26 Apr 2012: Sangram contempt order

After the cross examination of Sayedee's investigation officer had finished for the day, Justice Nizamul Huq then passed another order relating to an article published in Sangram (summary)

Today is fixed for passing order. All the notice receivers are present before the tribunal. The notice was issued upon opposite parties. They’re presented before the tribunal on 16th April, 2012. Mr. Abul Asad, Editor said in his reply about the erroneous news that the report was published on 2nd April, 2012, then on 3rd April, 2012 the notice receivers send a rejoinder stating that they know nothing. AKM Abdur Rahim, the Correspondent has sent the report on 1st April, 2012 and then it was published on 2nd April, 2012. The aforesaid Advocates of Feni Bar Association on whose name the statement of the report has been published have contacted the authority and send a rejoinder on 6th April, 2012.

Afterwards the reporter has stated that he has a highest respect for the due process of law and prays unconditional apology. And the Editor also has stated that- he has highest respect towards law and prays unconditional apology. The Advocates sent a rejoinder on 3rd April, 2012 to the Editor that they have not signed any paper and said anything. It was published on 6th April, 2012.

The Correspondent said that someone has sent the email on 1st April, 2012 by using his name. He has no knowledge about the report. He has no intention to lower the dignity of law. The advocates have stated that- they all are practicing advocates, they didn’t show any disrespect towards the tribunal. So they sent the rejoinder on 3rd April, 2012; and they have stated that they neither have signed nor send anything against the tribunal. So they beg unconditional apology. And they pray for discharge.

We’ve heard both the counsels from both sides,

Mr. Joynal Abedin on behalf of the lawyers of Feni Bar Association urges that-the report was published on 2nd April, 2012 and they have sent a rejoinder on 3rd April, 2012.

So, it is clear that they won’t be held liable for the mistaken fact published in the newspaper.

Mr.Prosecutor Zead Al Malum contended that when any person prays unconditional apology and could not admit his case, on that time, the prayer must be rejected and action must be taken under section- 11 (4) of the ICT Act.

We’ve heard all the matters- First we’ve to consider whether the report is contemptuous or not. [Then he read out the news report which is stating that- the Lawyers of Feni Bar Association had made a objection against the false deposition made to the Police Officer.]

It appears that- the report goes against the tribunal. One may raise question about the order, but it should not be contemptuous.

Now we’ve to see whether the editor and the publisher were present at their office. There is no report that they’re absent on 1st April, 2012. So the editor is liable under section- 11 (4) of ICT Act. As such the unconditional apology cannot be accepted.

Now let us consider the matter of Feni Correspondent of Daily Sangram. He has not come with clean hand. We’ve collected the papers of 6th April, 2012. Upon perusal of the report- we’re of the view that the reporter has sent the report and cannot escape liability.

The prayers of advocates of Feni Bar Association are entitled to get benefit from their application,

So we are of the view that the editor and the correspondent should be fined with 5000/- taka per head and are required to be deposited the amount within the 15 days of passing this order that is – 13th May, 2012. And they will be imprisoned till the rising of the tribunal. And arrest warrant is issued against them. [After that the Court adjourned till the next work

16 Apr 2012: Sangram Feni contempt hearing

The tribunal first considered an allegation of contempt made by the Daily Sangram, a newspaper which had published a report on 2 April, 2012 claiming that a group of Feni lawyers had criticized the decision by the tribunal to allow statements to be admitted as evidence even without the witnesses having to be cross examined. The report claimed that the ruling showed that the court was partisan, and was out to allow false statements to be used in evidence

A rule had been issued for the Feni lawyers and the editor and Feni correspondent of Daily Sangram to respond and be present before the tribunal on this day.

Joynal Abedin appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the tribunal asked whether the 11 lawyers (called them up by their names) and the editor of Daily Sangram and the Daily Sangram representative of Feni District are present before the court. Except one lawyer everyone confirmed their presence.

The Sangram Editor's response to the rule had been to seek an unconditional apology. His response argued that a report sent by the paper's Feni correspondent was not actually sent by him.

1. That the present respondent is the Editor and Publisher of the Daily Sangram, a national daily newspaper. He was appointed as the Editor of the Daily Sangram in ..., and has been performing his functions as the Editor and Publisher of the same with honesty and integrity. He is a respected and peace loving citizen of the country. The respondent holds the highest respect for the judiciary. The respondent has not consciously or unconsciously, nor directly or indirectly shown any disrespect to any order passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. Moreover he has never been previously charged with contempt of court.

2. That on 02.04.2012 a statement allegedly given by some advocates of the Feni District Bar was published on page 3 (at column 8) of the Daily Sangram with the headline "পুলিশকে দেয়া জবানবন্দি সাক্ষ্য হিসেবে গ্রহনের নিন্দা ও প্রতিবাদ জানিয়েছেন ফেনীর আইনজীবীগণ". In the report it was alleged that the said advocates of the Feni District Bar, who are also respondents in the present contempt proceedings, had issued a statement against the Hon’ble Tribunal.

3. That the news item was published on the basis of a report made by the Feni correspondent of the Daily Sangram. Thereafter, the said advocates of Feni District Bar called the local correspondent of the Daily Sangram asking how the false and fabricated statement alleged to be given by them had been published.

4. That on 02.04.2012 the news item came to the notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal and the Tribunal suo motu passed an order in ICT-BD MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 04 of 2012 directing the respondent, the Feni Correspondent of the Daily Sangram and the advocates of the Feni District Bar to appear before the tribunal on 16.04.2012 at 10.30 a.m. to show cause as to why they shall not be prosecuted under section 11(4) of the International Crimes ( Tribunals) Act, 1973.

5. That the Order of the Hon’ble Tribunal dated 02.04.2012 was communicated to the present respondent 08.04.2012.

6. That on 3 April 2012, the said advocates of the Feni District Bar sent a rejoinder to the Editor of the Sangram (present respondent) through facsimile requesting him to publish the same. In the said rejoinder the said advocates stated that they knew nothing about the alleged statement published by the Daily Sangram. It was also stated that they neither signed the statement nor did they send it to any newspaper for publication. Upon being informed of the circumstances, the respondent published the rejoinder verbatim in the first column of the back page of the newspaper on 06.04.2012.

7. That it is stated that the said news item was published by the respondent on the basis of a report sent as an attachment to an email by one A K M Abdur Rahim, who purported to be the Feni District Correspondent of the Daily Sangram. All news published in the Daily Sangram are on the basis of reports by local correspondents. Reports are usually sent to the respondent (Editor) via email, or other convenient means. The present report was emailed to the news section of the Daily Sangram on 01.04.2012 at 1.04 PM by someone purporting to be the Feni Correspondent. On the basis of the email dated 01.04.2012, the said news item was published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012.

8. That thereafter the present respondent was informed that the said advocates have denied making any such statement as published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012. Upon being so informed, the respondent contacted the local correspondent and found that the email had not in fact been sent by him. The news item was published on 02.04.2012 due to an honest mistake on the part of the present respondent who believed that the news was sent by the present respondent.

9. That upon realising the inaccuracy of the new report, the respondent immediately published a rejoinder on behalf of the Daily Sangram on 06.04.2012 explaining the basis of the news report. The said rejoinder published on 06.04.2012 has already been annexed as ANNEXURE-C.

10. That the respondent has allowed the publication of the news report on 02.04.2012 on the bona fide belief that the report emailed on 01.04.2012 was by the Feni correspondent of the Daily Sangram. However, he realises now that the email was not from the Feni correspondent, and the story was inaccurate. The respondent never intended to publish any false report in order to lower the dignity of this Hon’ble Tribunal. It was a bona fide mistake on the part of the respondent.

11. That the respondent begs unconditional apology from the Tribunal, for any unintentional lapse on his part. The respondent has the highest respect for due process of law and has no intention of lowering the dignity of the Tribunal or obstructing the processes of law.
12. That it is submitted that in the situation explained above, this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to discharge the Rule against the present respondent.

Wherefore it is humbly pray that your Lordships will graciously be pleased to accept the unconditional apology of the present respondent, dispose of ICT BD Misc Case No. 4 of 2012 and/or pass such other or further order(s) as may deem fit and proper. 

The Sangram Feni Correspondent's written application supported the argument that he had not sent the e-mail.

7. That it is stated that the said news item was published on the basis of a report sent via email by one A K M Abdur Rahim purporting to be the present respondent, the Feni District Correspondent of the Daily Sangram. All news published in the Daily Sangram are on the basis of reports by local correspondents. Reports are usually sent to the Editor of the newspaper via email, or other convenient means. The present report was emailed to the news section of the Daily Sangram on 01.04.2012 at 1.04 PM by someone purporting to be the present respondent. On the basis of the email dated 01.04.2012, the said news item was published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012. It is stated that the present respondent had never sent the said report to the Editor of the Daily Sangram for publication. The present respondent has no knowledge of any such email, or of the events referred therein.

8. That thereafter the present respondent informed the Editor and Publisher of the Daily Sangram that he had never sent such an email. The respondent was also informed that the said advocates have denied making any such statement as published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012. The news item was published on 02.04.2012 due to an honest mistake on the part of the Editor who believed that the news was sent by the present respondent.

9. That upon realising the inaccuracy of the new report, the respondent immediately published a rejoinder on behalf of the Daily Sangram on 06.04.2012 explaining the basis of the news report, and also stating the fact that the present respondent had not in fact emailed the report.  

10. That the respondent has no knowledge about any email reporting the alleged contemptuous statement by the said advocates. He never sent the email, and has no knowledge as to who it might have been. The Editor, Daily Sangram allowed the publication of the news report on 02.04.2012 on the bona fide belief that the report emailed on 01.04.2012 was by the present respondent. The respondent never intended to report any false statement in order to lower the dignity of this Hon’ble Tribunal.

11. That despite not having any connection with the news item published in the Daily Sangram on 02.04.2012, the respondent begs unconditional apology from the Tribunal, for any unintentional lapse on his part. The respondent has the highest respect for due process of law and has no intention of lowering the dignity of the Tribunal or obstructing the processes of law.

12. That it is submitted that in the situation explained above, this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to discharge the Rule against the present respondent.

And the Feni lawyers stated in their response.

5. That the respondents came to know about the statement first while reading newspapers in the morning of 2nd April 2012. Thereafter, the respondents Mr. Shafiul Alam, Mr. Nur-Ul-Islam and Mr. A.B.M Ashraful Hoque Bhuiyan called the local correspondent of the said newspaper asking how the false and fabricated statement alleged to be given by them had been published. The Feni correspondent of the Daily Sangram informed them that he is also not aware of the circumstances in which the statement has been published in the Daily Sangram.

6. That on 02.04.2012 the news item came to the notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal and the Tribunal suo motu passed an order in ICT-BD MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 04 of 2012 directing all the respondents, Editor and publisher of the Daily Sangram and the Feni Correspondent of the Daily Sangram to appear before the tribunal on 16.04.2012 at 10.30 a.m. to show cause as to why they shall not be prosecuted under section 11(4) of the International Crimes ( Tribunals) Act, 1973.

7. That the Order of the Hon’ble Tribunal dated 02.04.2012 was communicated to the present respondents on 10.04.2012.

8. That on 3 April 2012, respondents Mr. Shafiul Alam, Mr. Nur-Ul-Islam, Mr. A.B.M Ashraful Hoque Bhuiyan, Mr. Moin Uddin, Mr. Motasum Billah, Mr. Mohammad Belayet Hossain, Mr. Aminul Hoque, Mr. Abdul Kaiyum sent a rejoinder to the Editor of the Sangram through facsimile requesting him to publish the same. The respondents Mr. Golam Sarwar and Mr. Kamal Uddin Mojumder were not available at the time due to personal difficulty. As such the rejoinder could not be signed by them. In the said rejoinder the respondents stated that they knew nothing about the alleged statement published by the Daily Sangram. It was also stated that they neither signed the statement nor did they send it to any newspaper for publication.

9. That thereafter on 06.04.2012 the rejoinder of the respondents was published verbatim in the first column of the back page of the newspaper. In the said rejoinder the respondents stated that “We know nothing about the alleged statement. Neither we signed the statement nor did we send it to any Newspaper to publish. We are hurt by the news and we are always respectful to all courts and Tribunals established by law. The statement was sent with a view to humiliate and lower our dignity in the eye of law. We, the undersigned lawyers, deny that the alleged statement was signed and sent by us."

10. That it is submitted that the present respondents did not make any statement whatsoever in relation to the Tribunal. The respondents did not have any knowledge as to the content of the statement published in the Daily Sangram on 2 April 2012. In fact once, they learnt of the false publication in their name, they issued a rejoinder.

11. That moreover, the respondents beg unconditional apology from the Tribunal, for any unintentional lapse on their part. The respondents have the highest respect for due process of law and have no intention of lowering the dignity of the Tribunal or obstructing the processes of law.

12. That it is submitted that in the situation explained above, this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to discharge the Rule against the present respondents.

Joynal Abedin then summarized the arguments by saying that the aggrieved lawyers of Feni Bar Association protested that they had not signed anything and not given any kind of statement as had been reported on 02nd April, 2012. The Lawyers did not give any statements like this and Advocate Golam Sarwar has been seriously sick since 29th March, 2012 and has been admitted to the hospital. Another person’s name is not known by the Feni Bar Association. And the other people are totally ignorant about the remark. As stated in a rejoinder published on 6th April, 2012 no e-mail was sent by the Feni Correspondent Abdur Rahim.

Justice AKM Zaheer: There is a question. If the mail is being sent from another fake account; in that case there would a rejoinder about this matter. And another matter to be considered here is that- it should be checked whether there was any other communications which has been maintained through this account to the Daily Sangram authority.

Joynal Abedin: My Lord, my humble submission is that the news was published as a bonafide mistake, the respondent begs unconditional apology.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Well, the lawyers have not sent the statements and the reporters have not sent the report. Okay, leave the matter of lawyers, but whether the editor can allow this report to be published. These types of reports are regularly being published by the newspapers. We’ve repeatedly told that- the intention and the language of the report should be clear.

Joynal Abedin: My Lord, it will not happen in future.

Justice AKM Zaheer: Even it has been shared on the social network site- Facebook.

Zead Al Malum: So, the matter stands as follows the reporter has not sent the report, as well the lawyers had not given the statements. They are telling a lie. What should happen about this? Daily Sangram has committed a punishable offence under section- 11(4) of the ICT Act-1973.

Joynal Abedin: My Lord, it is my humble submission to apologize the matter unconditionally. I’ll never appear before this tribunal on the same matter.

Justice AKM Zaheer: As you are stating that it has been sent from another account, but nowhere has the reporter even mentioned about it.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Okay, the order will be given on 26th April, 2012 about this matter, and everyone must be present before the tribunal on the same date.

10 Apr 2012: Sayedee investigation officer day 3

Sultan Mahmud, a prosecutor, began proceedings by mentioning to the Tribunal that the newspaper Daily Sangram published a report which distorted the proceedings of 8 April. It said that without giving the scope for a review application, the trial hearing starts at the tribunal. I object to this report.

Justice Nizamul Haq: On 16th April, 2012, the editor of Daily Sangram will attend the tribunal. On that day we will raise this issue also.

Helal Uddin, the investigation officer in the Sayedee case then continued to give his evidence in chief, with questions being asked by the prosecutor Haider Ali (a continuation from the previous day)

Prosecutor: We will start from page-05, serial-13.

Witness: At Page- 2763 of Volume No-11. On 11th August, 2010 at 10.00 A.M. I’ve seized the Daily janakantha [of 17 July, 2010] from PIB. The content of the news was: “The martyr Shahid: the victim of the atrocities committed by Sayedee.” I’ve sent the Newspaper to the custody of Mr. Rabiul Alam Khan. This is the seizure list. The photocopy of the newspaper is also here.

At page: 2768. On 27 March, 2011 at 9:11 A.M. I’ve seized the Daily Janakankantha [of 14 April, 2001] from PIB. The heading of the news was “Sayedee has not accepted the challenge of the freedom fighters to prove himself as non-razakar.” That newspaper has been sent to the custody of Mr. Rabiul Alam Khan. This is the seizure list.

On 30 March, 2011; at 11:05 A.M.; I’ve seized Daily Azad [of 3rd February, 1972] which has a title as “Vagirothi was killed brutally.” I have seized it with the assistance of a witness.

Prosecutor: There are total 24 papers including the present one.

Witness: I would like to add. In memory of late Vagirothi, there is a premise at Pirojpur dedicated to the memory of him.

Those newspapers have been attached to the visual list no: 24 and 28.

Page 2775. On 26th April, 2011, at 11:30 A.M. I’ve seized the daily Janakantha [of 13 February, 2002] which was titled as ‘What will happen after the end of Taleban- The war will continue against America—Sayeede.’ And it was reported on 16th March, 2004 that “Sayedee on no fly risk of U.S.” I’ve seized both the newspapers, which is contained in the seizure visual list no: 18. I’ve signed it. That newspaper has been send to the custody of Mr. Rabiul Alam Khan. This is the seizure list.

Then he mentioned the 10 reports published in Daily Janakantha on the dates from 18th December, 2000 to 26th December, 2000 under the column “Shei Razakar. I have seized those papers from PIB on 16th March, 2011 at 14:30 P.M. I’ve send the papers to the custody of Mr. Rabiul Alam Khan. Seizure visual list no: 21.

Defence Counsel, Mizanul Islam: My Lord, as far as I can remember the tribunal chairman has told me that the law will run on its own course about the copies which have not been provided to the defence. Today the Prosecution has submitted 10 papers, the copies have not yet been provided to me. What would the law say about this? Please see section-16(2) of the ICTAct- 1973, which read as follows: “A copy of the formal charge and a copy of each of the documents lodged with the formal charge shall be furnished to the accused person at a reasonable time before the trial; and in case of any difficulty in furnishing copies of the documents, reasonable opportunity for inspection shall be given to the accused person in such manner as the Tribunal may decide.”

He said, now here arise some questions: a copy should be supplied to the accused within the reasonable time. When the inspection is ought to be taken. And if in case of non-supply of copy, what would happen.  The copies shall be furnished before the trial starts. What is the problem about supplying these copies of newspapers? Section- 9(4) of the Act says that “The submission of a list of witnesses and documents under sub-section (3) shall not preclude the prosecution from calling, with the permission of the Tribunal, additional witnesses or tendering any further evidence at any stage of the trial.”  So the copies ought to be submitted before the trial. But if it is needed to be submitted afterwards then they have to comply with section-9(4), which provides that- after taking the permission of the tribunal; they have to notify us about the submission. I think Law is clear in this section.

The prosecutor responded that they were willing to give copies of the documents to the defence.

The chairman intervened and said that section 16(2) of the 1973 Act provides that if there is any difficulty giving copy of any document the defence should be given opportunity to inspect the documents and so the tribunal can allow the defence to inspect these documents once they are exhibited.

The defence lawyer argued that section 16(2) was not applicable here – only on service of documents at the time of commencement of trial. He went onto say that for application of Section 16(2) it must be shown that it is ‘difficult to give copy’. But the prosecution has already said that they can give the defence a copy, so it is clear that it is not difficult to give copies of these documents. He said, for service of any additional documents at this stage section 9(4) is applicable. The prosecution must get the Tribunal’s permission and give the defence sufficient notice so that the accused can defend any evidence to be used against him.

The prosecutor then argued that these news paper clippings are not new documents and that they had already been submitted with the investigation report before commencement of the trial.

The defence lawyers said that investigator may have collected lots of documents, but that the prosecution is not relying on all those documents but only upon the 400 pages that were served upon the defence at the commencement of trial.

The prosecutor responded by saying that the court can take these documents under section 19(1) of the Act and Rule 46A of the Rules of Procedure and that if the defence do not have a copy, we can give it now or they can inspect it from court’s record.

The defence lawyer then said that the prosecution is admitting that section 16(2) is not applicable since they do not have any difficulty giving us copies of these news paper reports.

Justice Nassim then passed the following order (summary below)

During recording of examination of the PW 28, the PW stated that he has seized some news paper cutting and prepared seizure list and left them in custody of custodian. The photocopies of these newspaper clippings were given to the Tribunal but not given to the Defence.

Legal debate arose to the point whether these news paper clippings can be considered or not. According the learned counsel appearing for the defence Mr. Mijanul Islam submitted that section 16(2) of the IC(T)A 1973 applies for service or inspection of documents before trial. Arguing on this section Mr. Mijanul Islam submitted that the copies of the news paper clipping should have been given before the Trial. Mr. Mijanul Islam further submitted that section 16(2) is not applicable. He refers to section 9(4) which provides that the prosecution may submit new documents at any stage of trial after getting permission from the tribunal and notice of the same should be given to the defence. According to him the prosecution can not mark these news paper clippings as exhibits.

The learned prosecutor Mr. Haider Ali submitted that under section 16(2) of the Act the prosecution can give documents before trial or at this moment because these documents were submitted before the tribunal in right time. The tribunal may direct to supply copy now. Section 9(4) is applicable for documents which are new. This section does not apply for these news paper clippings.

We have given our anxious thoughts to the submission made by the learned counsels for the prosecution and the defence. Section 16(2) of the 1973 Act shows that the first sentence is ‘A copy of the formal charge and a copy of each of the documents lodged with the formal charge shall be furnished to the accused person at a reasonable time before the trial’. After semicolon it is said that ‘in case of any difficulty in furnishing copies of the documents, reasonable opportunity for inspection shall be given to the accused person in such manner as the Tribunal may decide’. We observe here that these are two distinct sentences.

Moreover earlier this tribunal has ordered to serve other documents to the defence at later stages where the served documents were illegible. The seizure list containing the list of the newspaper clippings was supplied to the defence earlier. They should have applied for copies of the newspaper clippings earlier. We have find that the defence never submitted any application for these documents.

Defence can inspect those newspaper clippings before cross examination. Moreover since the learned prosecutor Haider Ali already said that he can supply copy of the newspaper clippings, we direct him to serve the newspaper clippings as soon as possible.

The defence lawyer then argued that it was not correct that they had never asked for these unserved documents and argued that they had filed an application for service of these documents and that the application was rejected. He said that at that time the defence were told that if any document was not served upon the defence then the prosecution could not rely upon them.

Justice Jahir Ahmed said that he remembered that the defence had filed such an application.

The chairman said that they would change the relevant part of the order. But that these newspaper clippings can be exhibited now. He told the prosecutor that he should give these copies as soon as possible.

When the prosecutor said that they would give the copies within a week, the judge said that they should give them by 4pm that day.

After passing the order the Tribunal marked photocopies of the un-served newspaper clippings as exhibit Nos 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59.

Then the cross examination continued

Witness: Page- 3241, volume-12>> Then he stated that- on 17th October, 2010,at 11 P.M. he has seized the historical speech of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and provided the typed copy of that speech; the audio cassette of Bangabandhu as titled- Bojrokontho; the photo album titled ‘Jatir Jonok’ which was published by the Bangabandhu memorial trust.

Then he further stated that on 30th March, 2011 at 15:11 P.M. from the Liberation War Museum; he has seized the foreign newspaper clippings of 1971 from the collection of newspaper clippings of 1971 by Abdul Matin, Liberation War Museum, Bangladesh. It contains five volumes [1. Vol-1 March to April, 1971 2. Vol-2 May- June, 1971 3. Vol-3, July September, 1971 4. Vol-4, October- November, 1971 5. Vol-5 December, 1971]

Then he mentioned that he has seized those five volumes. And submitted those volumes with the reports

The Tribunal marked these five volumes as Material Exhibit Nos. VI, VI(1), VI(2), VI(3) and VI (4).

The defence counsel however objected to this and said that they were never given any copy of these five volumes by the prosecution and they have no knowledge of what is contained in those five volumes and so cannot be exhibited. These are new documents. The prosecution must get prior permission of the tribunal and give the defence notice before they can rely upon them as required under section 9(4) of the IC(T)A.

The chairman said that the defence were given copy of the seizure list containing names of these documents so you know about these documents.

The defence laywer said that they were not given copy of these five volumes. ‘I have right to get copy of these documents before they are exhibited,’ he said.

The chairman said that the lawyer should not worry as we will allow him to inspect these documents.

The lawyer said that these documents are big and inspection is not sufficient, so the prosecution should provide a copy.

One of the judges asked the prosecutor whether the document were given to the tribunal earlier. Where is our copy?

The prosecutor said that there is only one copy hcih the investigator has seized from the Museum.

The chairman said that the documents cannot be copied as the exhibited copy is very faded.

The defence lawyer then said that it is already time for recess. I have further submissions on this. He asked whether the last sentence of the deposition could be delated as he wanted to make further submission after recess.

The chairman said that they will not delete it now, and that if submission is allowed after recess then the tribunal can delete at that time.

The defence lawyer said that the investigation officer will however now sign the statement and that if they want to delete it after the recess it may become complicated as then the tribunal will have to pass an order for deletion.

The chairman said that the tribunal can delete this any time but that it wants to keep it now.

Justice AKM Zaheer also asked the prosecutor whether you are submitting these clippings and documents only for this case or also for the other cases?

Prosecutor said that they will submit these documents in other cases also.

Justice AKM Zaheer asked How he could do that? Before the disposal of this case you ought not to be holding these documents.

The prosecutor then asked for time to think about it .

The Court was adjourned till 2 P.M.

Justice Nassim: Mr.Abdur Razzak, Charge hearing matter of Matiur Rahman Nizami, Quamaruzzaman, Ali Ahsan Mujahid, Quder Mullah are all completed except your submission. Therefore, please give us a date when it is convenient for you to submit your argument.

Abdur razzak (defence): My lord, on Monday (16.4.12) I will submit.

Justice Nassim: Okay.

Mizanul Islam: With regard to the news paper clippings in Exhibit 50-59 you have already passed an order to exhibit them. We objected then as being new documents but you rejected the objection saying that they were given to the tribunal before trial though the defence were not given copies. But the five volume document were clearly not given to the tribunal earlier. We were also not given copies. They are brought by the investigation officer today. These are clearly new documents and section 16(2) does not apply to them. The prosecution must follow Section 9(4) procedure before exhibiting these documents.

The chairman denied this and said that they were given to the tribunal earlier.

The defence lawyer said that they had seen the investigation officer bring them and that one of the judges had also said that he saw the documents today for first time and so they are clearly new documents and the five volumes cannot be exhibited without giving the defence a copy.

The chairman said that the tribunal will allow you to inspect the documents, but there is nothing to stop the prosecution exhibiting the documents now.

Abdur Razzak also came to the dais and read out section 9(4) and 16(2) of the Act. My lord, if it not possible to provide documents then we should be given a right to inspect the document before exhibition. And in case of additional evidence we should be given a notice earlier. My humble submission before the Tribunal is that, the matter is very serious matter and the tribunal should pass an order to that effect.

Haider Ali: Tendering additional evidence does not arise; here all the documents are already produced before the Tribunal. And my lord, giving notice is not mentioned anywhere. If they want to inspect, they can do so as all are open.

Razzaq then said that if these documents cannot be copied how can the prosecution have given a copy to the court. He asks if he can see the copy produced before this tribunal.

The chairman said that he could not see it now. It is original. The IO seized it from the Museum.

Razzak said that if this document is exhibited then it is being used against me. The copy was never given to us. Section 9(4) requires that permission is required before submitting such new documents.

The chairman said that we have given permission now. The permission may be verbal – there is no requirement that the permission needs to be in writing.

Abdur Razzak: My lord, if any document is given to you but not given to us then it will be considered as injustice to us.

Justice Nassim: Newspaper from different countries after compiling has been kept in the Muktijuddha museam. Then these were seized from the museum. Mr. Razzak names of these documents are given to you in the seizure list and 5 volumes book have been given to us. It is not possible to provide you the copy of those books. Therefore, you must have given a right to inspect.

Abdur Razzak: My lord, defence has the right to inspect and I will not be prejudiced if I am getting reasonable opportunity to inspect. And I should be given effective knowledge regarding the additional evidence.

Justice Nassim: Okay, then you will inspect the documents at any time but exhibition is completed now.

Abdur Razzak: No, My lord, how can an exhibition be completed without inspecting the materials. We should first have done our inspection and then exhibition.

Justice Nizam: No, there are no rules like that. Basically, you seek to see a copy of the document through a petition. Still we giving the right to you to inspect.

Abdur Razzak: My lord we pray for notice and notice means right to give reasonable opportunity to inspect. And my lord, we know that, show cause notice has been given before passing an order then why exhibition has been done before inspection?

The chairman said that the prosecution gave the defence a copy of the seizure list and that this was notice for these documents.

Razzaq said taht but merely giving seizure list is not enough. The prosecution should give us copies of these five volumes.

The chairman asked why the defence did not apply for these documents earlier? You should have at least apply to inspect these documents earlier.

Razaq said that we have in fact applied for service of all the un-served documents. And that the tribunal rejected that application at that time and told us that if copies of any documents is not given then the prosecution cannot use them. Now you are allowing the prosecution to exhibit these documents. The prosecution has not given us notice.

Justice Nizam: Technical rules of evidence will not apply here.

Abdur Razzak: Just give us notice three days before exhibition.

Justice Nizam: You have said this but we have heard it that, someone says “this tribunal is accused friendly Tribunal”

Abdur Razzak: My lord, this is law which I have said.

Justice Nizam: With due all respect to you, we reject the application. And what would happen if three days are given to you?

Abdur Razzak: My lord, three days is long time, many things might be happened in three days. In fact, we are failing to assist you and give due justice to our client as well. So it is better we leave the court room. And my lord, what you have said now is not supported by section 9(4) of the Act. The notice must be effective. If you are giving me notice about these five volumes today then you cannot exhibit them now. You should give me copy now then it can be exhibited later. I may have objection. This is my right to see these documents before it is exhibited.

The chairman said ‘No. We can allow you to inspect it later. But we will keep them as exhibit.’

Razaq asked how you can you exhibit first and then give us notice? The proceeding may continue but you should refrain from exhibiting these five volumes now.

The chairman said that ‘No we will not delete the exhibits. You may inspect the documents later.’

Razaq sais that if the tribunal exhibits these documents it would be a violation of section 9(4).

He then said that it appears that ‘we are unable to assist this tribunal. We will not be able to do justice to our client. We should leave.’

The chairman said that it was up to the defence and asked why should the tribunal wait to marking these documents for notice. The proceeding should continue. We will give order on these documents tomorrow morning.

Razaq said I have no objection if the examination of IO continues for today. My only objection is you should allow these documents to be exhibited now. Since you will pass order tomorrow morning, you should leave the matter for exhibit for tomorrow morning.

The chairman said, that no these exhibits should remain and that if the tribunal decides later on to delete them then it can delete these exhibits at any stage.

The defence lawyers then left the court.

The court proceeding continued and Haider Ali started to examine the investigation officer At that moment all of the defence counsel walked out the Tribunal.

Then the Tribunal was compelled to adjourn as there were no presence of accused and his appointed lawyer, and that if they continue proceedings it would be considered as violation of the sec 12 of the ICT.

The prosecutor said that the walk out was pre-planned. He claimed that the accused was not present as they had asked him not to appear because of him not feeling well, and so they were able to walk out of the tribunal.

The chairman then spoke very angrily and said that next time the accused will not be allowed to leave court before finishing of the day’s proceeding.

The prosecutor said that if the defence counsel continues their walk out then we may think about appointing state defence.

Then the court is adjourned.

19 Mar 2012: Kamruzzaman charging 3

Justice AKM Zaheer was not present during this hearing

Advocate Zead Al Malum, prosecutor, starting the hearing by saying, My Lord, I would like to draw your kind attention to the report of Daily Sangram. It has published a report titled ‘Again the Prosecution has failed to produce witness against Mawlana Sayedee.’ My Lord, is it not reporting from the negative corner of view?

Justice Nizamul Haq: We’re so tired to call up the reporters on the same issues. How many times we could call up on the same matters? We would not like to hear the same complaints again and again from both of the sides. Mr. Razzak (lawyer for the defence) yesterday you brought up an issue about another newspaper. But right now what should we do.

The Journalists must be very careful about these types of matters. We would like to have your cooperation from every aspect.

Barrister Abdur Razzak: My Lord, we would like to argue on the matter of Professor Golam Azam on another date

Justice Nizamul Haq: Okay the date is fixed on 25th March, 2012 . And as, Mr. AKM Zaheer is not present today, so it would be better to hear the matter in his presence on another day. So, let the date be fixed on 25th March, 2012.

Barrister Abdur Razzak: My Lord, we have another application about the matter of modification of the provision to allow home cooked food to Mr. Golam Azam.

Justice Nizamul Haq: We will hear the matter on the same day.

Advocate Tajul Islam: My Lord, I would like to say something about the media report which has been raised by the Prosecution team. My Lord, whatever they are expecting is not reasonable, because it will frustrate the principle of the freedom of press.

Advocate Saiful Islam, a prosecutor, then continued to read out the charge framing application relating to Mr. Md. Quamaruzzaman (carrying on from the previous day)

8.13 Superior status of the accused 

In measuring the responsibility of crime it is an established principle that the responsibility of the crimes committed by the subordinate workers will go directly to the superior personalities. This established idea is included in the 4(2) section of International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973. According to this section: ‘Any commander or superior officer who orders, permits, acquiesces or participates in the commission of any of the crimes specified in the section 3 or is connected with any plans and activities involving the commission of such crimes or who fails or omits to discharge his duty to maintain discipline, or to control or supervise the actions of the persons under his command or his subordinates or any of them commit any such crimes, or who fails to take necessary measures to prevent the commission of such crimes, is guilty of such crimes.’

The above section is applicable to any civilian or military commander and superior officer.

8.14 In the light of proofs and events found in the investigation the accused Kamarujjaman’s superior status and liability under section 4(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 for crimes committed under section 3(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 are proved clearly.

8.15 The accused Kamarujjaman was the chairman of Mymensingh Islami Chaatro Shongho and an inhabitant of Sherpur. As the chief organizer, on 16th May, 1971 he provided a short military training for 47 workers at Sherpur( Mymensingh District). The training span was 7 to 12 days. The skills of using automatic weapons, dismantling and moving weapons from one place to another, disabling mines and explosives, receiving wireless message were developed in this training. In the practical field the under mentioned weapons were provided to Al Badr- Barabor gun, 303 rifle, light mortar gun, anti aircraft gun, hand grenade, mine and revolver. The association of Al Badrs was mentioned in the note of Major Gen. Rao Forman Ali Khan, the adviser to the governor general. Just after the formation of Rajakar and Al Badr force, camp was established at Ahmed nogor of Jhinaigati, Sherpur.

Brutal mass killings were committed at Jhaugora, Shurzadi of Sherpur, Kakorkandi, Shohagpur and Jogotpur village of Nolitabari area. Relation of Islami Chhatro Shongho with Al Badr force in the report of the Daily Shongram, published on 12th September, 1971 and the leaders of Islami Chhatro Shongho were told to form Al Badr force.

At page 5 column 6 of the Daily Shongram dated 16.08.1971 it is mentioned, “Last Saturday a procession and symposium were arranged at the local Muslim Institute of Momenshahi by Al Badr force commemorating the 25th Azadi Day. Mr. Kamarujjaman, chief organizer of Al Badr force presided over the symposium”. From the report of that news paper it is proved that the accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman is a high ranking organizer of Al Badr force who had the ability to plot conspiracy to agitate people to take strategic plan and to apply the strategic plans. Since, the accused Kamarujjaman is the chief organizer of Al Badr and in the context of determining the liabilities of activities performed by the workers of different statuses of the organization it is an established principle that the liabilities of the activities performed by the subordinates will go directly to the superior officer. Since the accused Kamarujjaman is the chief organizer of Al Badr force, as he had made plans to commit crimes being ordered by the Parent organization Jamaat E Islami and other associative forces like Rajakar force and Islami Chhatro Shongho and as he had taken all steps to apply all the orders and decisions and he had played important role to commit crimes that are defined under the section 4(1) and 4(2) of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, the section is applicable to civilian or military commander and superior officer.

8.16 On 29th June 1971 at about 11 pm Martyr Bodiujjaman son of Md. Fojlul Huq inhabitant of Kalinogor village under Nalitabari police station of Sherpur district was arrested by a team of Al Badr whose leader was Kamarujjaman from the residence of Ahammod member of Ramnogor village under Jhinaigati police station and was taken to Ahammod nogor camp and there they tortured him all night and the next day they shot him and killed him on the street. They dragged the body and threw it in the water from the wooden bridge. Muhammod Kamarujjaman as a leader of Al Badr force used to go to the camp by military jeep and deliberately killed many people in this area.

8.17.1 The accused Kamarujjaman was the chairman of Mymensingh Islami Chaatro Shongho and an inhabitant of Sherpur. As the chief organizer, on 16th May, 1971 he provided a short military training for 47 workers at Sherpur (Mymensingh District). The training span was 7 to 12 days. The skills of using automatic weapons, dismantling and moving weapons from one place to another, disabling mines and explosives, receiving wireless message were developed in this training. In the practical field the under mentioned weapons were provided to Al Badr- Barabor gun, 303 rifle, light mortar gun, anti aircraft gun, hand grenade, mine and revolver. The association of Al Badrs was mentioned in the note of Major Gen. Rao Forman Ali Khan, the adviser to the governor general. Just after the formation of Rajakar and Al Badr force, camp was established at Ahmed nogor of Jhinaigati, Sherpur. (Source: Relation of Islami Chhatro Shongho with Al Badr force in the report of the Daily Shongram, published on 12th September, 1971 and the leaders of Islami Chhatro Shongho were told to form Al Badr force.)

At page 5 column 6 of the Daily Shongram dated 16.08.1971 it is mentioned, “Last Saturday a procession and symposium were arranged at the local Muslim Institute of Momenshahi by Al Badr force commemorating the 25th Azadi Day. Mr. Kamarujjaman, chief organizer of Al Badr force presided over the symposium”. From the report of that news paper it is proved that the accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman is a high ranking organizer of Al Badr force who had the ability to plot conspiracy to agitate people to take strategic plan and to apply the strategic plans. Since, the accused Kamarujjaman is the chief organizer of Al Badr and in the context of determining the liabilities of activities performed by the workers of different statuses of the organization it is an established principle that the liabilities of the activities performed by the subordinates will go directly to the superior officer. Since the accused Kamarujjaman is the chief organizer of Al Badr force, as he had made plans to commit crimes being ordered by the Parent organization Jamaat E Islami and other associative forces like Rajakar force and Islami Chhatro Shongho and as he had taken all steps to apply all the orders and decisions and he had played important role to commit crimes that are defined under the section 4(1) and 4(2) of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, the section is applicable to civilian or military commander and superior officer.

8.17.2 On 29th June 1971 at about 11 pm Martyr Bodiujjaman son of Md. Fojlul Huq inhabitant of Kalinogor village under Nalitabari police station of Sherpur district was arrested by a team of Al Badr whose leader was Kamarujjaman from the residence of Ahammod member of Ramnogor village under Jhinaigati police station and was taken to Ahammod nogor camp and there they tortured him all night and the next day they shot him and killed him on the street. They dragged the body and threw it in the water from the wooden bridge. Muhammod Kamarujjaman as a leader of Al Badr force used to go to the camp by military jeep and deliberately killed many people in this area.

8.17.3 The anti liberation activities of Kamarujjaman during the liberation war have been known from the historical books on the liberation war and from the tortured people. On 22nd April, 1971 as the chairman of then Islami Chhatro Shongho of Mymensingh district Kamarujjaman first organized Al Badr with some loyal and selected members of Islami Chhatro Shongho of Ashek Mahmud College as the killing squad of Jammat E Islami. Kamarujjaman was the main organizer of this squad.

9. Specific Allegations against the accused-

Allegation no-1: Conspiracy to commit genocide. Refers to paragraphs 6, 7, 8.1- 8.17.
Accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman: Events described in Paragraph 8.8; 8.9; 8.13; 8.14; 8.15; 8.17.1; 8.17.2; 8.17.3 under the sections 3(2) (a) (g) (h) and 4(1) 4(2) of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. The accused is liable to commit genocide by giving inciting, revengeful, hateful speech to eradicate the populace of a specific ethnicity by mass killing at the procession and symposium Momenshahi commemorating the 25th Azadi day of Pakistan. For this kind of attitude, the accused is personally liable by the section 4(1). The accused has committed crime which is worthy of the highest punishment by the section 20 of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. 

Allegation no-2: Genocide. Refers to paragraphs between 8.1-8.17 above
Accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman: Events described in Paragraphs 8.1; 8.2; 8.3; 8.5; 8.7; 8.15 under the sections 3(2)(c)(iii); 3(2)(g)(h) and 4(2) of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1972 The accused was the chairman of Mymensingh district Islami Chhatro Shongho on 1971 since Al Badr is a paramilitary force whose chief organizer was the accused then he has the superior/commander status. Since, the accused is a high ranking commander he is liable for the crimes committed by all his subordinate workers under the section 4(1);4(2) and for committing genocide by inflicting serious physical injuries, taking preparation for genocide, organizing the killing squad of Al Badr force and recruiting and providing military training to the workers of Islami Chhatro Shongho.
In paragraph 8.7 he is liable for committing genocide by killing males and by raping females. The accused has committed crime which is worthy of the highest punishment by the section 20 of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. 

Allegation no-3: Crime Against Humanity: Murder. Refers to paras 8.1-8.17
Events described in paragraphs 8.4; 8.7; 8.10; 8.12; under sections 3(2)(a)(h) of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. The accused is liable to genocide by killing unarmed pro liberation people deliberately on the basis of religion, political party and ethnicity. The accused has committed crime which is worthy of the highest punishment by the section 20 of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. 

Allegation no-4: Crime Against Humanity: Extermination. Refers to paras 8.1-8.17
Events described at the paragraph 8.9 under the section 3(2) of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. The accused is liable for committing crime against humanity by committing extermination by giving inciting and hateful speech at the procession and the symposium, creating fear among the mass people and by creating propaganda among the party workers to eliminate pro liberation Bengali populace. The accused has committed crime which is worthy of the highest punishment by the section 20 of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. 

Allegation no-5: Crime Against Humanity: Deportation. Refers to paras 8.1-8.17
Event described at the paragraph 8.6 under the Section 3(2)(a) of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. The accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman is liable for committing crime against humanity by removing people from their home and by deporting them as many in habitants of Gridha Narayanpur village of Sherpur town under Jamalpur district including Emdadul Huq Hira Mia were compelled to leave their home due to the extensive torture of Kamarujjaman and his Al Badr troop. The accused has committed crime which is worthy of the highest punishment by the section 20 of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. 

Allegation no-6: Crime against humanity: Torture. Refers to paras 8.1-8.17
Event described at the paragraphs 8.4; 8.5; 8.8; 8.11; 8.12; under the sections 3(2)(a)(g)(h) of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. The accused and his Al Badr force had arrested Martyr Bodiujjaman son of Md. Fojlul Huq inhabitant of Kalinogor village under Nalitabari police station of Sherpur district on 29th June 1971 at about 11 pm from the residence of Ahammod member of Ramnogor village under Jhinaigati police station and had taken to Ahammod nogor camp and there they tortured him all night
The accused had arrested Syed Abdul Hannan, lecturer of Islamic history and Culture of Sherpur College and made him almost naked, made him bald, harnessed him, rubbed him with ashes and dragged him along the streets of Sherpur town while they were whipping him brutally. He is liable for committing crime against humanity by torturing and persecuting. The accused has committed crime which is worthy of the highest punishment by the section 20 of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. 

Allegation no-7: Crime Against Humanity: Rape. Refers to para 8.1-8.17
Event described at the paragraph 8.7 under the Section 3(2)(a)(h) International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. The accused is liable for crime against humanity by killing males and raping females of Shohagpur village on 25th July, 1971. The accused has committed crime which is worthy of the capital punishment by the section 20 of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. 

Allegation no-8: Crime Against Humanity: Persecution, Refers to paras 8.1-8.17
Event described at the paragraph 8.6 under the section 3(2)(a)(g)(h) of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. The accused with his Al Badr men looted and burned the residence of Emdadul Huq Hira Mia, inhabitant of Gridha Narayanpur village of Sherpur town under Jamalpur district and Pakistani army settled their camp in that house and by capturing innocent unarmed and common people of that area and after killing burying them in mass grave the accused is liable for committing crime against humanity. The accused has committed the crime which is worthy of the highest punishment by the section 20 of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. 

Allegation no-9: Liability for all Crimes. Refers to para 8.1-8.17.
Events described in the paragraphs 8.1; 8.2; 8.3; 8.9; 8.10; 8.11;8.13; 8.14; 8.15 under the section 4(1); 4(2) of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973

The names of chiefs and central commanders of Rajakar, Al Badr and Al Shams have been collected. They are
1. Motiur Rahman Nijami : President, Pakistan Islami Chhatra Shongho
2. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid :President, East Pakistan Islami Chhatra Shongho
3. Mir Kashem Ali : Central leader of Islami Chhatra Shongho
4. Md. Yunus : Chief of Rajakar force
5. Muhammad Kamarujjaman : Chief organizer of Al Badr force
6. Ashraf Hosen :Founder of Al Badr force and chief of Mymensingh
7. Md. Shamsul Huq : Chief of city Badr force
8. Mostofa Shaokot Emran : Commander of Dhaka A l Badr force
9. Ashrafujjaman Khan : Chief of Dhaka city Al Badr force and chief Executor of intellectual killing
10. Chowdhury Moeen Udiin : Operation in charge of intellectual killing
11. Shardar Abdus Salam : Chief of Dhaka district

As the chairman of then Islami Chhatro Shongho of Mymensingh district Kamarujjaman first organized Al Badr with some loyal and selected members of Islami Chhatro Shongho of Ashek Mahmud College. Under the leadership of the accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman within few months all the workers of Islami Chhatra Shongho of Mymensingh district were included in the Al Badr force and sent to different regions after short military training. In this way, while having the superior status the accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman has joint and individual criminal responsibility of the accused under section 4(10 of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. Not only the accused is liable for his own crimes but he is responsible for the crimes of all his subordinates and the crimes of all organizations and persons which were within the influence of his organizational superstructure. The organizations under that superstructure are: Jamaat E Islami, Islami Chhatro Shongho, Peace Committee, Rajakar force, Al Badr force, Al Shams force, Mujahid force etc. Therefore the nature of the liability of the crimes of the accused in the light of the section 4(1) of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973 is joint and individual criminal responsibility. For example, name of some persons are mentioned below who were in the circle of the accused’ leadership and the accused is liable himself jointly and individually for their crimes.
The accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman is responsible for plotting conspiracy, inciting people, planning and ordering for committing crimes and being involved fully in committing crimes in different areas of Mymensingh, Jamalpur, Netrokona, Kishorgonj, Sherpur by his loyal Al Badr force and as he was fully involved in these activities he is directly or indirectly responsible for all the crimes of his subordinate workers.

The accused has committed the crime which is worthy of the highest punishment by the section 20 of International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973.

Joint and Individual criminal responsibility of the accused 

As the chairman of then Islami Chhatro Shongho of Mymensingh district Kamarujjaman first organized Al Badr with some loyal and selected members of Islami Chhatro Shongho of Ashek Mahmud College. Under the leadership of the accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman within few months all the workers of Islami Chhatra Shongho of Mymensingh district were included in the Al Badr force and sent to different regions after short military training. In this way, while having the superior status the accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman has joint and individual criminal responsibility of the accused under section 4(10 of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. Not only the accused is liable for his own crimes but he is responsible for the crimes of all his subordinates and the crimes of all organizations and persons which were within the influence of his organizational superstructure. The organizations under that superstructure are: Jamaat E Islami, Islami Chhatro Shongho, Peace Committee, Rajakar force, Al Badr force, Al Shams force, Mujahid force etc.

Therefore the nature of the liability of the crimes of the accused in the light of the section 4(1) of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973 is joint and individual criminal responsibility. For example, name of some persons are mentioned below who were in the circle of the accused’ leadership and the accused is liable himself jointly and individually for their crimes.

The accused Muhammad Kamarujjaman is responsible for plotting conspiracy, inciting people, planning and ordering for committing crimes and being involved fully in committing crimes in different areas of Mymensingh, Jamalpur, Netrokona, Kishorgonj, Sherpur by his loyal Al Badr force and as he was fully involved in these activities he is directly or indirectly responsible for all the crimes of his subordinate workers.

My Lord; so Mr. Quamaruzzaman is liable of the superior responsibility which falls under section- 4(2). The accused person has used his superior status and thus committed crimes under section- 3(2) of the ICT Act-1973 and thus liable for conspiracy. When his superior status was prevailing - he has done several categories of crimes under section- 3(2) of ICTAct-1973.

The tribunal has the jurisdiction to take the judicial notice of these crimes.

So, My Lord, our humble prayers are as follows before the tribunal- to take Judicial Notice of the following matters under section-19 (3) of ICT Act-1973.
(a) To accept the formal charges and take the cognizance of offences committed by Mr. Quamaruzzaman under section-3(2) of ICT Act-1973.
(b) To take the cognizance of the matter of Superior Responsibility of the following person.
(c) To take the Judicial Notice of the offences under section- 19(3) of the ICT Act-1973.
(d) To take the judicial notices of the offences committed by the auxiliary forces under section- 19 (3) of the ICT Act-1973.
(e) To punish the perpetrators under section-20 of the ICT Act-1973.

'We would like to draw the kind attention of the Tribunal to these following matters' he said finally

Adjourned until the afternoon

Prosecutor Saiful Islam then made some oral arguments relating to the charge. He said that there are some vital points to justify the Formal charge.

Basic points are: This case is not a normal criminal case but related to our Liberation war. Whole nation is looking for its fair trial. We know that people of East Pakistan was deprived, at that time Pakistan tried to recognize Urdu as state Language. From the national budget analysis of that time, it is very much clear how the people of east-Pakistan had been deprived. However, our leader Bangbandhu Sheikh Mujibar Rahman raised his voice against West Pakistan.

The leader of Jamaat-i-islam of East Pakistan came under order of the Pakistan military and to execute various heinous offences to make successful all the activities of the Pakistan military. They established very good relationship with the Pakistan Military.

Each force was formed by Ghulam Azam leader of Jamaat-i-isalm and others members of Jamaat-i-islam with the direction of the West Pakistan Government. They formed peace committee at Thana and district level and started to identify the people who are against the West Pakistan. After that they were equipped with arms. Subsequently, for observing all of their purposes, other forces were also formed. Later they were trained and given arms to fight. Auxiliary force was supervised by Military Government. Al badr and Al shams these are the associated force of Razakaar force. They were also received training to fight. So they had a connection with the military force and did similar types of offences.

Accused Md. Quamaruzzaman was the pioneer organizer of Albadr. He brilliantly organised various operation which gave the Pakistan Authority enough confidence to realize the matter that the Auxiliary force observed their duty with due respect to West Pakistan. As Mr.Quamaruzaman was the pioneer organizer of Albadr so he was involved in those atrocities. He was the master planner as well in Mymensingh to assist the Pakistani Military. He used his capacity to organize his party to perpetrate crime during the Liberation War.

He is mainly charged with those activities which were committed by Albadr at Mymensingh during the war. Therefore he has been charged for his command responsibility as he was the chief of Mymensingh Chhtra Sangha Unit. Albadr was consisted of members of Islamic Chhtra Sangha.

He supervised those stations which were occupied as Razakaar office and military office. He supervised by giving instruction, plans and programmes. Therefore he was the part and parcel of the Albadr. He was charged for collective responsibility and charged with planning, conspiracy, incitement.

Therefore, he committed offence under section 3(2), (a),(c),(g),(h) and also attracts the section 4(1) and 4(2).

Today the Bengali nation would not be here, if Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibar Rahman did not take the initiative and was not so adamant. This case is not a normal case; it is fully relate to the sentiment of the Bengali people which can not be avoided.

It is very clear that the Act is promulgated for prosecution and punishment of the offenders. As prima facie it is proved that accused has committed the offence, so he should be Prosecuted and punished.

Justice Nassim: If the case is proved then he will be punished.

Saiful Islam: Yes, my lord. Basically accused had an extra-ordinary capacity; he used his capacity to organize people against the East Pakistan. He will be liable as he hold the superior position at that time. He was the leader of Albadr, he trained them and supervised them. As he was in superior position, so he attracts the sec 4(2) of the ICT Act-1973.

Justice Fazle Kabir: Offence under section 3 and 4 should be proved in different circumstances. And in case of direct charges also such as charge against humanity, murder and rape you did not refer all particulars of those people who were killed. You have said in one charge that 44 persons had been died from 120 people but did not mention who are they? What is their father name? Where did they live? You should submit the particulars of those persons because there could be several people by the same name at one village.

Saiful Islam: For being proved this case as prima facie case, we have supplied enough documents for the satisfaction of the Tribunal.

Then Argument of the prosecution was completed.

Ehsan Siddiq: We need to take 3 weeks for our preparation.

Justice Nassim: Formal charge has been submitted at December, 3 months has been passed that formal charge is given. So you must have to be prepared.

Justice Nassim adjourned the court by fixing the date on 25th March for Ghulam Azam and Quamaruzzam matter.

4 Mar 2012: Cross Exam Abed day 2

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

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

The reporter of the Daily Sangram then stood up.

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

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

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

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

After this exchange, the cross examination of Abed Khan by the defence lawyer, Mr. Mizanul Islam continued (following on from the 16 Feb). The chairman asked the defence lawyer to let the Cross Examination be concise.

Defence: Mr. Abed Khan, you have said that there was remarkable participation of Jamaat-e-Islami in 1971. You’ve mentioned all these conspiracies that are made by the neighboring country. The Constitution of Bangladesh has marked the area of Bangladesh in clear words.

Witness: Yes it is true.

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

Witness: It is not known to me.

Then Advocate Mizanul Islam repeated the same Question.

Justice AKM Zaheer: Please concentrate on the matter of Jamat-e-Islami, forget other topics.

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

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

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

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

Defence: My Lord, please let me give the opportunity to ask the question. [Then he asked the question to Mr. Abed Khan.

Defence: You have mentioned the word “conspiracy of the neighbor country”. Now, what do you mean by neighboring country. 

Witness: Should I give the answer with explanation? My Lord, if the learned counsel would like to discuss about the history which is one of my favorite topics, then he is most welcome to discuss about the matter when we’re outside the court. 

Justice Nizamul Huq: He would like to ask that which one is the neighbor country. 

Witness: India. 

Defence: Before and after 1947 it was stated by some India leaders that…[Here, Justice AKM Zaheer stopped him.]

Justice AKM Zaheer: Please concentrate on the matter of Jamaat-e-Islami other than the opinion of other political leaders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Fazle Kabir: Mr. Islam, we are not happy for you to concentrate on his opinion about this matter.

Defence: My Lord, I would like to ask that whether almost all the inhabitants of the region of India and current Bangladesh and Pakistan got the chance to vote for electing their representatives.

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

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

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

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

Witness: Yes.

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

Witness: Yes.

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

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

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

Witness: Yes.

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

Witness: I don’t know.

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

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

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

Witness: I’m not sure about it.

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

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

Defence: In which language was the book written?

Witness: Urdu.

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

Witness: I don’t know.

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

Witness: I don’t know.

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

Witness: I don’t know.

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

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

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

Witness: I don’t know.

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

Witness: I don’t know.

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

Witness: I don’t know.

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

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

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

Witness: It is not necessary for me to know.

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

Witness: May be it was around 1940.

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

Witness: Maajlish-e-Sura.

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

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Whether the constitution of Jamaat-e-Islami has declared the election mechanism of Bangladesh, illegal? 

Witness: If there was anything written against the Constitution of Bangladesh in  their constitution that very moment their manual would be declared illegal by the law.

The court was adjourned until 2 pm

Defence: Can you tell me, whether the theory of Moududi exists in jamaat-e-islam’s constitution or not?

Witness: It is not specifically mentioned.

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

Witness: I cannot say.

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

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

Witness: Yes, I have heard it.

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

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

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

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

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

Witness: No, I cannot say it at this moment. 

Chairman: How could he say about an  exact place, it might be at bus station or somewhere else. 

Defence: But My lord, when a person comes to give his testimony, we always expect specific answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness: No, it is not true.

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

Witness: Yes.

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

Witness: Yes.

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

Witness: There was no Government named as BAKSAL Government.

Note: Tribunal did not take the above question

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

Witness: No.

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

Witness: I cannot remember it specifically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defence: can you tell me name of some books?

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

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

Witness: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness: Yes

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

Witness: Yes, it was reported in Ittefaq also.

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

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

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

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

Witness: Yes.

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

Witness: Then I was not in Daily Shomokaal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Zaheer said this above question is not taken.

Defence: My lord, we are not withdrawing this question, we are seeking a review petition.

Defence: You wanted to mean by this report that there exists Godfather in Awami league also.

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

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

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

Defence: Were they arrested during the caretaker regime?

Witness: No, but they hid themselves.

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

Witness: I can not remember it.

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

Witness: I cannot remember.

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

Witness: No, I cannot remember.

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

Witness: No.

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

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

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

Witness: I do not know.

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

Witness: No.

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

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

Witness: This information is collected by my reporter.

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

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

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

Witness: I cannot remember at this time.

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

Witness: Yes.

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

Witness: Yes.

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

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

Defence: Have you read the full report?

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

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

Witness: Yes.

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

Witness: Yes, I have seen their report.

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

Witness: I cannot remember it at this moment.

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

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

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

Witness: No., I do not know.

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

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

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

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

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

Witness: No, It is not true.

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

Witness: It is not true.

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

Witness: It is not true.

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

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

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

Witness: No. It is not true.

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

Witness: No, It is not true.

Then the court was adjourned.