13 Dec 2011: Howlader cross-exam day 3

Before the third day of cross examination into the first witness Mahbubul Alam Howlader, Abdur Razzak the head of the defence legal team rose and mentioned that the prosecution had filed formal charges against Gholam Azam and that the court will soon decide whether to take these matters into cognisance.

He said that the moment the court decides to initiate proceedings then he will make an application for bail, and would like to be present.

Nizamul Haque, tribunal chairman responded by saying that he could assure the lawyers that on the three days that he will not be present, those matters will not come for cognisance.

The prosecution Haider Ali then went before the judges to give some missing pages from a copy of volume. The chairman said, ‘Mr. Haider Ali, I expect these things will not happen in future.’

Tajul Islam, the defence lawyer then said (jokingly) this is why we asked not to rush (with the trial). The chairman replied that they will speed up it up further if possible, and Islam responded by saying that ‘Care must be taken so that no one is prejudiced.’

Original statement of witness
Day one of cross examination
Day two of cross examination

Below is an unofficial translation of the cross examination. (Notes and translation undertaken by Onchita Shadman. Every attempt has been made to ensure accuracy, but there may be some small omissions.)

Defence: Go to page 209 [of volume 3][

The prosecution objected to the defence refering to this document saying that this was a prosecution document and they had not yet exhibited it. He pointed to rule 58 (1) which stated that, ‘Evidence that is produced by the prosecution or the defence shall be suitably identified, proved by the respective party and marked with consecutive numbers as exhibits.’

Initially the chairman said that he could not see why the witness could not be questioned about the document but finally it was decided that the defence could only ask the witness whether the signature on that document was his or not and not questions on the contents of the document.

Defence: Look at page 9. You have given a list of people killed by the Peace Committee at Baleshwar Bedi.

Haider Ali objects about asking questions on content, but the chairman said that the defence has only stated that a list was given. He didn’t mention any name of the list. Haider Ali asked that his objection be recorded and the chairman accepts this.

Defence: Baleshwar Bedi is at the bank of Baleshwar River?

Witness: It was known as Pirojpur Old Kheyaghat (boat port).

Defence: Baleshwar Bedi is not inside of Zianagar Upazila (subdistrict). How far is it from Umedpur village?

Witness: from which area of the village?

Defence: That list mentions that BIsha Bali has been killed at that river.

Haider Ali against objects to questions about content.

Witness: The ministry had sent us letter asking us to make a list of murder victims. We didn’t go into details of how each of them was killed. That they were tied to date tree and killed is true, but in that stage we thought (listing) the murder alone will suffice.

Justice Kabir: The court has a question for you. You’ve said that 26 people were killed in Baleshwar Bedi. Is that true?

Witness: No (26 people not killed in the same place) Justice Kabir: Why did you give those names then?

Witness: I have taken account of how many people were killed (in total) by them.

Defence: At the end of that list, you have described the death of Ibrahim Kutti. The description says, “Ibrahim Kutti, son of deceased Gafur Sheikh, village Badura, district and subdistrict Pirojpur, was captured from his in-law’s place in Parerhat and taken to Parerhat port, where he was tied to a pole and shot dead.

Witness: I have learnt about this incident

Defence: Is it there (in the statement)?

Witness: yes.

Haider Ali again objects about the question and there is further argument about what questions can be asked about the document. Haider Ali again raises the issue of rule 58 and that the prosecution has not yet admitted the statement. Justice Zaheer asked the prosecution why the defence cannot base their questions on a document submitted by the prosecution side, and said that the court will not only consider what the witness has said in court, but also what he’s said in other places. The defence pointed out that the prosecution has relied on this document taken at the time of congisance, and framing charges, that the witness is the best person to answer questions on this document, not the investigation officer is not, and this is document which the prosecution wants to rely upon. The chairman asked the prosecution, ‘Who can the defence ask about its content?’ and the prosecution Haider Ali responded that the defence should bring their own witness and not question the prosecution witness.’ It was finally decided that questions about the context of the document could not be asked.

Defence then again raised their discomfort with IO’s presence in the courtroom, and Justice Zaheer said that this decision has been passed by the honourable chairman.

The cross examination continued.

Defence: Mahbub Saheb, on 2/2/2011 you have filed a fact-based report on government’s demand?

Witness: The report, me and Upazila Nirbahi officer filed together?

Defence: yes.

Witness: I haven’t done this consciously. I had given report consisting of detailed information, but the Upazila Nirbahi Officer had asked me to file a concise report. So I and Upazila Nirbahi Officer have filed this report together and the report is not solely mine.

Defence: So you don’t know whether the statement in that report is correct?

Witness: I have answered this before

Defence: When did you get the letter demanding that report?

Chief Prosecutor: We want (to have a look at) that document.

Tajul Islam: It is prosecution’s (document). Why are you so scared of your own document?

Witness: Around one month before submission.

Defence: Did you go the Upazila office yourself to collect the letter

Justice Zaheer: Is that important?

Tajul Islam: We want to find out how the document had reached him. To find out whether he had done this voluntarily.

Justice Zaheer: If you look at what he’d said a little earlier, “on demand”.

Defence: After getting the letter, did you call a meeting at Muktijodhdha Sangsad of Zianagar?

Witness: yes

Defence: Did you give any resolution at the meeting

Witness: There was a resolution

Defence: How many people were present in that meeting?

Witness: 11 members, 1 to 2 are often left out. 8 to 9 people were present.

Defence: Your Upazila Muktijodhdha Sangsad does not have any government member?

Chief Prosecutor: What do you mean by government member?

Justice Zaheer explains that it’s government official.

Witness: There are government run institutions. Ours is elected.

Defence: Since there are no members who are government officials, there were no government official present in that meeting?

Witness: Not present.

Defence: The report does not have signature of a government official at any stage of its preparation and delivery.

Witness: Not true. It has my and Nirbahi officer’s signatures.

Defence: The receiver of that letter was Upazila Nirbahi officer, Zianagar, Pirpjpur?

Witness: yes

Defence: You were the sender

Witness: The UNO had come to me to take it.

Defence: We have heard that you passed Metric examination?

Witness: didn’t pass

Defence: Did you appear in the exam?

Witness: After 70, once the war of 71 had started, I had no opportunity to study… I appeared in the exam from another school, but didn’t pass.

Defence: What about your elementary education?

Witness: I’d studied in Madrasa in elementary stage, then in Umedpur primary school from class 1-5, again back to Madrasa where I’d spent 3-4 years. After this, I enrolled myself in class six of Parerhat Rajlakhsmi school.

Defence: You had registered for SSC from another school

Witness: I don’t remember

Defence: You’d registered from Balipara school?a

Witness: yes, because my brother-in-law was there

Defence: That registration card says you were born in 20 March, 1959.

Witness: This can happen for the sake of education (referring to hiding his real age)

Defence: You’d written your real age in that application.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: From 16 December, 1971 to 14 August, 1975 Awami League and Bakshal government was in power. From which day did Bakshal government come to power?

Witness: Bakshal was in process, not formed yet.

Defence: You were in Bangladesh from 16 December, 1971- 14 August, 1975

Witness: yes Defence: From 1982- 1990 Ershad government was in power

Witness: I can’t remember the exact years, but he was in power.

Defence: From 1996-2001, Awami League government was in power led by Sheikh Hasina.

Witness: I can tell history, but not the exact dates. Defence: You’ve said from 1971-1975 Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee was in hiding. Was he the chairman of any union or city corporation of your area?

Witness: I know him as an ordinary man.

Defence: After liberation, under Collaborators Ordinance there were cases filed against Peace Committee members who perpetrated murder, rape, loot etc in 1971. In Pirojpur cases were filed against 50 collaborators approximately.

Witness: I don’t know the figure.

Defence: You didn’t file any case against Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee then?

Witness: No

Defence: You also didn’t file any GD against him at the police station?

Witness: No

Defence: You didn’t complain to any other authority about Sayedee Saheb?

Witness: No

Defence: What you have said about filing GD, case, complaint during the period of 1971-1975, etc, the same applies for Ershad regime?

Witness: yes

Defence: Likewise from 1990-1996, when Sheikh Hasina was in power, you haven’t filed any case or GD.

Witness: No I didn’t.

Defence: Who encouraged you to file the case at Pirojpur court in 2001?

Witness: I did it out of my own initiative.

Before the morning session ended, the chief prosecutor drew the tribunal’s attention to section 11 of the 1973 Act which requires that the tribunal ;confine the trial to an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges.’ Zahir Ahmed asked the defence lawyer, when they will come to the main point., and the defence lawyer answered, ‘we are asking all relevant questions’

The afternoon session started

Defence: In the Pirojpur case you’d gone straight to the court, instead of police station.

Witness: yes

Defence: Before that case was lodged, the government prevented Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee from travelling abroad.

Witness: I don’t know

Defence: You know that he (Sayedee) had appealed against that restriction at the Supreme Court.

Witness: I don’t know

Defence: And that the writ petition went in favour of Sayedee?

Witness: I don’t know

Defence: The government had lodged a ‘Leave to’ against that high court decision?

Witness: I don’t know

Chief prosecutor objects saying these are technical questions.

Defence: You know that after that ‘Leave to’ appeal, Attorney General had said there could be cases moved against Sayedee

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Following these events, you’d filed a case at Pirojpur court at Government’s order and supervision?

Witness: That is not true

Defence: At that time when you’d mentioned Delwar Hossain Sayedee, the words ‘at present called’ were not there

Witness: May be

Defence: During the investigation of that case, the IO had sent several officers to the respective magistrate to record witness statements [under section 164 of Cr. P. C.]

Witness: [answer unclear]

Defence: The IO had been to your place?

Witness: yes

Defence: You’d presented your evidence to him?

Witness: yes

Defence: Who were you with at that time? Tell us their names

Witness: I can’t remember

Tajul Islam, defence lawyer objects saying prosecution is using sign language to give instruction to the witness

Justice Zaheer: We’re watching out. Look at us when you speak (to witness).

Defence: You couldn’t place any evidence in support of the case at that time.Witness: Yes

Nizamul Haque: On which date was this case [before the Tribunal] filed?

Witness: 20/7/2010.

Defence: You’d travelled to Dhaka to submit the application

Witness: Yes I’d come to Dhaka

Defence: You knew the office of the chief investigation officer

Witness: I asked a colleague once I’d arrived in Dhaka

Defence: Give us his name

Witness: Mizanur Rahman Talukder.

Defence: Was your application composed at Pirojpur or in Dhaka?

Witness: at Pirojpur

Defence: How far is the place [from your house] where you’d composed it?

Witness: Around 5.5 mile

Defence: where did you write the application before composing (typing) it

Witness: at home

Defence: What’s the name of the owner of that computer place?

Witness: I can tell you about the place, even though I don’t know the name.

Defence: I am saying that investigation officers had brought you to Dhaka with the help of civil administration, and that you had only signed his written application

Witness: Not true

Defence: You haven’t given any statement regarding this case prior to your statement at this court.

Witness: On 19/8 our statements were taken at Bagerhat.

Defence: Did you lodge any complaint with 1992’s public trial?

Witness: No

Defence: In 1994 a public investigating commission was formed to identify the perpetrators.

Witness: I didn’t send my application to them.

Defence: Even though public investigating commission had advertised in the press looking for witnesses.

Witness: I knew

Defence: Were you a married man when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had called for independence on March 7, 1971

Witness: no

Defence: When did you get married for the first time?

Witness: 4/2/1973

Defence: Your first wife’s name was Firoza?

Justice Zaheer: Is his wife’s name necessary?

Defence: yes. His wife had filed a case of dowry against him at Pirojpur court.

Justice Zaheer: Why not we avoid any personal scandalous matter

Defence: We want to show what kind of a man is he. He wants dowry, and, tells lies

Justice Zaheer: You’ve many other components for a fallacy case

Defence: Why should we avoid this (matter)?

Nizamul Haque: Family matters don’t create matters for fallacy. Had you proved a case of murder or robbery…

Defence: He is a convicted person.

Tajul Islam: Dowry is a criminal offence. It’s not family matter.

Defence: Your first wife’s name was Firoza Begam. She had filed a case of dowry against you in which you were convicted and still are.

Witness: I am on bail, having appealed to the High Court. It was me who’d filed a case against her at first when she’d left with my assets. Later she filed a case of divorce.

Defence: What was the result of your case?

Witness: We got divorced. Case was dismissed through negotiation.

Defence: What you said about dismissal is not true.

Witness: I have documents (to prove it).

Defence: Do you know Shuvash Chandra Halder?

Witness: Yes

Defence: You had been to jail after he’d filed a theft case against you.

Witness: Shuvash Chandra is a mere peasant. They lease land from the government. My name was falsely entered in that charge sheet. Later when I came to know, I filed an application and was acquitted.

Defence: You had been questioned (in court) on the first day.

Nizamul Haque: After acquittal, conviction does not remain

Defence: You were present during the hearing and when the order was passed.

Witness: It’s true that I didn’t know about the case (until later) but I can’t remember whether I was present during hearing of the order.

Defence: In 1971, during the liberation war, until Pakistani Occupying Forces came, the area was under the control of ‘Sharbadaliya Sangram Parishad’.

Witness: In Pirojpur Proper (town) that had happened, not in our village.

Defence: Who was the Chairman of Sharbadaliya Sangram Parishad?

Witness: Enayet Hossain and Auwal were its leaders, I’ve heard.

Defence: Who was the secretary?

Witness: Could be Doctor Adul Hye, or Auwal Saheb

Defence: Freedom fighters had looted supply of the Sangram Parishad. Do you know on which day?

Witness: I don’t know

Defence: Were you member of any political organisation back then?

Witness: no

Defence: You can’t tell who belonged to which political party?

Witness: Not all of it.

Defence: Do you know Urdu well?

Witness: no.

Justice Zaheer: Ask first whether he knows Urdu at all. Defence: Do you know Urdu?

Witness: When someone speaks (in that language), I can tell its Urdu.

Defence: Whether someone speaks Urdu well or not, you are not supposed to understand that (difference).

Witness: If five people speak in Urdu, you can compare and verify. But if four speak Bangla, one speaks Urdu, he (latter) is the only person who knows it better than others.

Defence: Did you read newspaper back then?

Witness: Not really.

Defence: Then you wouldn’t have known that Jamaat-e-Islami members had meeting in Khulna and Kushtia.

Witness: I have heard of Golam Ajam (meeting) in Khulna from Yusuf Saheb. I don’t know the exact date.

Defence: When was East Pakistan Peace Committee formed?

Chief Prosecutor (Golam Arif Tipu) objects saying this question is a repetition.

Nizamul Haque: Court will object if it deems so.

Witness: After 25th March.

Defence: Who was the chairman of that Peace Committee?

Witness: As far as I know it was Golam Ajam.

Defence: Do you know how many members this committee had?

Witness: No

Defence: Would you know names of other members of that committee?

Witness: I know a few. AKM Yusuf of Khulna, Khan Md Afzal from Pirojpur and other Jamaat-e-Islami activists had formed the Peace Committee.

Defence: Who was the Razakar commander in Pirojpur Sadar?

Witness: I can’t give any specific name

Defence: Who was the Razakar leader of Pirojpur Mahkuma?

Witness: I don’t know the exact name, but know that Afzal Saheb headed the Peace Committee (in Pirojpur).

Defence: At your Zianagar, there were no Al-Shams and Al-Badar forces. Razakar was a government force.

Witness: I don’t know whether it was a government force or not, but knew it as an associate force of the Pakistani military.

Defence: Were Razakars paid salary?

Witness: I don’t know.

Kafiluddin Choudhury (Defence Counsel) takes over from Defence:

Defence: As a spy, you’d observed the loot of Parerhat Bazaar. Since when were you appointed in that role?

Witness: After 25th March, there was training on the school ground where I was given that responsibility.

Defence: The responsibility was communicating information with Sundarban Muktijodhdha camp. For how long?

Witness: since Sundarban camp was formed.

Defence: Was it before May 7?

Witness: yes

Defence: You were appointed before May 7. Where did this happen?

Witness: At the end of June, Giasuddin Saheb, Auwal Saheb, Modhu Saheb had appointed me.

Defence: Did you travel over there daily to pass on news?

Witness: There was no fixed date. I would travel to the camp myself or send information via other people.

Defence: How many times did you go there?

Witness: Not less than 50 times, approximately.

Defence: Through whom did pass information?

Witness: People who knew the roads well. Shahijuddin and Raisuddin used to carry arms and news by boat.

Defence: The whole area was very remote back then. It was difficult to travel from your area to Major Zia’s camp.

Witness: It was difficult due to Peace Committee and Razakars. We were not concerned about Pakistani military, but them because they knew us.

Defence: How long did it take you to travel from your area to the camp?

Witness: I can’t tell you the time. Travelling depended on the circumstances.

Defence: How long did it take in favourable condition?

Witness: I could never reach there easily.

Defence: When did you travel for the minimum time and how long did that take?

Witness: This happened forty years ago. It won’t be right to give an answer (he probably meant he didn’t remember and won’t like to give an answer based on assumption).

Justice Zaheer: It’s not a question of right or wrong.

Defence: Have you ever met Major Ziauddin?

Witness: Yes I’ve met him sometimes

Defence: In Major Ziauddin’s absence, who were in charge?

Witness: Kalam

Defence: Have you met him?

Witness: He was there all the time.

Session finished

12 Dec 2011: SQ Chowdhury applications

Prior to the second day of cross examination by the defence lawyers representing Delwar Hossain Sayedee of the first prosecution witness in his case, Salauddin Quader Chowdhury filed a number of applications which he argued before the tribunal himself.

These will be detailed on this page shortly.

12 Dec 2011: Howlader cross-exam (cont)

This is the second day of the defence cross examination of the first prosecution witness, Mr Mahbubul Alam Howlader relating to charges against Delwar Hossain Dayedee. Here is the first day of his cross examination..

Prior to the cross examination, the tribunal heard arguments on a number of applications filed by Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, the BNP leader, accused in a separate case, who was representing himself.

Below is an unofficial translation of the cross examination. The defence lawyer doing the cross examination is Mizanur Islam. The defence lawyer Tajul Islam also sometimes intervenes as does the prosecutor Saidur Rahman. (Notes and translation undertaken by Onchita Shadman. Every attempt has been made to ensure accuracy, but there may be some small omissions.)

Before the cross-examination continued there was a dispute between Tajul Islam the defence lawyer, and the chairman about whether or not the investigation officer should stay. (More about this will be posted on this page later).

Defence: Mahbub Saheb, you made applications to the Deputy Commissioner of Pirojpur on 7/4/2004 and 19/01/2005 asking for aid as a freedom fighter?

Witness: I have

Defence: Did you receive aid?

Witness: As a freedom fighter, yes I received.

Defence: What was the amount?

Witness: I can’t remember right now.

Justice Zaheer: Do these questions have any relevancy (with the case)?

Defence: We can’t disclose the relevancy right now. Whether it’s relevant or not, you can decide that during your judgement.

Defence: You asked for 5 bundles of corrugated tin in your second application.

Witness: I can’t remember that.

Defence: How many bundles did you receive as aid?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: You did receive aid. Is that right?

Witness: I think so.

Defence: In your first application you’d mentioned that your house had been looted by Pakistani army and Razakars in 1971.

Witness: I did

Justice Zaheer: In Pirojpur’s application?

Defence: No, the first one dated 6/4/2004.

Defence: You had also mentioned that since you were a freedom fighter, your brothers apprehended that your house would be looted and had broken it up in advance and taken it elsewhere.

Witness: The purpose of writing of the application was to get aid.

Defence: Did you write these?

Witness: Yes, I’d written.

Defence: This application doesn’t have description of items being looted from your place.

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: Have a look, is this the application?

Hyder Ali objects saying this document has not been submitted to the prosecution.

Chairman: As they have given a copy of the document, they can draw attention to it, but can’t exhibit it. It was submitted yesterday as a reference document in volume 5.

Tajul Islam: Page 267, 4th page of volume 5. Hyder Ali: Attention has been drawn. Do they have to keep showing it while cross-examining?

Justice Zaheer: When witness has admitted he has written it…..content will be your proof.

Tajul Islam: We wanted to know whether this segment is his (written by him).

Chairman: Once he has admitted (writing) it, it’s not necessary (to ask) whether this segment is his.

Defence: The law doesn’t mention anywhere that prosecution can’t exhibit defence’s papers.

Defence: In that application of yours, you didn’t mention that the Pakistani army and Razakars had destroyed your house.

Witness: I’d mentioned before that the Pakistani Occupying Forces had done harm to me.

Defence: I am saying you’ve not mentioned of this harm. Is that true?

Prosecution says that this is cross of the cross-examination.

Defence: This is not cross of cross. The previous one was a question.

Chief Prosecutor: He has answered the question. It’s repeating the question.

Chairman (to witness): Yes now you answer that.

Witness: It’s not true.

Justice Zaheer: There won’t be any question on this (witness’s last answer).

Defence: You’d mentioned in the second application that your house had been looted.

Witness: I can’t remember.

Justice Zaheer: When the witness is on dock and one side is questioning him, make sure the other side does not make any sound.

Witness: In the second application, I didn’t say Judges and prosecution stops him, saying he has already answered the question.

Defence: Let him say in one sentence, “I can’t remember what I have said in any application made in the past”.

Defence: What’s your profession?

Witness: I used to do business back then. Now I am in charge of Muktijodhdha command.

Defence: What’s the source of your income?

Witness: I get Muktijodhdha allowance and have property.

Defence: What’s your monthly income?

Witness: I get Tk 2000 as allowance.

Prosecution objects about relevancy of these questions.

Tajul: We’ll show relevancy from next question.

Defence: What’s the size of the land on which your house (the one you live in) is located?

Witness: 5 Katha.

Defence: Other assets?

Witness: Next to it.

Defence: What’s the size of your other assets?

Witness: Including house and land 1.5-2 Bigha.

Defence: You are married to Reena Begum.

Justice Zaheer: Are you starting on his fourth generation (of family history)

Defence: Your wife is collecting 30 kg of rice with her poor-mother’s-allowance card since 2011.

Witness: She is not my wife anymore. (to Judges) It’s shishu (child) card. Sir, I have small children.

Chairman: Isn’t it poor-mother’s-allowance card?

Witness: We know of it as ‘shishu card’.

Defense gives some paper to prosecution.

Defence: I am saying that it’s untrue that he knows it as ‘shishu card’.

Witness: It’s true

Defence: The house you have built. Can you tell us the specific year? You’ve started it after Sheikh Hasina came to power?

Witness: No. Defence wants to go to another topic.

Nizamul Haque: Why not you question serially. You have started questioning about his house, finish it.

Defence: (to judges) This is also relevant. (to witness) In 1971 Pirojpur District had the thanas (police stations) named Mothbaria, Bhandaria, Nazimpur, Kaukhali, Swarupkathi.

Witness: I am doubtful about Swarupkathi. There were thanas (police stations). I can’t remember names of all correctly.

Defence: Zianagar Police Station is part of Pirojpur. I am reminding you that Swarupkathi Police Station was divided into Nesarabad and….

Witness: I have heard of Nesarabad in the past. Not sure if it’s still there.

Defence: Who was the Peace Committee chairman and secretary of Mothbaria Thana

Witness: Our area was divided.

Defence: Who was the Razakar commander of Mothbaria?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: Who was the Al-Badar commander of Mothbaria?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: Al-Shams Commander?

Witness: Can’t say.

Defence: Who was the officer in charge of that thana (police station)?

Witness: I can’t remember.

Defence: Who was the second officer of that Thana?

Witness: I can’t say that. I can’t say who is where in Mothbaria thana. Me, Raisuddin Poshari and his brother Shahabuddin Poshari were responsible for Indurkani and Parerhat.

Defence: Who was the chairman of Peace Committee at Bhandaria thana. Prosecution objects saying witness stated clearly that he was not responsible for whole Pirojpur.

Justice Zaheer: He said he was in charge of only Indurkani and Parerhat. I am making your examination shorter.

Defence: You’d said after taking oath that you were responsible for Pirojpur district.

Witness: I didn’t say I was responsible.

Justice Zaheer: Is it true that you travelled across the whole district as a spy (quoting from witness statement)?

Witness: I may have made a mistake. I was not responsible alone.

Defence: Who instructed you to say “As a spy, I observed these crimes which happened across the whole district and passed news on to Sundarban Muktijodhddha camp”.

Witness: Say that again.

Defence repeats the last question

Witness: No one had taught me. It’s my own statement.

Defence: You have never been to theses areas, Mothbaria, Bhandaria, Nazimpur, Kaukhali, Swarupkathi.

Witness: I was not responsible for those areas.

Defence: Say it clearly

Witness: I’ve matters of my own…. Justice Zaheer asks prosecution not to disturb and be patient.

Defence: When in 1971, have you been there as a spy?

Witness: At that time I had communication with the freedom fighters and included many people of Bhandaria. It’s true that I was responsible.

Defence: Who was the spy in Mothbaria district?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Who was the Muktijodhdha commander of Mothbaria district?

Witness: Mothbaria was under the control of Ziauddin.

Defence: Who was responsible for spying in Bhandaria?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Likewise, you can’t say the names of spies responsible in the other thanas?

Witness: I can’t remember. Break in proceedings for lunch

Defence: You can’t say the names of chairpersons of Peace Committee in Mothbaria, Bhandaria, Nazimpur, Kaukhali, Swarupkathi.

Witness: I can’t say names of the chairman.

Defence: You can’t give names of Razakars in those thanas.

Witness: No

Defence: Pirojpur district was part of Barisal Mahkuma

Witness: Part of Barisal district?

Defence: That’s it

Witness: yes

Defence: Can you give names of Peace Committee Chairperson and secretary of Barisal?

Witness: No

Defence: Razakar commanders?

Witness: No

Defence: Your district and subdistrict consist of three unions. Is that right?

Witness: Yes, present Zianagar.

Defence: When was this Upazila (subdistrict) formed? Can you give the date or the year?

Witness: During Khaleda Zia government’s tenure, it was named.

Defence: During Khaleda Zia’s first government or second?

Witness: This Upazila?

Defence: This Upazila consists of Parerhat, Potyashi and Sankarpasha.

Witness: This would be Palipara

Defence: Pirojpur Sadar Upazila has Sankarpasha union

Witness: Some parts are adjacent to each other.

Defence: Can you give names of Peace Committee chairperson and secretary of Sankarpasha union?

Witness: no, Parerhat’s and Sankarpasha’s Peace Committee were made up of the same members.

Defence: Ekram Khalifa Talukder was the chairman of Peace Committee of entire Sankarpasha union. Do you know that?

Witness: I don’t know

Defence: You know but you are concealing that.

Witness: Not true

Defence: He was also the chairman of that union?

Witness: I know that he was chairman

Defence: In 1970’s state election, how many candidate had participated?

Witness: I don’t know

Defence: You can’t say how many candidates were from your area?

Witness: I can’t give the figures.

Defence: You can’t say how many votes did Awami League get in that election?

Witness: I can’t give figures.

Defence: In 1974, who was the elected chairman from Pirojpur?

Witness: I can’t say that.

Defence: Who was the vice chairman?

Witness: I can’t remember anything of that time.

Defence: I am saying names of people and their region. See if you know them. Abdus Salam, whose father is Nabab Ali, hails from Umedpur

Witness: I know (him).

Defence: Is he alive?

Witness: yes

Defence: Asrab Ali, father is Sekander Ali, hails from Hoglabunia.

Witness: They are Forazis

Defence: yes Forazis

Witness: I don’t know him, but there used to be a Mistiri (mechanic) called Asrab Ali

Defence: I haven’t asked that. Chittaranjan Talukder. Father Bhajendranath Talukder, hails from Umedpur.

Witness: yes

Defence: Is he home or abroad?

Witness: he is dead

Defence: When did he die?

Witness: it’s been a year.

Defence: Can you give the date?

Witness: no.

Defence: Yusuf Howlader, hails from Sankarpasha. Do you know him?

Witness: I can’t remember

Defence: Abul Bashar, Father Emdadul Khan Khokon, hails from Badura.

Witness: I know him

Defence: Does he live at home or abroad?

Witness: I see him at times. Don’t know whether he lives in the country or not.

Defence: Mizanur Rahman Khedu, Father Asrab Ali Howlader, hails from Badura

Witness: They are Montu’s house

Defence: Do you know him?

Witness: Yes

Defence: They are alive and lives in the country

Witness: I see them sometime. I don’t have their details.

Defence: When you filed case against Sayedee, you’d mentioned these people as witnesses.

Witness: yes

Defence: Mahbub Poshari, Father Mannan Poshari, hails from Chitalia

Witness: I can’t remember

Defence: Jahangir Poshari, Father Shahabuddin Poshari of same village

Witness: I know him

Defence: Is he alive?

Witness: I don’t know his whereabouts

Defence: Do you know Kanchan Poshari of same village and son of same person?

Witness: No

Defence: Haripad Mistiri, Father Buramoni Mistiri of Chitalia

Witness: I can’t remember right now.

Defence: Jadabchandra Roy, Father Madan Roy of same area?

Witness: I can’t remember the son

Defence: Khabir Howlader, Father Tofayel Howlader

Witness: I know Tofayel, not his son

Defence: Pirojpur Sadar was independent on 8 December, 1971?

Witness: Pakistani Occupying Forces left the region on that day.

Defence: Under Captain Shahjahan Omar’s leadership, freedom fighters had taken hold of Pirojpur Thana

Witness: Omar’s leadership is not true.

Defence: Major Zia’s leadership?

Witness: Yes

Defence: Major Zia’s second in command was Shamsul Alim Talukder and Advocate Shamsul are different people

Justice Zaheer: It’s better to say Ziauddin

Defence: Ok Sir. Major Ziauddin’s second in command was Shamsul Alam Talukder and Advocate Shamsul Haque are different people

Saidur Rahman: They can’t confuse the witness like that.

Defence: We have asked this Ruhul Amin Nabin, not to him

Witness: Different people.

Chief Prosecutor: Don’t delay in answering.

Defence: I would like to draw his attention to prosecution document, volume 3, 3346-3353, page 202-209. As Muktijodhdha commander of Zianagar Upazila

Chief Prosecutor: Is the document prepared by witness?

Chairman: We haven’t seen that (yet). Mr Chief Prosecutor this is volume 3, this again volume 3 and this is also 3. 1st volume has it, 2nd volume has it, not the 3rd volume.

Chief Prosecutor says that by mistake a few pages are missing from Justice Zaheer’s copy of volume 3.

Defence: As upazila Muktijodhdha commander, you’d sent a letter to upazila officer of Mukti Sangsad ….alleging genocide, rape, arson attack. Is that right?

Witness: I did send a letter. I don’t know whether it’s the same letter.

Defence: It was sent to modify information on crimes, genocide, rape, arson attack committed by Pakistani Occupying forces and their associates, Razakars, Al-Badars and Al-Shams in 1971’s liberation war. The memo no. of that letter is G/mu/sha/18, date 2/2/2011.

Saidur Rahman from prosecution goes over to the dock saying he wants to verify which document it is.

Tajul Islam from defence says Saidur is giving answer to the witness.

Justice Zaheer: (Saidur Rahmn) You don’t have to leave your seat. You have a copy in front of you, open page 209 and see whether he is right or wrong.

Witness: This is not the actual copy. It (the signature) looks like my name.

11 Dec 2011: Cross-exam witness one

After the prosecution submitted charges against three Jamaat leaders, the cross examination of the first witness, Md Mahbubul Alam Howlader, by the defence started. (To see his original statement).

Cross examination is undertaken by the lawyer, Mizanul Islam, who till now has not played any part in court proceedings on behalf of the defence. Occasionally the defence lawyer Tajul Islam also intervenes in proceedings for the defence, and prosecutor Saidur Rahman for the defence.

In the unofficial translation below of the cross examination, the 'defence' corresponds to Mizanul Islam, and the 'witness' corresponds to 'Md Mahbubul Alam Howlader'. (Note taking and translation undertaken by Onchita Shadman. Attempts have been made to make this as accurate as possible but there will undoubtedly be some errors)

The chairman first asked all other witnesses to leave the court. The investigating officer however remained, and Tajul Islam asked why he was being allowed to stay since he had previously been asked to leave when the witness was giving his statement. The chairman said that they had already decided that he should be able to stay. Islam said that the defence felt that the presence of the investigating officer will affect the accused.

Defence: Honourable court had asked us not to question about father’s name. 60 to 62 father’s names were given by the prosecution. Their names are not unknown. I hope the tribunal will permit us to ask father’s name.

Chairman: You leave it out. This won’t be a problem.

Defence: I’ll try my level best. Mr Mamububul Alam, You have given your statement and are now seated at the court. On last Wednesday and Thursday, where was the evidence that you'd [supposedly] kept in your possession?”

Witness: The evidence is at Manik Poshari’s house.

Defence: Are the evidence items in your possession?

Witness: Yes they are with me.

Defence: He’d said the evidence will be in his charge

Witness: This is not true

Defence: ‘This is in my charge’? (referring to Witness: statement)

Saidur Rahman (prosecutor): He hasn’t said this.

Defence: If not said, that’s fine. I am questioning

Tajul objects saying answers to their questions are to be recorded now and any clarification will come later.

Justice Zaheer: If you speak in the middle, everyone will be disturbed

Tajul: My lord, whether we are right or wrong can be judged later.

Chairman: Shan’t we see whether he can ask this question?

Tajul: If you look at the document, clear it, clarify it..

Justice Zaheer (to Tipu): Don’t pass any comment

Defence: You have violated your words of taking charge of evidence items?

Witness: This is not true.

Defence: Have you seen the place where Manik Poshari has kept those evidences?

Witness: I’ve seen.

Defence: You and Manik Poshari have filed two cases against Allama Sayedee at Pirojpur court?

Witness: Yes

Chief Prosecutor: Why are you using Allama?

Tajul: He (Defence) can say this. Will you teach us which questions to ask?

Witness: I filed two cases.

Chairman: One by you, and one by Manik Poshari?

Witness: yes

Defence: After filing these two cases, you and Manik Poshari appeared in inteviews on Ekushe tv and ATN Bangla?

Witness: I can’t remember

Defence: Who informed you about seizure?

Witness: In my presence investigation officer said

Defence: When?

Witness: In between 11 am to 12 pm. 8th of May

Defence: From whose house were the evidence items seized first, Alamgir Poshari or Manik Poshari?

Witness: Perhaps in Manik Poshari’s

Defence: How long did it take to sieze?

Witness: 15-20 minutes

Defence: It took another 15-20 minutes for the Witness: to sign their papers and investigation officer to sign that too?

Witness: Another 10-15 minutes.

Defence: You’ve said yesterday that time of seizure from both (houses) is 11am?

Witness: I didn’t understand the question

Justice Zaheer explains the question to the witness.

Chief prosecutor objects about Tajul showing the witness a paper

Chairman: This (paper) has been exhibited. He (witness) can speak by looking at it.

Defence: Has this been labelled by the Investigation Officer?

Witness: No.

Defence: Who is older, Alamgir or Manik Poshari?

Witness: Manik Poshari is older.

Defence: Neither Alamgir Poshari nor Manik Poshari has sigend this seizure list?

Witness: No

Defence: Referring to things you’ve mentioned regarding seizure list (on witness statement), there were no burnt marks were on brick and wood of seized items.

Witness: This is not true.

Defence: This evidence has been constructed to serve the interest of his case.

Witness: Not true

Defence: When did the vehicle carrying Selim Khan reach there?

Witness: On the same day at around 12 pm.

Defence: This is a photo of house taken by Selim Khan.

Witness: This is a photocopy.

Defence: When the snaps were taken, you did not have any photocopy machine around.

Witness: There was (a photocopy machine). They (IO) had taken it.

Defence: Had the machine been taken over there in a car?

Witness: The IO had the photocopy machine in his briefcase.

Defence: Here’s a photo of Selim Khan’s house and above, is a list. Read that.

Saidur Rahman goes to the dock to have a look at those papers.

Tajul (to Saidur): You can’t help.

Saidur: Don’t I have that right?

Tajul: You have the right. But you’ve given (the witness) the answer.

Defence: Look at the headline ‘seizure list’. This seizure list does not mention source of seizure.

Chief Prosecutor objects saying this is a question Investigation Officer should be asked about.

Justice Zaheer: If questions are improper, we’ll cancel them ourselves.

Defence: There’s no source. And the date and time have not been mentioned.

Witness: After seizure list was made of Manik Poshari’s house, seizure list had been at Selim khan’s house.

Defence: This was not my question. Place of seizure is also not mentioned in here.

Witness: We sat in front of Selim Khan’s house

Defence: From whom these have been seized, that has also not been mentioned.

Defence: Witness’s name and addresses have not been mentioned.

Witness: Their signature is there.

Defence: It doesn’t mention which items have been seized. There’s no mention of who has prepared this document. Besides the two other photos you have presented, you said the same things about those.

Justice Zaheer: Three photos?

Defence: Not three, four.

Defence: (Explains): In addition to Selim Khan’s photos you have exhibited two photos of Manik Poshari’s house, of burnt wood and photo of burnt marks at Alamgir Poshari’s house.

Witness: Same statement

Defence: Do you know where Sayedee Saheb had his primary education?

Witness: I’ve heard.

Defence: Say where?

Witness: At Sharshina Madrasa, I’ve heard.

Defence: Do you when he’d got admitted in Sharshina Madrasa?

Witness: He’d finished studying there 7 or 8 years before independence.

Defence: In which class did he get admitted first?

Witness: Alim class

Defence: How far is Sharshina Madrasa from your house?

Witness: Around 20-25 km.

Defence: Which way?

Witness: I am guessing, north-east.

Defence: Have you ever been to Sharshina Madrasa?

Witness: No

Defence: Can you tell me the name of the head of Sharshina Madrasa while Sayedee Saheb was a student there?

Witness: No

Defence: Can you say names of his classmates?

Witness: No

Defence: Can you say name of any of his senior students?

Witness: No

Defence: Can you say name of any of his junior students?

Witness: No

Defence: Can you say the name of Muhaddes Saheb during that time.

Witness: No

Defence: Do you know the names of people who had done this investigation?

Witness: No

Defence: On 19th May, when you’d filed a case against Sayedee at Pirojpur court, you didn’t mention of his expulsion (from Madrasa)

Witness: (I’ve mentioned) later in an amendment.

Defence: When did you submit application for amendment?

Witness: On 20/7/2010 to tribunal. (later he said application for amendment was not given to Pirojpur’s case)

Defence: I’m saying you have given false statement to defame Sayedee in public

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You’d submitted only one application to the tribunal, no application for amendment.

Defence: The house that you live in is a (concrete) building.

Witness: It’s not complete building yet. It has tin roof.

Defence: Since when have you started building this house?

Witness: (it’s been) 6/7 years

Defence: Have you inherited this?

Witness: From my mother

Defence: Did your mother have house on her property?

Witness: I’ve built the house

Defence: You’ve sent a letter to the District Commissioner of Pirojpur on 7/4/2004.

Prosecution objected saying this is an unauthorised documents which haven’t been submitted to the court beforehand.

Defence: This is why we had asked for more time.

Chairman: You can submit it to the registrar by today.

Defence: We are not prepared today.

Hyder Ali objects.

Nizamul Haque: You have objected. We will decide.

Justice Zaheer: You keep this. Go to the next question. Once you have submitted this, you can go back to that question.

Defence: You had submitted this application with District Commissioner of Pirojpur addressing Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. It was an application to assist a helpless unemployed freedom fighter.

Hyder Ali tries to question the relevancy of that document.

Chairman: The tribunal will decide whether it is relevant or not. Take your seat.

Witness: This is true.

Defence: You had mentioned in that application that you were facing financial difficulty since independence.

Justice Zaheer: Until you submit that paper with the court, you can’t mention its content.

Tajul: This is the heart of the case. This is why we’d asked for more time.

Defence: Sir please give us three days. On 14th we’ll submit the first copy.

Chairman: Finish your cross-examination leaving out this document. If you need to use it later, you can.

Defence: Please give us three days Sir. We’ll file it tomorrow.

Justice Zaheer: File them all today.

Defence: We’ll submit the ones relevant to this witness.

Chairman: We're giving adjournment today. But in future no adjournment will be given regarding (filing of) applications.

Tajul: Tribunal had given an order of submitting documents by 14th. [He is referring to the order that the defence must submit all witness statement that they intend to rely on to the prosecution by that date]

Justice Zaheer: You are not getting any time after 14th.

Tajul: Nothing should be foreseen. If something happens in future, you won’t give adjournment?

Nizamul Haque adjourns the trial until the next day and asks the witness to sign his name before he leaves.

11 Dec 2011: Charges against Nizami etc

Prior to the start of the cross examination of witness one, which is dealt with in the next post, the prosecution gave to the tribunal copies of charges against Matiur Rahman Nizami, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid and Muhammad Kamaruzzaman.

The tribunal chairman then passed this order:

'Today is fixed for filing formal charge with respect to Matiur Rahman Nizami, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid and Muhammad Kamaruzzaman and Abdul Qader Molla. Learned Chief Prosecutor submitted that they have completed preparation of formal charge regarding Matiur Rahman Nizami, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid and Muhammad Kamaruzzaman, but they could not complete the task regarding Abdul Qader Molla. They prayed for some time to submit the formal charge. Upon consideration of the fact that they have submitted formal charge and documents regarding Matiur Rahman Nizami, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid and Muhammad Kamaruzzaman, the time may be extended up to 18/12/2011 for consideration of the cognisance matter regarding the three accused. Prosecution is directed to submit formal charge regarding accused Abdul Qader Molla also by that date, i.e. 18/12/2011. The accused persons are to be presented on that date.'

Abdur Razzaq, the head of the defence team, then rose and showed a copy of a newspaper report where the law minister Shafique Ahmed was reported on Saturday as stating that 'the ICT was prosecuting only those who killed three million people and raped 200,000 women during the 1971 Liberation War on the charges of committing crimes against humanity.'

Razzaq drew the tribunal’s attention to the reports and wanted to know whether the law minister, holding such a responsible position, could make such comments on a matter now under trial before the ICT.

The tribunal chairman, Justice Nizamul Haque, responded by saying that, ‘You've brought a very important matter before us… We also go through daily newspapers and watch TV talk shows over the trial of the war crimes. .... Not only the ministers, but others are also making unsubstantiated comments at different programmes including television talk-shows. You, the defence counsels are also making frequent comments. The media are publishing and airing incorrect reports.’

He said that judges often see media reports where their orders are noted and quoted with some comments like, “Three petitions were filed and rejected as usual”. Most of the time tribunal chooses to ignore these reports, he said. He said that many of the defence applications have been accepted by the tribunal. 'We can only say we are sorry that many lawyers have made comments on newspaper.' He said that one of the leaders of this bar has commented outside, about the judiciary of this tribunal. 'We are keeping ourselves mum.' He said that, 'We can say we don’t like this. This is unheard of. We are an independent tribunal, duty-bound and oath-bound and we will act fairly. Thank you for that. 'You can comment on the order, you can question the tribunal, ……but don’t touch the judge. This should be maintained in press too. We want to avoid these things. We want to say something but we restrain ourselves. Both sides should restrain themselves about passing comment which may give different signals.'

Abdur Razzak said that he had done his duty and hope this kind of comment will not be mad in the future.

Razzak then mentioned an order passed on 16/5/2011 and another on 1/10/2011 regarding transport facilities to be given to his client Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid. He said that 'we want a health-friendly vehicle. We have sent letter to Deputy Commissioner and Police Super. The jail super has tried but his hand is tied by the police authority.'

The chairman responded by saying that with a change in district, there a change in security but not sure whether vehicle is changed as well. 'He should be given a vehicle so that he doesn’t become further sick,' he said.

8 Dec 2011: Sayedee trial witness two

This is the second witness in the trial of Delwar Hossain Sayedee. The statement made by the first witness is here.

The second witness started his statement at the end of the previous day, and continued on the 8th. As always this is an unofficial translation. (Thanks to Onchita Shadman for transcription and translation)

My name is Ruhul Amin Nabin. 61 years old. Religion, Islam. Occupation: Business. During the war I was 21. I am a freedom fighter. In 1970’s national election Awami League had won. The liberation war had started in the event of Pakistani rulers had refused to hand over power to the elected rulers. On March 25, 1971 Pakistani forces had killed innocent students and other civilians in this massacre called Operation Searchlight. They buried them in common public graves. Prior to this, on March 7 at the command of Bangabondhu, freedom-seeking masses, such as students, labourers and farmers along with others formed the freedom fighters’ (Multijodhdha) force to stand against barbaric killing of Pakistani Military Forces. Pakistani Occupying forces, without having any other choice became desperate and collaborated with some traitors and Jamaat-e-Islami activists to form Peace Committee, Razakar force, Al-badar and Al-shams.

Witness continues on 8th.

They’d launched torture and massacre against innocent civilians. On 7th April, 1971, Professor Golam Ajam, Ameer (president) of Jamaat-e-Islami in East Pakistan, spoke at an assembly of Kushtia and Khulna’s Jamaat activists. There he’d proposed formation of a Peace Committee to wipe out the so-called miscreant freedom fighters. On Saturday, in an assembly of Jamaat activists, leader of central Jamaat-e-Islami, ex-minister and secretary of Khulna Peace Committee, AKM Yusuf ordered to form Razakar and Peace Committee forces all across the country. Yusuf Saheb had himself formed the Khulna wing of Razakars. Payerhat’s local Jamaat leaders Sekander Ali Shikder, now dead Danesh Ali Molla, Maulana Mosleuddin, Delwar Hossin Shikder, who at present is known as Delwar Hossain Sayedee with many others had formed Peace Committee at Jamaat-e-Islami’s Ameer Professor Golam Ajam’s, Jamaat’s central leader and secretary of Khulna Shanti Committee and Peace Committee, AKM Yusuf’s, and Pirojpur Peace Committee’s secretary Khan Bahadur Syed Afzal’s order. Even though Sekander Ali Shikder and Danesh Ali Molla were looking after overall affairs of Peace Committee, Delwar Hossain Sayedee, being conversant in Urdu developed a good relationship with Pakistani Military. Since Pakistanis couldn’t understand Bangla and they had command over Urdu language, (Sayedee) could communicate information with Pakistani Occupying forces. Sekander Ali Shikder, Danesh Ali Molla, Maulana Mosleuddin and Delwar Hossain Sayedee Saheb together led Parerhat District’s Jamaat-e-Islami activists, Madrasa students, members of (Islami) Chatra Sangha and few people who opposed independence to form an auxiliary force or Razakar force. Their intention was to assist Pakistani Army in destroying the freedom-seekers and kill the freedom fighters. On 3rd May, 1971 Pakistani barbaric army attacked Pirojpur to exterminate its freedom-seeking residents, like they had in other areas of Bangladesh. The first thing they did after attacking Pirojpur was to have meeting with members of (local) Peace Committee. Peace Committee passed on to the Pakistanis information about freedom seeking people, Sangram Parishad members, Hindu majority areas, Awami League activists and freedom fighters of neighbouring localities.

On 7 May, 1971 Sekander Ali Shikder, Danesh Ali Molla, Maulana Mosleuddin, Delwar Hossain Sayedee Saheb with other Peace Committee members of Parerhat were waiting on the north end of Parerhat Bazaar rickshaw stand to welcome the Pakistani military. 52 Pakistani soldiers arrived there from Pirojpur on 26 rickshaws. Captain Ejaz was in charge of this army. Peace Committee members entered Parerhat Bazaar with Pakistani military. Aforementioned Sekander Ali Shikder, Danesh Ali Molla, Maulana Mosleuddin, Delwar Hossain Sayedee Saheb and other Razakars pointed out houses of Awami League activists and shops and houses of Hindus. (They) had a discussion around pillaging those properties with Captain Ejaz, who in Urdu ordered, “Le Lou”, i.e. take them. Immediately, Peace Committee members and Razakars started plundering those properties they’d identified. At one point they looted 22 seers of gold and silver from an iron strongbox buried underneath the shop of Makhan Shaha, a wealthy businessman of Parerhat. Pakistani military took possession of those golds and silvers. On the same day 30-35 houses were pillaged around Parerhat port area. With hope to find more gold, they dug big holes in the floor of those houses. After that the Pakistani military set camp at Rajlakshmi High School of Parerhat. Previously another camp was set up by Razakar forces and Peace Committee members inside Fakir Dash’s building, located in the middle of Parerhat Bazaar. On 8 May, 1971

Nizamul Haque (while dictating last sentence for the typist) another Razakar camp?

Defense : Whatever he said, has come on our monitor

Nizamul Haque: Ok, take your seat

Next day on 8 May 1971, Pakistani military, Razakar forces and Peace Committee members looted houses of then wealthy person Raisuddin Poshari, Helaluddin Poshari and Manik Poshari of Badura and Chithalia village on the east end of Parerhat port. 7-8 other houses were also pillaged and all of these were burnt down to ashes.

On June, 1971 I travelled from my village to Parerhat by boat. I came to the Bazaar to collect supply for the Freedom fighters; to buy rice, pulses Sir (addressing Nizamul Haque who was clarifying the sentence for typist). It was Thursday, market day. I stayed around a shop called Masum Store at the Bazaar and observed the circumstance from there. At around 10:30-11 am, I saw that walking from north, wearing panjabi and lungi; the lungi a bit raised on one side which we say ‘kocha mara’, I thought maybe for his comfort

Defense (to Nizamul Haque who was clarifying the last sentence for typist): Let him (witness) speak his own words.

with a corrugated tin on his left hand, and a basket filled with brass plates, glasses, bowls, jugs and a pitcher, (a man) then known as Delwar Hossain Shikder was walking from north to south towards a shop called ‘Panch Tahbil’. When he passed by, I said to Moulavi Nurul Haque Saheb who was next to me, “Look, Delwar Saheb is carrying his pile of loot”. Because I was in charge of Mukjodhdhas (freedom fighters) of my area, I used to carry firearm, a revolver, for my safety. I got excited and said to Nurul Haque Moulavi, “I’ll shoot these looters right now”. Nurul Haque Moulavi Saheb restrained me by saying, “If you do so now, Pakistani army will set fire on the remaining houses of Parerhat, and go for mass execution.” Afterwards, I went north of Parerhat Bazaar and reached Shafizuddin Moulavi’s store. I came to know from the crowd present over there that Madan Shaha’s store had been plundered, and Delwar Hossain Shikder alias Delwar Hossain Sayedee had broken the structure along with carpenter Tayab Ali and 4-5 labourers. Sayedee travelled by boat along the canal, east of Madan Shaha’s house and took the dismantled room to his in-law Yunus Ali Munshi’s place.

Addressing Nizamul Haque, the witness asks whether he can add a line before this (incident) to his statement. Chairman says, 'yes'

The shop called Panch Tahbil at Parerhat Bazaar was managed by Maulana Mosleuddin, Delwar Hossain Sayedee and four/five others who had looted all the shops of Parerhat Bazaar and forcefully seized Nagarbashi Shaha’s shop, located at the launch port (river port) of Parerhat Bazaar. Then known as Delwar Hossain Shikder Saheb, (Sayedee) was responsible for overall affairs of that store (Panch Tahbil). However, because all the looted items didn’t fit into this place, they’d made a stockroom out of Maulana Nasim’s father, Sultan Ahmed’s place. This stockroom was right next to the shop. With assistance from Peace Committee members and Razakars, Pakistani military raped several women of Parerhat Bazaar, namely Chabi Roy and Bipod Shaha’s daughter, Bhanu Shaha. Peace Committee members didn’t stop at just pillage, arson and rape, rather they’d forced members of local Hindu community including Nani Shaha, Makhan Shaha, Dr. Ganesh Chandra Roy, Dr. Sudhir Chandra Roy, Gouranga Chandra Roy, Ajit Chandra Roy.

Defense placed an objection saying the prosecution had threw the last name at witness.

Justice Zaheer (to typist): Leave out Ajit Chandra Roy.

Ruhul Amin Nabin (witness): …Hindus to convert to Islam. These Hindus were compelled to pray at the mosque five times a day. (Sayedee?) Taught them few Surah and gave them tasbihs (rosary) and other items for Namaaz. Some of them (hindus) had the opportunity to flee to India. Those who’d remained in Parerhat port came back to their own faith after liberation. Chabi Roy and Bhanu Shaha, raped by the Pakistani soldiers escaped to India (after liberation). In this way, anti-liberation forces of this country, Razakars, Al-Badar and Al-Shams committed one crime after another. On 21 June, 1971, I went to India with fellow freedom fighter brothers to receive training on advanced combat skills and guerrilla methods. After being trained in India, I and fellow freedom fighter brothers participated in wars in different areas. After liberation, on December 18, I came to Parerhat Bazaar with fellow freedom fighter as (their) commander. Hundreds of freedom-loving people welcomed us and described to us incidences of brutal torture, loot, arson attacks committed in (past) nine months by Pakistani military, Peace Committee and Razakars against innocent people. We stayed at the Razakar camp based in the building known as Fakir Shah’ building, and visited different houses looking for local Peace Committee members accused of crime. Even though we got hold of some of them, we couldn’t arrest Danesh Ali Molla, Maulana Mosleuddin and Delwar Hossain Sayedee Saheb. Later it was heard that they’d fled from the area. We, freedom fighters retrieved war booties by searching houses of the looters. We asked people, whose houses had been plundered, to identify the looted items and returned those items back to their owners.

Prosecution (Saidur Rahman): Madan Saha..

Ruhul Amin Nabin (witness): I am coming to that.

Defense places an objection.

Justice Zaheer: They can give link to their witness, but can’t lead them.

Defense: While questioning the witness, they can give lead, not now. He (Saidur Rahman) threw at him a name, Madan Saha.

Nizamul Haque: You’ve heard that, they can give link to their witness, but can’t lead them. We have crossed out one name, Ajit Chandra Roy at your objection.

We, freedom fighters retrieved and returned back Madan Shaha’s (dismantled) room from Sayedee’s in-law’s place. In 1986, Sayedee Saheb, with assistance from Jamaat activists, was preparing to organize a mahfil or public assembly in Parerhat High School ground. Anticipating that I may oppose this (assembly), local Jamaat leader Mokarram Hossain along with three other Jamaat activists came to my house. They said to me that Sayedee Saheb will address a mahfil in Parerhat tomorrow. I told them if any political speech is made over there, this mahfil won’t be allowed. They’d assured me that no political statement will be made in the mahfil. Sayedee had carried out his political activities in such manner.
On behalf of freedom fighters, I seek just trial of those Peace Committee members, Razakars who had looted, raped women, committed arson attacks and killed innocent people and freedom fighters during the liberation war in 1971. That’s all your honour.

Hyder Ali (prosecution): Do you know Delwar Hossain Sayedee?

Ruhul Amin Nabin (witness): (Pointed out to Sayedee at the dock) He is seated there.
My lord, I would like to draw attention of honourable court. With your permission, I want to add a line to the part where I mentioned rape of Chabi Roy and Bhanu Shaha. “abducted Bhanu Shaha for a long time and raped her repeatedly.”

Nizamul Haque: (direct typist) This will be added here. At this point witness says, “Pakistani military abducted Bhanu Shaha for a long time and repeatedly raped her.”

Mizanur Rahman (Defense) wants to know from Ruhul Amin Nabin (witness) who were the commanders of Muktijodhdha force (freedom fighters) in 1971. He mentions role of three people, Kamaluddin, Shahjahan and Shamsul.

Ruhul Amin Nabin (witness): Subsector commander was Major Ziauddin Ahmed, second-in-command was Advocate Shamsul Haque, and my brother Kamaluddin, whom he has mentioned was not a commander but my fellow freedom fighter.

Mizanur Rahman (Defense): I mentioned Advocate Shamsul Haque Talukder and Captain Shahjahan.

Ruhul Amin Nabin (witness): Shahjahan Omar Saheb was in charge of Rajapur subdistrict of Jhalakathi district.

Mizanur Rahman (Defense): Shamsul Haque Talukder was Major Zia’s second-in-command.

Ruhul Amin Nabin (witness): yes

Justice Zaheer: Was he an advocate?

Ruhul Amin Nabin (witness): He used to identify himself as an advocate. We didn’t check whether he is really advocate or not. We knew of him as an advocate.

Nizamul Haque: Mr Hyder Ali, what do you suggest? Shall we start with the third witness or finish cross-examination first?

Hyder Ali (Prosecution): My opinion is doing the cross-examination first. Otherwise, coming back to it with a gap in between causes some difficulty.

Nizamul Haque asks for Defense’s opinion.

Mizanur Rahman (Defense): In general cases, first we take witness statement, and then cross (examination) will finish; but court can make an exception to that.

Nizamul Haque dismisses court until Sunday.

7 Dec 2011: Sayedee witness one

The taking of testimony from witness no 1 started after the tribunal heard a number of applications from the defence (all rejected). This is dealt with in a separate posting.

Before the first witness took the stand, the chairman said two things. First that details of father, place of residence and other such details will not be made public, and there should be no questioning about these. Second that the witness statements will be transcribed, and as they are typed out they can be seen on computers in front of the judges, the defence lawyers and prosecutors and the accused. Tribunal said that they are trying to do audio recording as well but that it was not ready. Following a query from the defence lawyer, the tribunal said that a certified copy of what was stated by the witness will be given, hopefully, by the end of each day.

It should be noted that this is I think the first time any court in Bangladesh has taken steps to organise an official record of proceedings in this manner. Since the statements are given slowly (so that transcription can take place) it is possible to take accurate notes of what is stated in court. Here is the testimony of witness number two

Below is an unofficial translation of witness no.1 .

I am Md Mahbubul Alam Howlader freedom fighter. I am 60 years old. My religion is Islam and my work includes business and activities with Muktijodhdha Command. I resided at my own house in 1971. The speech given by Bangabondhu on March 7, “Today’s struggle is struggle for our freedom; today’s struggle is struggle for our independence. Combat the enemy with whatever we have. [Nizamul Haque: Not we, you]

On hearing Bangabondhu’s speech, freedom loving Bengalis from all across Bangladesh started preparing for the liberation war. Pakistani Occupying Forces had started killing and pillaging in the name of Operation Searchlight. They killed lakhs of people who believed in independence or were Hindus. Pakistani Occupying Forces arrested Bangabondhu on March 25. Before his arrest, Bangabondhu said that Bangladesh is an independent country from today. After hearing that, students and masses started preparing for the liberation war. Many went to India for training and many others started collecting arms locally through (for?) guerrilla training. They kept resisting the Pakistani Occupying Forces and attacked and killed Pakistani forces by carrying out guerrilla operations.

Pakistani Occupying Forces became desperate and formed the Peace Committee along with anti-independence party Jamaat-e-Islami khulna’s ATM Yusuf, Pirojpur’s Khan Md Afzal and other associate forces. Peace Committee had ordered Jamaat-e-Islami activists to kill freedom fighters and people supporting independence. Later on, the Peace Committee of Parerhat was formed whose members included Sekander Ali Shikder, Danesh Molla, Mosleuddin Maulana, Azhar Ali Talukder, Delwar Hossain now called Sayedee, Mohsen, Abdul Karim, Habibur Rahman Munshi, Sobhan Maulana and Hakim Karee. Local members of Peace Committee, Maulana Mosleuddin, Delwar Hossain now called Sayedee, Mohsen, Habibur Rahman Munshi, Momin Howlader, Sobhan Maulana, Hakim Karee and many other Madrasa students in association with organisations working against liberation formed associate forces

There was a short interlude when the defence lawyers thought that the witness had a piece of paper in his hand. Witness then continued.

Associate force’s Mosleuddin... associate Razakar force [word ‘Razaker’ added by chairman] was formed. Habibur Rahman Munshi, Mosleuddin, Hakim Karee and many other Madrasa students in association with people against liberation formed Razakar forces as an associate wing of Pakistani Occupying Army. [Nizamul Haque: You have repeated this]

On the first week of May, Pakistani Military arrived at Pirojpur. On May 7, I was at home in the morning, when I heard from people that Pakistani Military is coming towards Parerhat, and that Peace Committee members of Parerhat are waiting at the local rickshaw stand to welcome the occupying forces. I went to Parerhat rickshaw stand and started observing them secretly. 52 soldiers of Pakistani Military arrived on 26 rickshaws. Peace Committee members greeted them. Sayedee started speaking to them since he knew Urdu. He led them towards the Bazaar and pointed out houses and shops of members of Hindu community, Awami League and people who supported liberation. Captain Ejaz gave order to loot. Plunder started. Noticing that the situation was worsening, I moved myself to a distance. Later on I came to know that 30-35 houses and shops were attacked and the loot was distributed under Sayedee’s guidance. Parerhat’s rich businessman Makhan Shaha had an iron strongbox buried under his house, in which 22 seers of gold and silver were found. Upon finding such riches in one place, Captain Ejaz renamed Parerhat as Sonar Parerhat.

Sayedee had led a loot attack on Madan Shaha’s shop, close to Parerhat. After breaking into the shop, he’d taken (booty) to his in-laws place, north to the ditch (Khal). With loots and gold, totalling Tk 15 lakh, (they/he) formed a treasury called ‘Panch Tahbil’. As ... Shaha, Tarokchondro Shaha, Benimadhab Shaha had left for India, they plundered their houses under Sayedee’s leadership. Sayedee had himself traded the loots of ‘Panch Tahbil at Nogorbashi Shaha’s home. Likewise Sayedee had robbed many people’s wealth and built houses in Khulna and Dhaka for himself.

He’d plundered and set fire on Manik Poshari and his (Manik’s) brother’s properties at Baduria’s Chithulia village. They also ransacked freedom fighter Selim Khan’s house. Despite Sekander Shikder and Danesh Molla being leaders too, Delwar Hossain Sayedee had grown an intimate relationship with Captain Ejaz because of his Urdu speaking skill.

Delwar Hossain Sayedee was a student of Alem class of Shorshina Madrasa, but had been expelled due to his involvement in student politics of Jamaat-e-Islami.

On 7th May, after the incidence (of pillage), Peace Committee along with Pakistani Occupying Forces camped at Bagerhat Rajlaxmi School.

He (Sayedee) had looted Madan Shaha’s house and shop and kept the war booty at his in-laws place. After liberation, freedom fighters, including me, had retrieved these items and returned them back to Madan Shaha. [Nizamul Haque corrects and repeats the previous sentence for typists, adding Sayedee in place of ‘he’.]

I was in charge of collecting intelligence information as a spy of Sundarban Muktijodhddha camp. Subsector commander of sector-9, Major Ziauddin Ahmed and A.K.M. Alauddin Ahmed had assigned me with this task.

Razakar and Peace Committee had raped, looted, committed arson attacks and shot to death members of Hindu community of Pirojpur district. Women were handed over to be raped by the Pakistani Occupying Army. As a spy, I observed these crimes which happened across the whole district, and passed news on to Sundarban Muktijodhddha camp. Before 7th May, Pakistani Occupying Forces had set a Razakar camp at Fakir Dash’s building in Parerhat.

Short interruption as Tajul Islam intervenes and wants to check whether the witness is hiding any written copy of his statement. Tajul takes a look around and comes back to his seat.

On June 2, I was at home in the morning. Witness Khalilur Rahman came to my house during very early hours and informed upstairs that, “We are making list of you, Awami League activists and people at your place who are pro-independence. Peace Committee members and Razakars will come here to get hold of them.” Me and those I’d sheltered, Awami League activists and freedom fighters

There was a short interruption when Tajul Islam asked the chairman not to make any corrections to the statement and that whatever the witness was saying should be recorded as it is. Nizamul Haque said 'Continue'.

I took them to a far-off place which was safer. (Later) I came to know from others that around 10 am, Parerhat’s Peace Committee and Razakar forces, namely Danesh Ali Molla, Sekander Shikder, Delwar Hossain Sayedee, Mohin Howlader, Hakim Karee, Habibur Rahman Munshi and many other unknown Razakers had led Pakistani Occupying Forces to attack the Hindu locality of Umedpur village, which was next to my home.

They looted and burnt down 25-30 houses of many people, namely Bisha Bali, Suku Bali and …..Mondol. The destruction amounted to around TK 15 lakh. Bisha Bali being sick was caught, strapped to a coconut tree and beaten up. Delwar Hossain Sayedee had ordered, “Now that we have him, shoot him.” One Razakar shot and killed Bisha Bali. When I came to know about the attack on Hindu community a bit earlier, I sneaked into the area, entering from its south border. I arrived at a nearby street, and seeing others next to a bush on the south end, I also stayed there. When he (Bisha Bali) was shot, me, Mahtab, Altaf, Latif Howlader, and others who were there ran away and hid ourselves at a far-off place.

Around 12 am, I noticed that a few Razakars and Peace Committee members were leaving the Hindu locality and going towards my home. They entered my house and pressured my brother Abdul Majid to bring me, Awami League activists and freedom fighters before them (Razakars). As my brother had declined to comply, they tortured him. At one point, they looted 10 bhori of gold jewelleries, Tk 20,000 from the almirah and 2 bhori of gold jewelleries from my mother’s room. The loot was worth Tk 3 lakh and the damage to the furniture they had broken amounted to Tk 30,000. They’d left the place afterwards.

In the past, there was no opportunity to try the war criminals- looters, rapists and murderers who’d killed lakhs of people in 1971. The present government had announced before the election that they will organise trial of war crimes once they come to power. Since the citizens of this country wanted this trial to happen, they’d voted in favour of this government.

I filed a war crime case before Pirojpur court. Court ordered the OC of Indurkani Police Station to lodge the complaint. On 9/9/2009, the case was taken up by police. IO (investigation officer) of the case was SI Jafar Ali Howlader. The IO had started investigation procedure of this case, which however stopped after sometime. I came to know from radio and TV that the international war crimes tribunal has been formed in the country, and investigation officers of the tribunal will themselves investigate. With hope of receiving justice, I submitted my appeal to the head of the war crimes tribunal on 20/9/2010. I seek justice. This is my statement.

[In the middle of his statement, just after the lunch adjournment the prosecutor, Haider Ali asked that three people should be removed from the room namely (1) Naser Mollik (Sayedee’s nephew), (2) Mr. Saleh (Sayedee’s Nephew), (3) Mostofa Sayedee (Sayedee’s younger brother). He said that the witness was scared to talk in front of these persons.

The chairman called the three persons who stood up and asked them whether they had permission to enter the tribunal. They all said that they got entry passes from the office of the tribunal. The deputy registrar was called and he said that he had no knowledge of who had got a pass or not. The chairman asked them to leave the room. Sayedee asked to speak and said that these men are all his relatives and why could they not stay in the court room.]

After the statement was given there was a process of affirming certain evidence that had been given to the court.

Haider Ali: Here’s the letter you’d given to the investigating body. Volume 1(1)…

Justice Zaheer: Whatever you have given, is it with us too? You have to say that I am presenting volume 1, section 1 before the court.

Hyder Ali: I can say exhibit 1/1, 1/2, 1/3.

Nizamul Haque: That’s better.

Haider Ali directs witness to read out from the document he was holding.

Mahbubul Alam (witness): after looting the houses

Nizamul Haque: What’s the evidence? Have to record…

Mahbubul Alam (witness): The date and time of seizure: 18/8/2010, 11am. Place of seize, (these evidence) have been seized from him: Chithulia village; police station and district Pirojpur. Alamgir Poshari (65); father: Shahiduddin Poshari (ex); Description of seized items: two corrugated tins, very old with marks of burn. This is the list of seizure. Secondly, here’s my signature, 2/01.

This is another list of seizure. The date and time of seizure: 18 August 2010, 10 am. Place of seizure, (these evidence) have been seized from him: Chithulia village; police station and district Pirojpur. Abdul Manik Poshari, father: Shahiduddin Poshari (ex). Description of seized items: two corrugated tins, very old with marks of burn and a door-frame (pedi), very old with marks of burn.

Saidur Rahman (Prosecution): Here’s your signature.

Mahbubul Alam (witness): This is the list of what was seized. Secondly, here’s my signature, 3/01. The items have been stored. This is my statement. This is my signature.

Nizamul Haque: Write down during seizure, he took photos of seized properties and other houses. Here we have photocopy of four houses…

Tajul Islam: Is photocopy enough?

Nizamul Haque: There’s my (Mahbubul Alam’s) signature on each photo. It’s exhibition 5/1 series.

Tajul Islam: Let our objection be included.

Nizamul Haque: With objection in bracket.

Haider Ali: Do you know Sayedee? Is he at the court?

Witness, Mahbubul Alam points at Sayedee with his head and says he’s at the back.

Nizamul Haque: I (Mahbubul Alam) know the accused. He is at the court. Identified.

There were no questions asked by the prosecutor.

Tajul Islam for the defence then asked to be given some more time before questioning him. and said that they will visit the place this coming weekend. He said that they could start questioning from Sunday after they have visited the area. 'It’s not that great harm will be done if we don’t start today.'

Nizamul Haque and Justice Zaheer discuss amongst themselves.

Nizamul Haque: If we don’t do the questioning today, we’ll start the second witness and question this witness on Sunday?

Haider Ali agrees.