of Sitara Begum as Exhibit 266. This Sitara Begum is mother of Shaheb Ali and in the alleged 19(2) statement Sitara Begum said that Shaheb Ali’s another name of Siraj. How can the prosecution now dispute this.

- In the PW-1’s report which is served upon the defence at the commencement of trial but later on not exhibited by the prosecution shows that PW reported that Ibrahim Kutti was killed in his father in law’s house which is supporting the defence case and Momtaj FIR. Why did the IO not investigate into this. Why he did not call Momtaj to testify. She is still alive and living in Khulna.

- PW 7 is a victim. In Tribunal he claimed that Ibrahim Kutti was killed in front of him. This person was a witness of the case filed by PW 6 in Pirojpur (Exhibit – W). PW 7 gave statement before the Magistrate in Pirojpur (Exhibit W-1) where he said that he did not know who killed Ibrahim Kutti. How can we rely upon this witness who give contradictory statements before two courts.

- PW 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 has supported charge 8. Some of them claimed to be eye witnesses. If Momtaz FIR is correct then there is no doubt that these PWs are lying. You have that power to call for record of Momtaj FIR. This document is now in the custody of the Government. You should call for these records to find out truth.

- There are differences on the time of occurrence of Charge 8 events. PW6 claimed that it took place at 3.00 pm and he witnessed the event from a bush. But PW 10 said that all the Persons residing in that house left at 8.00 am and the incident took place in the morning. PW 7, 1 and 2 also states about different time of the incident. These are serious weaknesses in the prosecution case.

- Our DWs have said that they heave witnessed killing of Ibrahim Kutti and the related incidents which is supporting the Momtaj’s FIR.

- Charge 13 is based on 19(2) statements of mother, sister and brother of Shaheb Ali. None of these witnesses came to testify in support of the prosecution case. In 19(2) argument AR has already showed that 19(2) statements are concocted by the IO.

- The prosecution has failed to prove charges 8 and 13.

This was the end of the summing up. The defence lawyer asked if the accused could say something, but he refused.

Haider Ali, the prosecutor said that he wanted to reply.

- MI’s submission is good. Out of nothing he could make such a good submission. There is no basis of his argument. He should not have said these thing against the PWs. These persons came to assist this tribunal.

- Momtaz’s FIR (Exhibit – A) should not have been exhibited. It is not exhibited as per law.

- I am submitting copy of ‘Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity’ adopted on 26 November 1968.

Haider Ali asked what will happen to our material exhibits after the judgment.

Chairman – we have not yet decided. We may return them to the original owners or keep them in our custody till final disposal of appeal, if any.

Haider Ali: we are thankful to you and all staffs of this tribunal. This is the first case in this Tribunal that we could finish. Thanks to the staffs of the Investigation Agency, journalists, members of the law enforcing agencies and everyone involved in this process. We could prove charges 1 to 19 beyond reasonable doubt. The accused should be convicted and given highest punishment.

Mizanul Islam again requested whether Sayedee could speak, and this time chairman agreed. Here is a summary:

I am Delwar Hossain Sayedee. I am well known in every part of Bangladesh. I am now Delwar Shikder or Delu or Deilla as alleged by the Investigation Officer Helal Uddin.

The present Awami League government that claims to be democratic has appointed Helal Uddin with a mission to impose false allegations of war crimes against me for political vindication. The Investigation Officer Helal Uddin has thus brought 20 false charges against me and complied with the government and political order by distorting my name to humiliate me. He wrote a drama of 4000 pages against me to distort my family life and identity, educational qualification and student life and showed me as a looter, killer, rapist, supplier of women, person destroying by fire, helping hand of Pakistani Army and ferocious Rajakar.

It is not possible for any Muslim to create this type of extreme lies against another Muslim only because of political enmity if they have lightest faith on Allah, fear of death, fear of facing Allah in the day of judgment and fear of the extreme punishment of hell.

Hon’ble Tribunal, definitely this trial will be finished in two parts. One in this eternal world and another in the day of judgment. Today I am helpless and innocent accused and you are judges.

Those who are able to torture an innocent man like me for political reasons due their present power, they will definitely be accused in the second part of the trial on the day of judgment. On that day I will be complainant. And the all mighty Allah, King of Kings, the only sovereign authority of the universe and great judge of all trials will be judge in that case. In verse No. 8 of Chapter Teen Allah Said that ‘Is not Allah the best Judge of all the judges?’ In verse No. 16 of Chapter – Dukhan Allah said that ‘One day I will surely catch them in extreme way and will surely take revenge.’

Hon’ble Tribunal, sitting here in this Tribunal I swear in the name of All mighty Allah who is controlling our life, I swear touching His Holy Quran, I am not at all connected with the allegation brought against me in this Tribunal. Not a single word of the allegations are true. I swear by the name of Allah that my name was deliberated added with the incidents with malafide intension. I have no connection with these allegations.

Hon’ble Tribunal, I hope that you will raise above any anger, favour, pressure or order and consider the overall truth and falsity of the case and will free yourself from any favour and will only fear Allah and extreme punishment of hell and do justice to me. May Great Allah gives you the ability to do justice.

Those who conspired against me due to political vengeance, created this extreme false case, gave false evidence against me, tutored false witnesses against me and mentally tortured me, deprived me from passing the light of Quran to people in home and abroad, causing my loved ones to cry, humiliating me in the society by false claims – I pray that Allah give them hedayat (allow them to come back from this sins). If Allah does not permit them hedayat then all my tears and the tears of my loved ones, children, my worldwide followers will hunt them with curse and may Allah not allow them death without suffering pains hundred times suffered by me. May the curse of Allah rain on the liars torturers. May the hell be their permanent destination.

Chairman: We started exactly one year ago on 7th December 2011 when we examined PW 1. We will only look into the evidence. One party may be dissatisfied.