Sunday, March 18, 2012

20 Feb 2012: Azam frame charging 3

After the cross examination of witness number 27 in Sayedee's case, the court then continued to hear the charge-framing application relating to Gholam Azam. This is the third day in which the prosecution have been reading out their charge framing application. (Day one, Day Two)

Prosecutor Nurjahan came to the dais and started reading out the formal charge:
6. Superior Status
6.1 It is a well-known principle of organizational or institutional hierarchy that the top position will be directly responsible for anything done by lower position. This well-established principle has been added to the International crime tribunal ordinance, 1973. According to this article: 'Any commander or superior officer who orders, permits, acquiesces or participates in the commission of any of the crimes specified in 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 who fails to take necessary measures to prevent the commission of such crimes, is guilty of such crimes.'

The above article is applicable for any military or civilian commander and superior personnel.

6.2 The accused Golam Azam’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 is evidenced by the following information:

6.2.1 Accused met Lieutenant General Tikka Khan, military ruler of East Pakistan “B” territory, on April 04, 1971 evening at the governor’s house (present Bangabhaban) in Dhaka. Out of him in that delegation team, consisting 12 members, there were Pakistan Democratic Party head Nurul Amin, Moulovi Farid Ahmed, Khaja Khayer Uddin, A K M Shafiqul Islam, Maulana Nurjjaman, Hamidul Haque Chowdhury, president of Jami’te Ulama’ye Islam Mohsin Uddin Ahmed and advocate Saadi. This meeting held in a time, when genocide had already been committed through “operation searchlight” on March 25 night and the army had been running slaughter throughout the country for long nine days. It is also mentionable here that, the delegation team had no legal title to be a delegate for the common people. However, the reason behind the presence of convict in the conference was that he was the chief of Jamaat-e-Islami and thus his participation and decision-making clearly indicates his “superior status”. [The Daily Azad, April 06, 1971.]

6.2.2. Convict’s “superior status” can be ascertained through his following actions on April 6, when he met military ruler of region “B” Lieutenant General Tikka khan in a classified meeting. This second meeting was exclusively between accused and Tikka Khan. The later meeting clearly specifies his “superior status” because he ascertained his complete support to military ruler about returning tranquility in East Pakistan from a reasonable point of status. [The Daily Azad, April 7, 1971; The Daily Pakistan, April 7, 1971; The Daily Purbodesh, April 7, 1971.]

6.2.3. Convict gave a joint-speech on 07.04.1971 as a chief of Jamat-e-Islami with other jamat leaders in where they ordered “Patriot”, in their language, to shoot on sight the Indian infiltrators. Convict proves his “superior status” by giving this order to the entire subordinates of his party. [The Daily Azad, April 8, 1971]

6.2.4. Convict’s superior status can be further ascertained by his seat preserved in an extension meeting of peace committee on 09.04.1971. Accused was third by status of the organizational hierarchy in the committee of 140 members lead by Khaja Khayeruddin. Noted here, peace committee was established to help Pakistan army to commit atrocities and genocide on mass people of Bangladesh. [The Daily Azad, April 11, 1971]

6.2.5. Golam Azam made a speech from the Dhaka center of Radio Pakistan on 09.04.1971 in an invitation from the Pakistani military rulers. The Daily Azad and The Daily Pakistan and other newspapers published his speech. He alarmed India in this speech and demanded India interfered in Pakistan as well as tried to destroy Pakistan. This event of inviting him for delivering speech for the nation proves his superior status again. [The Daily Azad, April 11, 1971; The Daily Pakistan, April 11, 1971.]

6.2.6. Another fact also proves convict’s ‘superior status’, when Khaja Khayeruddin and he made an illicit procession on 13.04.1971 from Baitul Mukarrom Mosque. Peace committee organized this procession from where they gave different slogan to create anti-Indian mentality and to help everybody keep united Pakistan. At the end of the procession, convict conducted prayer for the unity of Pakistan through his organizational status. Leading the procession and conducting prayer both clearly indicate his ‘superior status’ in organizational hierarchy of Jamat-e-Islami and peace committee. [The Daily Paygam, April 13, 1971; The Daily Pakistan, April 13, 1971; The Daily Azad, April 14, 1971; The Daily Purbodesh, April 14, 1971; The Daily Pakistan, April 14, 1971; Attested photo copy of top secret No. 5 of 1971. Fortnightly Report on Political Situation for the first half of April, 1971 from special Branch, East Pakistan, Dacca. Secret No. 5 of 1971 Para 11]

6.2.7. More evidence of convict’s superior status can be got when he formed a sub-committee to join and direct daily activities of central working committee of peace committee on 20.04.1971. He was the third member of that team and other members were A K M Shafiqul Islam, A. R Khoddor, A.S.M Solyaman, Abdur Mutin, S.K Khoyeruddin. [The Daily Pakistan, April 22, 1971]

6.2.8 Ultimate proof of convict’s superior status is the personal meeting with Yahia Khan in Rawalpindi on 19.06.71. He discussed several issues and ascertained from him that only so-called patriot could hold back secessionists. Moreover, he asked the president to equipp Jamat-e-Islamists and other collaborators with arms who believed in peace and united Pakistan. Meeting personally with the president provides sufficient evidence of his standings and power and influence. [Daily Sangram, Jun 20, 1971; Daily Sangram, Jun 22, 1971].

6.2.9. Convict’s superior status can be proved in another way when he asked all head of Muslim countries to help Pakistan on 26.06.71. This clarifies his ideological relationship with Muslim countries and his superior status re-establishes. [Daily Sangram, Jun 27, 1971; Daily Purbodesh, Jun 28, 1971; Daily Ittefaq, Jun 28, 1971]

6.2.10 A stamp of collecting fund in 1971 also proves convict’s superior status. Golam Azam was the only person who signed in the stamp ‘Pakistan Rokkha tohobil’ amounting 1 taka. That means to protect the Pakistan, people collected fund in name of Ameer of Jamat-e-Islami, which testifies his superior status once again. [Prepared by investigation team of International Crime Tribunal ‘seized list and filed evidence (volume 4)]
There was change of prosecutor at this stage. Prosecutor Zial-al-Malum came to the dais at this stage and continued reading out the formal charge which was as under:
7. Specific charges against convict 
From investigation, several serious crimes were found against the convict under International crime (Tribunals) Act, 1973 article 3(2). He is accused mostly for his “superior status” under this act. Besides, there are some disclosed evidence against him from being involved in some crimes directly. In reference to investigation throughout the country under the section 3(2) International crime (tribunals) act 1973, thefollowing results found:

7.1 International crime of conspiracy
7.2 International crime of planning
7.3 International crime of incitement
7.4 International crime of complicity
7.5 Anti-human rights crime of killing and torment.

7.1 International crime of conspiracy 
Conspiracy to commit crimes mentioned in section 3(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) act, 1973 as crime under section 3(2) (g) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 are mentioned here:

7.1.1. Accused along with 12 others met Lieutenant General Tikka Khan, military ruler of East Pakistan “B” territory, on April 04, 1971 evening at the governor’s house in Dhaka on 04.04.71 evening. Other members were Pakistan Democratic Party head Nurul Amin, Moulovi Farid Ahmed, Khaja Khayer Uddin, A K M Shafiqul Islam, Maulana Nurjjaman, Hamidul Haque Chowdhury, president of Jami’te Ulama’ye Islam Mohsin Uddin Ahmed and advocate Saadi. They discussed, planned, and took firm decision to apply the blue print of Pakistan army. Later on, according to this decision, they committed huge crimes and slaughter. The main topic of their meeting was to create different collaborating units and determine their action plans. In this context they first dicided to form “Nagoric Committee”, a criminal organization which afterwards became known as “Nagorik Peace Committee” and later on only “peace Committee”. Some pictures were published in news paper of this meeting in where there were Tikka Khan, Mr. Nurul Amin, Golam Azom and so on. [ Daily Azad, April 06, 1971]

7.1.2. Two days later, accused and some others political leaders again met General Tikka Khan at the same place as a part of their conspiracy, mentioned earlier. In this meeting, they repeatedly discussed the same issue of forming different assistant organizations and their possible roadmap. Accused Golam Azam stated his determination of taking control of violence by forming these collaborating organizations. Besides him, provincial head of Jamiote Ulamaye Islam Peer Mohsin Uddin Ahmad, Advocate Mr. A.K. Sadi personally met General Tikka Khan. [Daily Azad, April 07, 1971; Daily Pakistan, April 07, 1971; Daily Purbodesh, April 07, 1971.]

7.1.3 Accused, as a member of ‘Peace and welfare Steering Committee, participated in a meeting on 14.04.71. They took oath to protect Pakistan. At the same time, they took several decisions and plans to unite people to protest so-called Indian conspiracy and aggression to establish peace by acquiring people’s support. [Attested photo copy of top secret No. 5 of 1971. Fortnightly Report on Political Situation for the first half of April, 1971 from special Branch, East Pakistan, Dacca. Secret No. 5 of 1971 Para 12]

7.1.4. Accordingly accused attended in high command meeting for third time on 16.04.71. In that meeting he informed president of Pakistan General Aga Mohammad Yahya Khan about latest update of East Pakistan. They finalized their action plan analyzing last three month’s performance, specially how to suppress the movement using arms. In this context, they scrutinized the roadmap and decided how to use the sentiment of Pakistani ideologists to control disarmed civilian people. [Daily Sangram, Jun 20, 1971; Daily Sangram, Jun 22, 1971.]

7.1.5. Later on, accused met Sayed Abul A’la Moududi, chief of all Pakistan Jamat-e-Islami, as a part of conspiracy on 20.06.1971. In this meeting they discussed about the activities, principles, and future planning, working methods and action plan of Jamat-e-Islami. [Daily Pakistan, Jun21, 1971.]

7.1.6. Again on 01.12.71, accused met president Yeahia Khan in Rawalpindi where he discussed overall condition in a 70-minute long personal meeting. He asked the president to increase the number of Razakar and in order to confront the so-called offenders he counseled to include Pakistani ideologists in this militia unit. Moreover, accused comprehended the coming defeat observing the declining control of collaborator units and decided to kill intellectuals as a ‘final solution’, which was actualized by Jamat-e-Islami, Razakar, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams till December 16, 1971. [Daily Ittefaq, December 02, 1971]

7.2 International crime of planning 
[Planning to commit crimes mentioned in section 3(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 having ‘superior’ status liable under section 4(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973] are mentioned here:

7.2.1. On 04.04.71, accused Golam Azom and some others prepared a plan to figure out a criminal organization named ‘Nagorik Cmmittee’ and placed this proposal before Lieutenant General Tikka Khan. Noted, this ‘Nagorik Cmmittee’ appeared later as a notorious criminal organization ‘peace committee’. [Daily Azad, April 07, 1971]

7.2.2 Accused Golam Azom along with others formed peace committee, appointing Khaja Khayer Uddin as convener in order to commit the preplanned crime. They took decision to spread out sub-units of peace committee in several parts of town, unions, and Moholla level as a part of their plan and these sub units would work under central command. [Daily Azad, April 07, 1971; Daily Pakistan, April 07, 1971; Daily Purbodesh, April 07, 1971]

7.2.2. Accused took part in a planning meeting on 04.05.1971 and decided to spread out sub-units of peace committee in several parts of Dhaka city in order to commit crime. Some others, Khaja Khayeruddin, A.Q.M Shafiqul Islam, Abdul Jabbar Khaddar were present in this meeting in the residence of A.Q.M Shafiqul Islam at Elephant Road. [Fortnightly Report on Political Situation, for the first half of May, 1971, from special Branch, East Pakistan, Dacca. Secret No. 7 of 1971 Para 5]

7.3 International crime of incitement 
[Incitement to commit crimes mentioned in section 3(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) act, 1973 as crimes under International law under section 3(2)(f) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973] are mentioned here:

7.3.1. Accused, as the chief of Jamat-e-Islami, gave a joint statement with other leaders on 07.04.71. In that statement he called on ‘patriots’ to bulldoze “Indian infiltrators” (according to their language) on sight. Actually, he meant Hindus, Awami league activists and all freedom seekers, who wanted to make Bangladesh free from Pakistani oppressors, as “Indian infiltrators”. Whereas, he meant “patriot” as Jamat-e-Islami, peace committee, Al-badr, Razakar militia, Al-Shams, and Al-Mujahid etc who were under direct control of accused or under his direction . Hence, calling his followers to wipe out a certain people, identified as “Indian Infiltrator” is definitely incitement from the accused to commit crime. [Daily Azad, April 08, 1971]

7.3.2. Accused delivered a incitement speech to the nation from Radio Pakistan, Dhaka center on 10.04.1971. He alleged their intrigue against Pakistan and warranted India not to play with the destiny of 70 million people of East Pakistan. He also stated that India challenged the patriotism of East Pakistan by sending armed infiltrators. Moreover, he said these infiltrators would not get any help from the Muslims of East Pakistan. Actually, he meant Hindus, Awami league activists and all freedom seekers, who wanted to make Bangladesh free from Pakistani oppressors, as “Indian infiltrators”. Whereas, he meant “patriot” as Jamat-e-Islami, peace committee, Al-badr, Razakar militia, Al-Shams, and Al-Mujahid etc who were under direct control of accused or his direction anyhow. Therefore, his speech incited the wiping out Indian infiltrators was ultimately a declaration to wipe out Hindus, Awami leaguers and freedom seeker common people, which indicate his crime of incitement. [Daily Azad, April 11, 1971; Daily Pakistan, April 11, 1971]

7.3.3. Accused, as a chief of Jamat-e-Islami, called all patriot members of peace committee to protest mutineers’ activities and help Pakistan army. At the same time, he advised them to carry national flag and meet as well as assist army whenever they came into their locality. This call of wiping out anti-state people was in fact the call of attacking the common people who opposed the invading army and their collaborators to safeguard this country. This call must be the incitement for committing crime. [Daily Purbodesh April 23, 1971]

7.3.4. Accused called Jamat workers to take all possible initiative to bring back ‘peace and tranquility’ in the country in a workers’ summit of Jamat-e-Islami on 02.05.71. In the eye of the accused the call of bring back peace was in fact incitement for crime. Because, in the mean time, Jamat workers were active to help Pakistani army to bring back so-called tranquility. Undoubtedly, his call of keeping peace proves the incitement for committing crime. [Fortnightly Report on Political Situation for the first half of May, 1971 from special Branch, East Pakistan, Dacca. Secret No. 7 of 1971 Para 5]

7.3.5. On the presence of accused and others in a conference on 17.05.71, they demonstrated happiness for taking appropriate measure to safeguard Pakistan from the banned Awami league’s anti-state activities. At the same time, they asked the government to step forward with necessary measures against betrayers and asked all Islamist groups to increase fellowship in order to help this sacred proceeding. They also gave importance on their sacrifice to find out offenders and maintain peace in this province. In this conference, they proposed new name “Shanti o Sonhoti Committee” instead of “Peace Committee” to enhance its activities. Actually, this call of taking appropriate measure against so-called “offenders” and “betrayers” indicates incitement to wipe out Hindus and Freedom seekers. [Daily Sangram, May 18, 1971; Daily Pakistan, May 18, 1971]

7.3.6. According to a report of Daily Sangam on 22.05.71, accused visited several places of Bangladesh mostly Jessore, Khulna, Mirpur, Lalbag, Chok, Lalmatia and Thatari bazaar of Dhaka. Here he met with other leaders and participated quite a lot of conferences and delivered speech. Moreover, he along with other leaders encouraged Pakistani leaders to safeguard Pakistan from the banned Awami league and Indian collaborators. The convict’s such words was not only an invitation to Jamat-e-Islami workers and other auxiliary forces but also a clear incitement to commit crime against Hindus, Awami leaguer, Freedom seekers and other progressive party’s disarmed people. [Daily Paygam, May 22, 1971]

7.3.7 Daily Sangram published a special interview of accused, which was made based on a pictorial interview on 22.06.71. He mentioned in that interview not to be confused by the propaganda of political parties, which sought freedom. He alleged that Awami league, won the 1970’s election with enormous support of mass people, was interest seeker and anti-democratic fascist political party. This statement of accused was undoubtedly an incitement to his followers to suppress and wipe out so-called enemies. [Daily Sangram, Jun 22, 1971]

7.3.8 In a press conference on 22.06.1971, accused convened everybody to bring back so-called people’s confidence by protesting ‘wrongdoers’ and ‘rebels’. He admired Pakistani army for safeguarding Pakistan. He also requested everybody to assist in order to bring back normal situation and so to the authority of Pakistan government. By delivering these speeches to the auxiliary forces to assist Pakistan army, he, in fact gave stimulation to the leaders and army to commit crime and hence it is definitely considered as incitement to commit crime. [Daily Sangram, Jun 23, 1971]

7.3.9. Jamat-e-Islami Ameer of East Pakistan, Golam Azam, delivered a speech by convening people to uplift the unity of Pakistan in a get together of Brahamnbaria peace committee on republic square. The call of keeping unity of Pakistan, according to convict’s mind-set, truly indicates the stimulation to attack on people who do not believe in this unity.[East Pakistan police abstract of Intelligence, Para 820]

7.3.10 Accused announced in a gathering at Rajshahi Municipal hall, arranged by Rajshahi peace committee, that there is no paper document of friendship between Hindu and Muslim. Moreover, he said, “India is historically an enemy of Muslims and they are killing Muslims continuously even after the separation of country.” He also said that the issue of Bangalee and non-Bangalee is a trick of Hindus to separate Muslims. He commented at the same time that it is impossible to make a nation combining Hindus and Muslims without mentioning the question of language. Accused requested all Muslims to remove the Bangalee-non Bangalee mentality. By making these comments, he, in fact cornered Hindus and made them a target of attack. Actually, because of these inciting statements, Hindus were wiped out and slaughtered. [Daily Sangram, July 19, 1971]

7.3.11 On 02.08.71, in a conference arranged by Pakistan Jamat-e-ta’laba-e-arabi’a in Dhaka University gymnasium, presided by Dr. Hasan Jaman, accused delivered a speech. He addressed contemporary situation as ‘war situation’ and told this war is not only an armed clash but also a clash of ideology. He further added that we have to be the winner. Accused addressed that situation as war and compared with the ideological movement, which, according to Islamic context, was “Jihad”, that is applicable only against non-believers. He addressed that situation as a war, which clearly indicates the incitement to wipe out opponent’s political power and different religious faith. Because, the main argument of a war is an armed clash, There are two underlying meanings of addressing that situation as war, which clearly indicate the incitement:

First: According to the judgment of accused, Hindus, supporters of Awami league, partly Muslim (explained before) and freedom seekers, each of them were considered as the opponents of the war.

Second: The main task of so-called patriot, that means Razakar, Al-Badr, Al-Shams, Jamat-e-Islami etc. would be to wipe out above-mentioned opponents. [Fortnightly Report on Political Situation, for the first half of August, 1971, from special Branch, East Pakistan, Dacca. Secret No. 13 of 1971 Para 19]

7.3.12. Accused sought to bulldoze the so-called ‘offenders’ in a worker conference of district Jamat-e-Islami in the municipal hall of Khulna. In his eye, the ‘offenders’ were the common people of the country who wanted to free our country from the attack of invading army, the members of political party who won in the 1970’s election and wanted to see an exploitation free country, and Hindus. Besides, he requested everybody to amass under Jamat-e-Islami. Accused also criticized Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his banned party men for bringing the six-clause declaration to create turmoil in the country. His call of wiping out so-called offenders indicates the incitement of above-mentioned crimes. [Fortnightly Report on Political Situation, for the first half of August, 1971, from special Branch, East Pakistan, Dacca. Secret No. 13 of 1971 Para 11]

7.3.13. In a conference of Kushtia peace committee in the Public library grounds, accused said that Sheikh Mujib and banned Awami league cheated us by shaking their hands with India. He also mentioned that our people were in tremendous trouble only because of their deceit and our future generation would never forgive them. In this context, he stated the sacrifice of Muslims in the movement of independence. Accused Professor Golam Azom requested the people to keep an eye on the so-called “offenders” and “rebellions”, which is clearly incitement to commit crime. [Daily Sangram, August 08, 1971; Daily Pakistan August 08, 1971; Daily Azad, August 09, 1971]

7.3.14. On August 14, 1971, in the 25th independence day of Pakistan, accused gave a statement in where he mentioned that Pakistan was threatened by internal and external enemies and the peace and unity were under turmoil. He asked everybody to respond to these threats and actualize the true purpose of creation of Pakistan. He also said that if we failed in this endeavor, then we would be a demolished and crippled nation. His call to actualize the true intention of Pakistan, and otherwise, the possibility of become demolished and crippled nation obviously indicate incitement. [Daily Sangram, August 16, 1971]

7.3.15. On 14.08.71, the 25th independence day of Pakistan, the accused told a conference arranged by peace committee in Curzon Hall that “if Pakistan stays then Bangalee Muslim will get their right and if not then there will be no existence of Bangalee Muslims”. He asked to wipe out those people who did not confer with his words. By explaining the existing situation, he told, “Pakistan had enemies outside her before but now she has many enemies internally”. These internal enemies are more dangerous than outsiders are, he added. Giving much importance on establishing strong connections between army and peace committee, he said ‘peace committee is performing well in safeguarding our country. He added more that if peace committee did not let the world know that people of this country wanted to keep united Pakistan, then situation might turn off. Accused said that the duty of army is to protect the country and peace committee should perform the duty to inform the people. Moreover, he emphasized the need to find out enemies who hid out in this country. He also said in his speech that they would make their Bangalee brothers understand the significance of united Pakistan and if they did not comprehend it, then they would be deported from this country. In his speeches, he actually indicated freedom seekers as ‘home-grown enemies’ and wanted to find and wipe them out, which clearly indicated his incitement to commit crime. [Daily Azad, August 16, 1971; Daily Pakistan, August 16, 1971; Daily Purbodesh, August 16, 1971]

7.3.16. On 17.08.71, in an open discussion with journalists in Lahore airport, accused said, “India has sent arms and infiltrators into Pakistan in order to separate Pakistan and hence Pakistan has only one way to respond through arms.” Accused clearly ordered to respond these so-called ‘offenders’ by arms, which was clearly an incitement to commit crime. [Daily Purbodesh, August 18, 1971; Daily Pakistan, August 18, 1971]

7.3.17. In a welfare ceremony of Jamat-e-Islami in Lahore on 23.08.71, accused said, ‘many Jamat workers have lost their lives by offenders only for opposing secessionists and uplifting Islamic ideology.’ He also said that East Pakistanis sacrificed their lives because they loved Islam. In the time of his speech, according to his political ideology, he questioned, whether any other political party dared to meet the public in every part of the country in front of the threat of Awami league and whether any party sacrificed their lives by supporting the unity of Pakistan without Jamat-e-Islami. He added that Pakistan was born by the power of Islam, in 1965s war they safeguarded this country with this power, and again they dismissed the Indian endeavor to divide Pakistan. Mentioning the sacrifice of his party men’s lives to protest so-called secessionists/offenders and convening his followers to put down so-called secessionists, he gave stimulation to commit crime. [Daily Pakistan, August 24, 1971]

7.3.18. In a speech in town hall, Peshawar on 26.08.71, accused said that the loss incurred by the secessionists could not be reimbursed by only slogan. This citation was actually an incitement to his collaborators to put down so-called secessionists, which indicates crime. [Daily Sangram, August 28, 1971; Daily Purbodesh, August 29, 1971; Daily Pakistan, August 29, 1971; Daily Azad, August 28, 1971]

7.3.19. Accused gave a stimulating message on defense day on 05.09.71. In his massage, he convened people to be strict in Pakistani ideology and sacrifice their lives to protest internal and external enemies. The key intention of his message was to tell Jamat-e-Islami, Al-Badr, Al-Shams, peace committee and others to be prepared for the war, which was undoubtedly incitement to commit crime. [Daily Sangram, September 6, 1971; Daily Pakistan, September 6, 1971]

7.3.20. In an interview given in the first week of September, accused not only showed his control over his organization but also gave incitement to his party as well as he ascertained a deep relationship between Jamat-e-Islami and Razakar militia. He said Bangladesh could not be a place for the islamists and that’s why Jamat workers were bound to be admitted in Razakar militia. He also added that Jamat workers may be killed but they would not be diverted. He again said, he observed Jamat workers’ unbroken confidence by the grace of Allah when he visited Chittagong, Rajshahi, Khulna, Jessore, Kushtia and so on after March 25. He convened people to free East Pakistan from so-called “aggressive nationalists” in his language. He ordered Jamat men to be admitted into Razakar militia to assist Pakistan army and ascertained it by visiting throughout the country. Hence, he promoted violence. By giving order to free East Pakistan from so-called “aggressive nationalists”, he re-ascertained incitement to commit above-mentioned crime. [Daily Sangram, September 08, 1971]

7.3.21. In a gathering on occasion of Mostofa Al-Madani day in Baitul Mukarrom Mosque, accused announced “rebellions” as enemy of Islam. Such kind of stimulating speech and article was generally an incitement to commit crime. Therefore, his motivational speech again proves his crime of incitement. [Fortnightly Report on Political Situation, for the first half of September, 1971, from special Branch, East Pakistan, Dacca. Secret No. 15 of 1971 Para 18]

7.3.22. Accused again delivered inciting speech in a conference in Curzon Hall, Dhaka University arranged by Islami Chhatrasangha, a student wing of Jamat-e-Islami. He told his party men that they could only make Pakistan everlasting. In reality, safeguarding Pakistan means safeguarding Jamat-e-Islami and other collaborating organizations and these speeches were incitement to commit crime. [Daily Sangram, September 12, 1971]

7.3.23. Accused visited a physical education center of Razakar in Mohammadpur, Dhaka. This physical education center was not only a training center but also was a name of horror in 1971. In fact, this center was a torture and killing cell. In this training center, they practically trained Razakar how to torture, kill etc. Accused visited this training center and give inciting speech to motivate them. In his speech, he used religious sentiment to sacrifice their lives in order to protect Pakistan. He called ‘Alem and Islamists’ to be admitted in Razakar Militia besides Jamat men. His visit of this torture cell proves his relation with crimes committed there and this is the proof of his incitement to commit crime. [Daily Sangram, September 18, 1971]

7.3.24. Accused said in a welfare summit arranged by Jamat-e-Islami, Dhaka city in a hotel that they treated Islam and Pakistan as identical and Pakistan is the home of Islam. He also added if Pakistan were not exist then Jamat workers would have no reason to live. In this context, he said that Jamat workers threw them into danger to keep the unity and tranquility of Pakistan. Accused made responsible the devastating activities of offenders for the recent turmoil. By combining Islamic ideology with the unity of Pakistan and making responsible so-called offenders for their devastating works, he actually incited people to commit above-mentioned crime. [Daily Sangram, September 26, 1971]

7.3.25 In the supreme committee meeting of Jamat-e-Islami in Dhaka, accused delivered a stimulating inaugural speech to commit crime by using religious and this sentiment. He called his followers to sacrifice everything in order to portect Pakistan. He said, ‘safeguarding Pakistan is their religious duty and this belief is working as the lubricant to their party men. The underlying meaning of safeguarding Pakistan was to kill and exile selected Bangalee Hidus, Progressive activists, intellectuals and common people to ascertain Pakistan only for true Muslim in their language. This type of convening speech was definitely an incitement for the army and their local collaborators to commit crime. [Daily Sangram, October 04, 1971]

7.3.26 On 23.11.1971, accused told the press, when he came to Lahore to join action committee meeting, attack would be the best defense for Pakistan. He said that attack would be the best option for Pakistan to be a respectable state. Accused demanded that the Razakar, peace committee members and all patriot people to be equipped with modern arms to keep peace by mentioning so-called ‘terrorist activities’. By demanding this unusual claim he, in fact, gave incitement to commit crime. [Daily Sangram, November 24, 1971]

7.3.27 Accused said in a welfare conference of central working committee of Jamat-e-Islami in a hotel in Lahore that in order to respond the attack of India, Pakistan should attack India from the West Pakistan. In addition, he requested president Yahiya Khan that if he failed to attack India then they would get the opportunity to divide Pakistan. By convening to attack India directly, he ultimately gave an incitement to commit crime. [Daily Sangram, November 26, 1971]

7.3.28 Accused met with Yahya Khan in a 70-minute long personal meeting and afterwards met the press. He again demanded to increase the number of Razakar militia to the president. He also said that people would assist army and Razakar militia was enough to destroy the ‘enemies’. This demand for increasing the number of Razakar and protesting the ‘enemies’ by the Razakar were clearly the incitement to commit crime. [Daily Ittefaq, December 2, 1971] 
Tribunal Chairman Justice Nizamul Huq said, that the frame-charging would be continued whenever the court got time. No specific date was set.

20 Feb 2012: Sayedee 27th prosecution witness

The tribunal first dealt with the examination in chief and cross examination of witness number 27 in the case against Sayedee (nb: the cross examination of witness number 26, Professor Abed, continued on 4 March), and then subsequently continued with the charge-framing against Gholam Azam. This page deals with the evidence of witness number 27. To read about the charge framing of Azam, go to this page.

The witness took an oath and the examination in chief was started by the prosecution.
Prosecution: What is your name?

Witness: Saif Hafijur Rahman.

Prosecution: How old you are?

Witness: I am 65 years old.

Prosecution: What do you do?

Witness: I was the parliament member in 1986 and 1988. I am the president of Noraels Lawyers Association for 6 terms.

Prosecution: Where did you live in 1970, 1971?

Witness: I was the student of law at University of Dhaka and my residential hall was S.M hall.

Prosecution: Can you tell us about the incident of 1970 and 1971?

Witness: 1970’s election was the expression of distressed people of East Pakistan. Discrimination between the East Pakistan and West Pakistan created agitation among the people of East Pakistan. Awami league won the majority seats at that election but Pakistani Military machinery was very much unwilling to hand over the power. Then Bangabandhu Sheikh Majibur Rahman called for movement for non-cooperation. In one point he declared independence and said “This movement is for independent, this movement is for freedom”

Prosecution: What was the relation between you and Shahid Saif Mijanur Rahman? What did he do?

Witness: He was my elder brother and he was appointed as Magistrate and deputy-collector of Pirojpur.

Prosecution: What was the condition of Pirojpur then?

Witness: Like other places of Bangladesh, the people of the administration who were the supporter of liberation and started taking preparation for Liberation war.

Prosecution: Who were the supporters of liberation in Pirojpur?

Witness: SDO-Faizur Rahman, Acting SDO-Abdur Razzak and Magistrate-Saif Mizanur Rahman.

Prosecution: What was happened with your brother?

Witness: My brother was arrested by Pakistan army on 5th may and after that he was killed by them.

Prosecution: What did you do after getting the news?

Witness: I, along with my father and my younger sister went to Khulna to meet with my sister-in-law (brother’s wife). Though she was exhausted mentally still she told us about the incident of Pirojpur. Then we left Khulna for Pirojpur.

Prosecution: Then what happened?

Witness: We met with Khan Bahadur Afjal and Razakaar Munnaf was also there. He described to us about the incident. He said, your brother was arrested for supporting the liberation war and taking out arms from the treasury. Before being killed he was asked to say “Long live Pakistan!” but he said “joy Bangla” [Joy means victory] then he, along with 2 others were taken to the bank of Dholeshshori River and firstly they were injured by a grenade and finally killed by brush fire. Their dead bodies was thrown out to the river.

Prosecution: From where they were arrested or by whom?

Witness: When my brother was arrested, Delwar Hossain and Munnaf was in the car. After arresting they were taken to the bank of Dholeshshoriy River.

Prosecution: From whom had you heard it?

Witness: I heard it from Afzal Hossain and other people from Pirojpur that Delwar Hossain Sayedee and Munnaf were actively involved in killing, arson, looting in Pirojpur. (This answer was taken after considering the objection from the defence side)

Prosecution: Do you know any thing else regarding Delwar Hossain Sayedee?

Witness: At that time he was known as Delwar Hossain but now he is now known as Delawar Hossain Saidee.

Prosecution: Can you identify Mr. Delwar Hossain Sayeedee?
Then Justice Nizamul Huq said that identification for known figures was not required.

Thus examination –in-chief was completed. The Cross-examination was opened by the defence Mr. Mizanul Islam.
Defence: Do please tell us, whether Khan Bahadur Saied Mohammed Afzal Hossain was a freedom fighter?

Witness: No, he was not a freedom fighter?

Defence: At first Peace committee was formed in Pirojpur on 7th may in 1971 under his leadership. Is that true?

Witness: No, it is not true. Peace committee was formed before 7th may but it was under the leadership of Khan Bahadur Saied Mohammed Afzal Hossain

Defence: Was any news published yet regarding the formation of peace committee?

Witness: No.

Defence: Do you know in which month the peace committee was formed?

Witness: I can not say any specific date, however; it might be end of the month of April.

Defence: When Pakistan Army first came in Pirojpur?

Witness: From hearsay, it was on 3rd May.

Defence: Was Pirojpur under the full control of freedom fighter before Pakistan army had entered into the Pirojpur?

Witness: Pirojpur was not under the full control of freedom fighter. Rather, Razakar and the freedom fighter both were trying to establish their full control over the Pirojpur.

Defence: Do you know that the treasury was looted two times. First there were arms looting on 27th March and then money looting on 3rd May.

Witness: No, it was not true. I can not remember the exact date, however; these looting were done on the same day.

Defence: Was there was any superior officer in Pirojpur?

Defence: No. There was no superior officer.

Witness: Razaakar Bahini was formed by cancelling Anser Act.

Defence: Yes.

Witness: Did they were used to wear any uniform?

Defence: I do not know.

Defence: Do you know when Razkaar Bahini was formed in Pirojpur?

Witness: No.

Defence: After the independence of Bangladesh, district wise history of 1971 was written by Government and Non-government organization. Is that true?

Witness: Yes, I have heard it.

Defence: After the independence of Bangladesh, a book was written by Hasan Hafizur Rahman which is named as “Documents of Liberation war” ( Shadinater dalil patro)

Witness: I have heard it but I did not read it.

Defence: Dr. Mohammad Mafizullah, former Pro V.C. University of Dhaka. . Have you heard the name of this person?

Witness: No, I have not heard the name.

Defence: Dr. Sallauddin Ahamed, Professor: department of history, University of Dhaka. Have you heard the name of this person?

Witness: No.

Defence: Dr. Anisuzzaman, professor: Department of Bangla, Chittagong University. Have you heard the name of this person?

Witness: Yes, I have heard it.

Defence: Dr. Enamul Huq, Director of Dhaka national Museam. Have you heard the name of this person?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Dr. Ahmed Sharif, Professor: Department of Bangla, University of Dhaka. Have you heard the name of this person?

Witness: Yes, I have heard it.

Defence: Whether above-mentioned any of them was against Liberation war?

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: Whether Hasan Hafizur Rahman was against Liberation war?

Witness: No, he was not.

Defence: From which party were you the Parliament member in 1986 and 1988.

Witness: From the Jatiya Party.

Defence: In 1986 and 1988 election, Can you tell us, whether Awami league and BNP participated at that election?

Witness: No, They did not participate.

Defence: When you had first heard the news of your brother’s death?

Witness: I can not remember the exact date.

Defence: Can you tell us, how many days later you had heard it?

Witness: Most probably, 10 or 15 days later from the date of incident.

Defence: When did you go to Khulna, after getting news?

Witness: I can not remember.

Defence: How many days did you stay at khulana?

Witness: We did not stay there. After meeting with sister in law we left Khulna.

Defence: What is the name of your Sister-in law?

Witness: Lutfun Nahar.

Defence: At the time of your death, did your sister in law reside with your brother?

Witness: Yes, she was in Pirojpur then.

Defence: How many days did you stay in Pirojpur.

Witness: Only 1 day we had stayed there.

Defence: Where did you live?

Witness: At hotel.

Defence: Can you tell us the name of that Hotel?

Witness: No, I can not remember.

Defence: Where did you meet with Mr. Afzal?

Witness: At his home, I, along with my father and sister went to his home.

Defence: Did you go Munnaf House?

Witness: No, I saw him at Afzal’s house.

Defence: Did you go Police station in Pirojpur?

Witness: No.

Defence: Persosn opposing Liberation was either arrested or flew away after liberation. Is that true?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Did the opposition party have any power to protest inside the country then?

Witness: No, they did not able to do it openly but secretly they were associated themselves.

Defence: Was there any news published in newspaper from 16th December 1971 to 15th august 1975 regarding their secret association?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you attend any meetings of the Anti-liberation Party?

Witness: Never ever.

Defence: Did you file any case of your brother’s death before 15th august of 1975?

Witness: No, it was not possible since the situation was not like that.

Defence: Did you take any action against this genocide, war crime and your brother’s death when you were a parliament member?

Witness: No, I did not take any legal step. However, mass-investigation commission (Gono tadanto parishad) officer Mr. Mukul sent a form to me in this regard and after filling I had sent it by post

Defence: Where was their office situated?

Witness: I do not know as I have sent it by post.

Defence: Is there any copy of it?

Witness: No.

Defence: Do you know Mr. Faizur rahman and son-in-law (daughter’s husband) Mr. Advocate Ali Haider?

Witness: Yes, I knew him as he was the friend of my elder brother.

Defence: Is he alive?

Witness: May be.

Defence: Was he against the independence?

Witness: No.

Defence: He was permanent in Pirojpur then?

Witness: I do not know surely.

Defence: Have you heard the name of Ayesha Faizur wife of SDO Faizur Rahman?

Witness: Few days ago I have read her name in a newspaper.

Defence: Mrs. Ayesha Faizur filed a case against the killing of her husband and two others at Pirojpur Police Station, after taking out the dead body of Faizur Rahman from the grave and doing a the post-moretem then?

Witness: I do not know it.

Defence: Have you any idea about the arrest of war criminals and filing case against them after Liberation?

Witness: No.

Defence: In 1984 “Documents of Liberation war” was written by Hasan Hafizur Rahman by collecting millions of documents of liberation. Do you know it?

Witness: I have heard it but I never read the book.

Defence: At part 8, 9 and 10 of this book, Mr.Ali Haider Khan has written about the people who were in favour or who were in opposition of liberation, he has mentioned their name and their description in this book and the description of the appointment of freedom fighters also and specially, the incident of killing of your brother along with two others in Pirojpur.

Witness: I do not know as I never read the book

Defence: Actually you are willingly hide the real truth as the name of Mr. Sayedee is not mentioned anywhere in this book. Is that true?

Witness: No, It is not true.

Defence: Whether there is any book which was written describing the incident of Pirojpur?

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: Delwar and Delwar Hossain Sayedee, these two persons are different .That is why you intentionally hide the truth. Is that true?

Witness: No, It is not true.

Defence: When did you give your statement to the investigation officer?

Witness: I can not remember the date.

Defence: Where did you give your statement?

Witness: At my house in Norail.

Defence: Did your sister Afroza Banu give her statement ?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: When?

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: Have you heard the name of Major Ziauddin?

Witness: Yes, I have heard but never met with him.

Defence: He has written a book on Liberation war. Have you heard of it?

Witness: No, I did not hear it.

Defence: Were you the member of Awami-league or any other political party during the war?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Until 1974 were you the member of NAP?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: In 2009 when you were president of Norail lawyers association, a resolution has been passed in this regard that “no lawyers move a case on behalf of indigenous people against you” and this news was published in Prothom Alo, dated, 25th July 2009.
Then the court is adjourned till 2pm.

Defence counsel Mizanul Islam continued with the cross examination.
Defence: On 25th July 2009 the daily Prothom-Alo published a report against you alleging that you have forcefully took over the lands of indigenous people and they quoted a false resolution of Narail Bar Association and you have admitted before the Tribunal by way of cross examination that you had sent them a letter protesting that report to be published in the newspaper. And you have further admitted that they did not publish that letter. Now can you please tell us, did you take any legal action against them for not publishing the same?

Witness: No, I did not.

Defence: You have been to Pirojpur once after your brother expired, is that true?

Witness: Yes, that is true.

Defence: Now, you have said in your deposition that you have come know that Delwar Hossain is known as Delwar Hossain Sayedee – when did you come to know that?

Witness: About 12/14 years ago.

Defence: And you have heard the same at Narail, right?

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Who told you the same in Narail?

Witness: I cannot remember his name right at this moment.

Defence: Did you try to verify that after hearing that Delwar Hossain is known as Delwar Hossain Sayedee?

Witness: Yes. Before this case initiated.

Defence: During that verification process at Pirojpur, did you meet anyone who told you the name of Delwar in 1971?

Witness: No.
At this stage there was a change of defence counsel. Counsel Monjur Ahmed Ansari came to the dais and continued the cross examination.
Defence: You have said in your examination in chief that, you have heard from Khan Bahadur (title given by British government) Afzal Hossain that when your brother was arrested Delwar Hossain and Munnaf was in the car – you have not told the same to the investigation officer (IO), is that true?

Witness: Not true. I have told the same to IO.

Defence: You further said, “After making further enquiry, I came to know from Khan Bahadur Afzal and other people that Delwar Hossain was directly involved in all looting, killing, raping and arsoning at Pirojpur in 1971.” However, you have not told the same to IO, right?

Witness: I have told the same to IO.

Defence: The then Delwar Hossain is now known as Delwar Hossain Sayedee – you have not even told the same to IO.

Witness: I have told that to IO.

Defence: Now I am saying, knowingly the incidents mentioned in the first 2 questions you are giving false deposition before this Tribunal – is that true?

Witness: It is not true.

Defence: And you said, “I have heard the name of Delwar Hossain at that time and later on I have come to know that he is now known as Delwar Hossain Sayedee.” – this is also false deposition.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You were involved in anti-Awami league movement during 1971-1974, is that true?

Witness: I have said I was involved with the politics of another party, however, I never said that I was involved in anti-Awami League movement.

Defence: If you were not involved then just say, ‘No’.

Witness: No, I was not involved in anti-Awami League movement.

Defence: Later on you joined Jatiyo (National) Party, right?

Witness: In 1986; after long time.

Defence: To be a Member of the Parliament (MP) and to get other facilities, you have joined Awami League, is that true?

Witness: It is not true.

Defence: Now I am saying, being directed by central leaders of the Awami League, you have given false deposition in a malicious case because Sayedee is a central leader of party of different ideology – is that true?

Witness: Not true.
Thus the cross examination of the prosecution witness was finished.

Prosecutor Haider Ali drew to the attention of the fact that the witness is a learned senior lawyer and six times elected President of Narail District Bar Association and he was not well-respected by the defence counsels who asked him humiliating questions during the cross examination. They should have asked for his permission before asking such a question.

Tribunal chairman Justice Nizamul Huq did not agree with that. He said, “This Tribunal is fully aware to protect the dignity of the witness and I do not think any such question have been asked. Previously a member of parliament came before this Tribunal for making deposition and no such question of disrespect was even raised upon asking same sort of question.”

Defence counsel Mizanul Islam said, “My lord, I took his permission during the launch break. I explained to him ‘I might ask some questions you might be hurt however it would be for the interest of my client which is my prime concern. You are a senior lawyer, I hope you understand that.”

The witness then said, “It is ok. They did not ask any such questions disrespectful to me. Whatever, they have asked it was for the interest of their client. I did not mind.”

Finally the witness said, it was fine for him however, he requested not to ask such type of questions to the next witness who is his sister.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter until 22nd February

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Lack of response to New Age arguments

On 19 February 2012, the tribunal gave its ruling about whether or not it would initiate contempt proceedings in relation to an article I had written in the newspaper, New Age. Nearly five months earlier in early October 2011, the tribunal had issued a show cause notice on myself, the editor and the publisher asking us to explain why criminal proceedings should not be instituted.

The full copy of the 19 February order is set out in a separate post

In the order, the tribunal trashed the article, holding parts of its 'highly contemptuous', but then decided not to initiate proceedings against either me or the editor of the New Age upon a consideration of our respective backgrounds, while exonerating the publisher of the New Age as he had no prior knowledge of the article before its publication.

In light of the current legal and political environment in Bangladesh, I have thought long and hard about how to respond to this order and have decided not to proceed with a lengthy critique, but just to highlight one key issue about this order.

While I am grateful that the tribunal decided not to initiate proceedings, the 22 page ruling fails to  mentioni many important arguments made on my behalf both in writing and orally in court about why passages in the article in question were not in contempt.

In this regard, one may recall that I have written previously (see here, for example) about how the tribunal has in the past, when giving its pre-trial hearing orders (involving those accused of 1971 war crimes), often simply ignored arguments made by the defence. [Nb: since the tribunal has not raised any concerns about that particular article, one must assume that commenting on the lack/inadequacy of reasoning in tribunal orders is not a matter that in itself can result in contempt proceedings.]

In relation to the New Age case, I would argue that had the tribunal actually dealt with these arguments (the ones that it did not expressly deal with), it is not easy to see how it would have come to the conclusions that it did. If, however, the tribunal had responded to/engaged with our arguments and continued to come to the same conclusions as it did, then at least we would know why the tribunal did not consider that the points that we had made were sufficient and credible.

I will leave it to others to consider whether this matter issue raises wider questions about the decision making processes at the tribunal.

I was going to do a long post setting out in detail what arguments the tribunal did not engage with, but then I realised this would in effect mean simply repeating the arguments that have already been summarised in previous posts here and here.

So instead, here is a quick summary of the pertinent arguments made by us, in written and oral arguments, which the tribunal did not consider in its written order.
  • evidence in the form of contemporaneous notes and a subsequent news report that in its order of 18 August, the tribunal read out a list of 20 witnesses upon which the tribunal said that it had taken cognisance against Sayedee;
  • that the tribunal had omitted mentioning the passage relating to these 20 witnesses when it finalised its written order;
  • that the tribunal expects journalists to rely on its oral orders, which are usually - and on this occasion were - read out in court sufficiently slowly that they can be noted verbatim. Copies of the written orders are not available to journalists or the public;
  • evidence that if these 20 witnesses are cross checked with the offences to which they were linked (in charge-framing hearing), it was clear that cognisance of a number of offences would have been taken on the basis of one witness; and that even if it is assumed that all the witness statements were taken into account by the tribunal in taking cognisance, there are seven offences, for which evidence of just one witness statement was the basis of taking congisance;
  • that whilst the law of cognisance in the ordinary courts of Bangladesh does not require any evidential threshold, in the ICT rules of procedure it requires a 'prima facie' case. So there is a significant difference in what is required in normal Bangladesh practice and by the ICT rules of procedure;
  • that the ICT rules make it clear that cognisance has to be taken of each offence individually; that is to say that for each offence the tribunal has to be satisfied there is a 'prima facie' case before it can take congisance;
  • so that for each offence, the tribunal needs to consider that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to satisfy all the elements of the offence of crimes against humanity.
  • expert written evidence from an international lawyer, with wide experience of prosecuting offences of crimes against humanity in international criminal courts, supported the statement that: 'It is difficult to see, unless the statements were extremely strong, how the tribunal could come to the conclusion that there is prima-facie evidence for the commission of an alleged crime against humanity which took place forty years ago just on the basis of one witness statement.' He said: 'Bearing in mind the interpretation of prima facie within international law and the complex nature of crimes against humanity, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Bergman’s proposition.'
  • that there was indeed a 'separate issue about whether the Tribunal even had in its hand all the witness statements when it took cognizance' as evidenced by the fact that the defence lawyers themselves raised this very point through a review application at the tribunal which was heard in court.
  • that the article set out the exact chronology of this issue about what statements it did or did not have and how the matter was dealt with by the court, and ended up by quoting what the tribunal said in its order with the following words: 'In its order, the tribunal stated that although it did not have the hard copy volume of the statements it did "consider the CDs and DVDs’ provided on July 11 which contained ‘all the documents."’
  • evidence in the form of new cuttings and opinion polls, about the views of 'many people' about the tribunal.
At the end of the day, the whole article was reliant on what the tribunal chairman stated in his oral judgment on 18 August, listing the witnesses which were relied on to give cognisance. The logic of much of the rest of the article relies on that. Following the tribunal order holding me in contempt, I have heard an audio recording of the oral order given on that day and it is clear that the passage about  '20 witnesses' being behind the reasons for taking cognisance is stated by the chairman. I don't know who made that recording - at the time journalists and lawyers were allowed to take into the court mobile phones so it could have been absolutely anybody. 

It is notable that the decision of this order cannot be appealed to any court in Bangladesh; the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973's provisions only allows an appeal for a conviction for offences under section 3 of the Act which deal with international offences. So other than challenging the constitutionality of the provision that allows the tribunal to deal with contempt, there is no route to question this decision.

19 Feb 2012: Order on New Age

This is a copy of the written order issued by the tribunal relating to whether or not it would issue contempt proceedings relating to an article published by the news paper New Age.

To see a summary of the arguments made in court by my legal representatives as to why the article was not in contempt of court, see here and here. (A copy of the arguments made specifically by the Editor, New Age, who represented himself, will be put up on this site shortly.)

To read about proceedings that took place after this order was read out, see this post

'Today is fixed for passing order in the above noted matter.

A special report under the caption “A crucial period for International Crimes Tribunal” was published in the daily “New Age” on 2nd October, 2011 which contended the following comments amongst others.

(a) To many in Bangladesh the guilt of Sayedee and the other detained men are foregone conclusions; Tribunal hearings about cognizance and charge framing are simply procedural obstacles on a legal conveyor belt that will inexorably take Sayedee and the others towards their rightful convictions.
(b) The accused are to many people, already proved to be guilty with the Tribunal simply acting as a mechanism to give their guilt, a judicial stamp.
(c) This raises two key issues first; the Tribunal seems to have taken cognizance for many of these twenty offences on the basis of looking at just one witness statement. It is difficult to see, unless the statements were extremely strong, how the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that there is ‘prima facie’ evidence for the commission of an alleged ‘crime against humanity’ which took place forty years ago just on the basis of one witness statement.
(d) The Rules, however, are clear that cognizance must be taken of each offence. Moreover there is a separate issue about whether the Tribunal even had, in its hand all the witness statements when it took cognizance.

Upon perusal of the said report this Tribunal upon being prima facie satisfied that this report was published in order to tarnish the image of the Tribunal and to paint it as a biased forum of justice, issued show cause notice upon the 3(three) opposite parties, 1. David Bergman, editor special reporter, NEW AGE. 2. Nurul Kabir editor, NEW AGE and 3. A.S.M Shahidullah Khan Publisher and chairman of the editorial board NEW AGE, to show cause why a proceeding under section 11(4) of the International Crims (Tribunals) Act, 1973 shall not be initiated against them for the contemptuous report mentioned above.

On receipt of the notices, opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 appeared through the counsel and submitted written replies while opposite party no. 2 appeared in person and submitted written reply to the notice.

Opposite Party No. 1 Mr. David Bergman in his reply contended that he neither has nor had any intention to make any contemptuous statement or deliberately distorted any judicial order in order to tarnish the image of this Tribunal in any way nor paint it as a biased forum of justice rather the said report in question contains fair comment on judicial proceedings expressed in rational and sober language without being colored by any partisan spirit or without any intent to lower down the image of the Tribunal in the eyes of the People. It was also contended therein that the opposite party no. 1 has been closely involved in actions to ensure that those accused of perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity during our liberation war of 1971 are brought to trial and through a fair trial if found guilty then those are punished and that he has the highest respect for this Tribunal and its commitment to adhere to the standards of fairness and impartiality in general and in particular, to conform to the standards that this Tribunal has set for itself.

The opposite party no. I obtained L.L.B degree in law and politics from Birmingham University in 1986 and L.L.M degree with merit from the London School of Economics in 1990 where he took courses in amongst others, international and Comparative Human Rights Law and Law and Society in South Asia. For many years he acted as a journalist for both newspapers and television. He was the main reporter in the documentary “The war crimes files” which was broadcast in channel 4’ U.K. in 1995 and also in Bangladesh TV after 1996. This report was regarding three Bangladeshis settled in Britain, ex-members of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing who had allegations of committing war crimes during 1971 and for that matter this opposite party no. I won a Royal TV society award. Many reports of him have been published in different newspapers and magazines through out the world. He has a continuing interest in accountability for war crimes during 1971 war of liberation. He collected evidence by way of affidavit from key witnesses of the alleged war crimes which were sent to Scotland yard for prosecution of the persons who were the subject matter of the film, which was referred to government of Bangladesh through Bangladesh High Commission in late 1990s. He also submitted a suggestion to the authorities for amendment of the International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973 to ensure a fair trial. Moreover, since establishment of the Tribunal he has been attending and reporting on its proceedings on a regular basis as a journalist. This opposite party no. 1 has relevant background and law in journalism, with specialist knowledge, interest and personal commitment to ensure accountability for war crimes committed during 1971 war of liberation.

With regards to paragraph (a) and (b) in the order, the opposite party no.1 submitted that they do not contain any criticism of the Tribunal but merely referred to the opinion expressed by prominent public and he does not hold such views. As regards the statements of paragraph (c) of the order, it was submitted that it was a permissible fair comment and the judicial orders of the Tribunal has not been distorted. In respect of paragraph (d) he submitted that this also represents a fair comment based on Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Regarding the criterias required to fulfill where cognizance is taken and regarding the correctness of the opposite no. 1's understanding the said Rule, there may be disagreement but it cannot be said that the understanding was unreasonable and as such cannot be regarded as contemptuous. It was submitted that upon perusal of the whole report it will be clear that it was a fair comment that those comments being fair comments come under the purview of the fair criticism and in know way it can be termed as contemptuous. It was also stated therein in the reply that even if after consideration of all these, it is found by the Tribunal that by writing this report the opposite party no. 1 has committed contempt of the Tribunal, he would out of his respect for the Tribunal convey his sincere regret to it.

Opposite Party No. 2 Mr. Nurul Kabir Editor New Age, has filed another reply to the notice wherein it was contended that he has consistently fought in his capacities against the political enemies of democracy, economic and cultural in equalities and communalism of all sorts since his student life. He has contributed to the social political and cultural movements over the passed decades eventually made possible the setting up of the Tribunal to try the alleged perpetrators of the war crimes and he asserted that he has not committed any offence of contempt against this Tribunal by publishing the report in question; as editor he has arranged for truthful coverage of the proceedings of the historically important trial since the Tribunal come into existence and occasionally published critical analysis of the mode of operation of the Tribunal with a view to co-operating with the Tribunal in its proper administration of justice. The report was a critical piece of that which according to him may represent deviation from the standard procedure of conducting the trial, so that the Tribunal may modify its course for the greater credibility of its conduct. The editor is responsible for implementing the policy with the active assistance of a core group of intellectually capable and professionally committed journalist. And the New Age is committed to the cause of bringing the war crimes perpetrators to justice by a fair and credible trial. It is for the trial of the alleged criminals to ensure justice and also to discharge the universally recognized democratic responsibility of bringing to justice the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It does not seek any vengeance in the process but seeks justice so that Bangladesh can tell the whole world with pride that their population is much superior to those who committed heinous crimes against them. New Age has not brought the authority and the administration of law into hatred and or disregarded nor has it interfered with or prejudiced any party in litigant and the witnesses during the litigation as such has not committed any offence of contempt; nor it has obstructed or abused the Tribunal, disobeyed any office orders or directions nor did anything to prejudice the case of a party before it nor has brought the Tribunal nor any of its office members into hatred or contempt. As such section 11(4) of the International Crimes Tribunals Act, 1973 does not apply in this case. It was asserted that New Age is the last newspaper to do anything which comes under the purview of section 11(4) of the Act. It has rather truthfully raised certain question about workings of the Tribunal to help it maintain its image as credible forum of justice so that it can successfully hold the trial of the perpetrators which will brighten the image of the people of Bangladesh, and in doing so New Age has truthfully portrayed certain perceptions of many people about the trial process. They took it as their professional responsibility to keep the public informed about every detail of the historically important event on the one hand and providing them with objective analysis of the working of the Tribunal on the other.

In the mention paragraphs for which the instant notice has been issued, the writer opposite party no.1 has in fact truthfully articulated the state of mind of a section of our people who are passionate about the crime and punishment of the perpetrators, has described a ‘fact’ of life in Bangladesh. This is not the view of the writer, a foreign journalist. The sentence that “those people concerned about issues of due process and fairness will recognize that the credibility of these trials will be determined by the decisions of the Tribunal made on assessing evidence on how it interprets the offences set out in the Act and of course on the reasoning it provides in the decisions” will show that the writer had no intention to make assertion against the Tribunal but he asserts that the things will be decided when the Tribunal passes its orders on interpretation of law. This can not be contempt of court under any available definition regarding it. Although the report contains some criticism of the Tribunal workings but that is a fair criticism backed by unambiguous truth and therefore not contemptuous. Moreover many personalities of the country belonging to party in power and opposition and also civil society members are criticizing the Tribunal and commenting in the trial process even wrongly and those matters have not been brought to notice by the Tribunal but the report being a fair report containing fair criticism of the Tribunal is facing the contempt charge. Some more issues were brought in the reply of the opposite party no. 2 but as those does not correspond to this notice, were not considered by this Tribunal.

Opposite Party No.3 ASM Shahidullah Khan, Publisher of the New Age in his reply stated inter-alia that he neither has nor had any intention to aid in making any statement which deliberately distorts any judicial order and tarnish the image of the Tribunal in any way or paint it as a biased forum of justice. The said report contains fair comment on judicial proceedings expressed in rational and sober language without being colored by any partisan spirit or approach and without any intent to scandalize the Tribunal or lower the image of the Tribunal in the eyes of the people and it does not transgress the limits of permissible fair comment under the law. Even if it is found otherwise upon consideration of this reply, the opposite party no. 3 would out of his respect for the Tribunal convey his sincere regret to it.

Opposite Party No.3 was actively involved in the political movement which led to the creation of Bangladesh, was freedom fighter in the war of liberation and has been closely involved in actions to ensure that the accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity are brought to trial and if found guilty through a fair trial are punished and victims and survivors provide with reparation and redress, and he would therefore not take any action that could prejudice the attainment of such prejudice. He is involved in the management and day to day administration of the newspaper and does not interfere in the news or editorial content of the newspaper in any way and does not have any prior knowledge of the news and editorial content which is published in the newspaper. When the report in question was published, the opposite party no. 3 was not in Bangladesh but upon perusal of the said report, he adapts the same view that the report is not contemptuous and he is not liable to be proceed against under the Act.

The opposite party no.3 stood first in combined merit list in S.S.C examination 1965 in Dhaka Board and got a Class Honors Degree in physics from University of Dhaka in 1971. After the crackdown of the Pakistan Military on the night of March 25, 1971 the opposite party No.3 was amongst the first Freedom Fighters to join the 1971 War of Liberation, having joined the Liberation forces on March 28, 1971. Then after receiving arms, his group entered Dhaka city and organized guerrilla activities and arranged for different shelters in Dhaka. Four of his brothers also took part in the war of liberation and one was interned by the Pakistan army. His name has been mentioned in different books regarding the war of liberation.

The opposite party No. 3 shared extremely close relations with Shaheed Janoni Jahanara Imam, celebrated writer, war crimes activist and mother of martyred freedom fighter Shafi Imam Rumi, from 1972 till her death in 1994. The opposite party No.3 supported her materially, physically and emotionally throughout this time. He was actively involved with the Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee, led by Shaheed Janoni Jahanara Imam, a civil society platform demanding the trial of war criminals and important meetings of the Committee were held at the opposite party No. 3’s residence. He took care of Shaheed Janoni Jhanara Imam in her fight against cancer, alongside her surviving son Jami, and attended her in her death bed during her last days in the United States.

The opposite party No. 3 is married to a fellow freedom fighter Dr. Naila Khan, also a member of an esteemed family of freedom fighters, including her father, Col. Quazi Nuruzzaman, Sector commander, Sector 7, during the War of Liberation of Bangladesh. The opposite party No. 3 provided material and financial support to Shaheed Janani Jahanara Imam and Col. Quazi Nuruzzaman in their efforts to organize the ‘Gana-Adalat’ (People’s Court), a symbolic protest event, to build public opinion and awareness of the crimes perpetrated by war criminals so that the demand for the establishment of a tribunal to try accuseds alleged to have committed war crimes gathered momentum.

The opposite party no.3 did not deliberately undertake aid or condone any course of action which may distort the orders of the Tribunal or tarnish its image before the public. He can not imagine that there would be any one else in Bangladesh more eager than him in seeing the Tribunal succeed in its objective of bringing to justice those accused of having committed crimes against humanity and punish those found guilty upon the conclusion of a fair trial. The report in question contains fair comments and criticism of the Tribunal as such he submitted for release from the charge by recalling from the notice.

We have heard the deliberations made elaborately by Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan, the learned counsel who appeared for opposite party nos. 1 and 3 and opposite party no.2 in person and perused the explanations submitted by them and gave our anxious thought over the matter While arguing the case on behalf of the opposite parties, it was contended that in the case of Riaz Uddin Khan Advocate and another vs Mahmudur Rahman and others being contempt petition no. 12 of 2010, Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Singha a Judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh held that fair criticism of judicial proceeding or courts is no doubt permissible so as to enable the court to look inward into the correctness of the proceedings and the legality of the order. Justice Singha by quoting from the case of EM Shankaram Namboodiripad Vs T Narayan reported in 2 SCC325 held that all criticism of the judiciary must be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics. In another case being Riaz Uddin Khan Advocate and another Vs Mahmudur Rahman and others being contempt petition no. 5 of 2010, Justice Surendra Kumar Singha on fair criticism held that “a fair criticism of the conduct of a justice may not amount to contempt, if it is made in good faith and in public interest. The courts are required to see the surrounding circumstances to ascertain a good fa1th and the public interest including the person, who is responsible for the comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which the comments are made and intended purpose, sought to be achieved. If one having sufficient knowledge on the subject, such as a lawyer, a retired judge, a teacher of law and an academician may make fair criticism and the court in such case will be able to ascertain a good faith with the comments”. By referring the case of suo ­moto contempt petition no. 10 of 2001 involving writer Arundhoty Roy, where Justice Sethy of Indian Supreme Court was the author, Justice Singha observed that “fair criticism of the conduct of a Judge, the institution of the judiciary and its functioning may nor amount to contempt if it is made in good faith and in public interest. To ascertain the good faith and the public interest the courts have to see all the surrounding circumstances including the person responsible for comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which the comments are made and the intended purpose sought to be achieved”. In P.N Duda Vs P. Ship Sonkor reported in 3 SCC 167 the Appellate Division of our Supreme Court held that “In a democracy, judges and courts alike are, therefore subject to criticism and if reasonable argument or criticism in respectful language and tempered with moderation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law or public good, no court would treat criticism as a contempt of court.

In the judgment of contempt case Nos. 12 of 2010 and 05 2010 Justice Singha by bringing a border line in the consideration of fair trial observed, “A journalist can not be allowed to make reckless criticism of the courts and the judges by abusing the process of the courts, But when that criticism was based on obvious distortion or gross misstatement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for the judiciary and destroy public confidence in .it, it could not be ignored.” We can take it into our consideration that in both the two cases, it was found by our Appellate Division that the respondents has committed offence of contempt of court and they were convicted and sentenced.

Upon consideration of those decisions of different courts we are to see whether the report in question contended a fair criticism or this criticism is a reckless one and whether it is coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics and whether it has been made in good faith and in public interest and whether the writer had sufficient knowledge on the subject.

The main contention of the opposite parties was that they have not done any act which comes under the purview of section 11(4) of the Act. They are quite educated persons and the Opposite Party No.1 has understanding of law; the special report was written and published in the newspaper. The report contained some statements which were fair criticism and published in order to enable the Tribunal so that it can look into the correctness of the proceedings and the legality of the order. The criticism was strictly rational and sober and proceed form the highest motives without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics. These were made in good faith and for public interest. The opposite parties are well known persons and they have got highest respect for the Tribunal, they have fought for the establishment of the Tribunal, and they want that the perpetrators be tried in a fair way so that the whole world accept that and Bangali nation can show the world that they have tried the perpetrators without any vengeance. As such the notice issued upon them may be withdrawn.

Now let us consider how much the contention of the opposite parties can be accepted. Section 11(4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act reads as follows:

“A Tribunal may punish any person who obstructs or abuses its process or disobeys any of its orders or directions or does anything which tends to prejudice the case of a party before it, or tends to bring it or any of its members into hatred or contempt, or does anything which constitutes contempt of the Tribunal with simple imprisonment which may extend to 1 (one) year or with fine which may extend to Tk. 5(five) thousand or with both”.

The report in question is the subject matter of this proceeding. We are to see only whether the opposite parties have done anything which constitutes contempt of the Tribunal and no other ingredient of this section. Upon perusing the replies submitted by the opposite parties and hearing them, we understand that their case is this that no contempt of the Tribunal has been committed by writing, editing and publishing the report in question as it contents fair criticism and true reporting of the proceedings made in good faith.

In dealing with the case we are to consider the facts which resulted the publication of this report. The formal charge in the case of Delowar Hossain Sayeedi, ICT-BD Case No. 01 of 2011 was submitted on 11.07.2011. Along with the formal charge the investigation report, the statements of witnesses and other documents were submitted and 3 DVD cassets were also submitted containing all the documents including full statements of witnesses. It is true that statements of witnesses were submitted partly due to mistake of the prosecution but the Tribunal could see the DVD cassets and got and perused the full statements of all the witnesses. Upon perusal of the materials, cognizance under section 3(2) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act was taken as it was found that those disclose a prima facie case for trial of the accused. Then the defence filed an application for review of the order dated 14.07.2011 taking cognizance of the offence and this review was heard and rejected on 18.8.2011, prayer for recalling the order dated 14.07.2011 was also field and it was also rejected on 21.09.2011. In the order rejecting review we have clearly observed and found that “Upon perusal of documents we find materials are available in the matter of taking judicial notice to the fact and whether any offence on that has been committed under the Act. Upon perusal of the statements of witnesses and the formal charge we are of the view that the formal charge and the statements of witnesses do show that materials of commission of the offence under the Act are available against the accused. As per documents available before the Tribunal it appears that the accused was also involved in abduction and killing of unarmed civilian persons and some Hindu minorities, Awami League supporters; allegations are also available that he forcefully converted some people into Muslims from Hinduism and all these acts come under the purview of the crimes against humanity and genocide. Thus considering all these things this Tribunal took cognizance of the offence against this accused petitioner. While disposing application of the review, we again perused all this statements and observed that those stated earlier are available in the records as such we do not find any merit in this review application”.

The report in question was published on 02.10.2011 where the question of taking cognizance was discussed by the writer and instant notice was issued by order dated 03.10.2011. Taking cognizance is merely mental decisions of a judge to take a judicial notice of a case and in the order it has clearly been stated how the judges applied their mind in taking cognizance of offences in that case; even in the order of rejecting review the things were reiterated.

There being no scope to weigh the evidence available when cognizance is taken but in the report in question concern has been raised as to how, on the basis of statement of I witness cognizance of 20(twenty) offences were taken. We do not get anything that we noted the fact that 20 (twenty) offences contains statement of only one witness and that is not the matter at all for consideration at the time of taking cognizance. An accused may be convicted even on the basis of evidence of one witness if that is found to be true and believable but that question does not come while the cognizance of an offence is taken. The writer has gone further to write “It is difficult to see unless the statement were strong, how the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence for the commission of an alleged ‘crime against humanity’ which took place 40(forty) years ago just on the basis of one witness statement. It appears that this has been brought and stated in the report without any basis of law and from the idea of the writer himself without any support of law, and action of the Tribunal has been criticised by the writer beyond the scope of law. Another question has been raised about the honesty of the judges. The report contains a sentence in the following manner. “Moreover there is separate issue about whether the Tribunal even had in its hand all the witness statements when it took cognizance”. We are astonished to see this language in the report. The writer has raised the question that the Tribunal passed its order and took cognizance without having statements in their hand. This is not only unwarranted but also highly contemptuous. It is clear that the writer by writing this has under mine the judges to the public at large and we do not know how he will avoid this allegation and in the whole reply he has not given any statement as to how he made it. He has only taken the plea that the report contains statements of fair criticism. If this is fair criticism then what else will be unfair? Regarding the statement contained in paragraph (a) and (b) of the notice, we accept the submissions that they had written it considering the views of some of the people. It is also true that our view does not agree to it that it gives the true picture, rather it gives a wrong picture about the people sentiment. Moreover the judges are not to look to the sentiment of the people but to look to the facts and law as to whether the offences has been committed by the perpetrators charged with. They do not require to see the sentiment of the people. Even then when as a journalist one claims that the sentence is fair criticism, we accept it reluctantly. But our view is clear that by writing this sentence, they have given a wrong signal to the people about the Tribunal. It is nothing but misleading and this also brings the allegations of contempt against them. But as regards the statements (c) and (d) made in the report, it is clear that those can in no way be termed as fair criticism but those are criticisms containing a wrong information and analyses. This was made by a person having sufficient knowledge of law and journalism and as such can not be ignored. There is nothing on record that those were made in good faith and in public interest, and that this cannot be expressed as correct reporting of the fact rather the opposite is available. By writing the statement in (d), what massage the report has given to the public? The answer is that the judges of the Tribunal pass order without having materials in the record before them but falsely write that they have perused all the materials. This is high grade of contempt. So considering all these aspects, the report, the show cause notice, the reply given by the opposite parties and the submissions made by them in the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in finding that the statements made in the report as has been shown in the notice do constitute contempt of the Tribunal and the writer, editor and publisher i.e. the opposite parties are liable to be proceeded under section 11(4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, as offence of committing contempt has been established against them.

Now there is the other side of the coin. The opposite party No.1 in his reply has stated regarding the activities which he has done or has been doing for the Tribunal so that the Tribunal can function properly and be accepted to the people. From the very beginning, we have found him present in the court room and reporting the daily affairs of the Tribunal. Although sometimes we have found him making wrong reports and once we even cautioned him. He is regularly reporting and we understood many of his reports has been considered by the foreign personnel and organization as he is a foreigner and according to them, he can express the happenings in English correctly. His past activities in favour of the creation of the Tribunal and his agony for having a fair trial is clear to us. Moreover he has expressed regret in the reply although not in clear terms and we want to consider that also. We are of the view that ends of justice will be met if we give serious caution to him to be more careful in future and exonerate him from the charges. We believe, he will be more careful in future and try to help the Tribunal in reaching to its goal of holding fair trial by his valuable reports and comments.

As regards the opposite party No.2, the editor, we also find that he had a positive role for the Tribunal so that it can function properly and be accepted to the people. But we find that he acts without knowing the position of law. The reply of him contains may statements which in no way be required in this reply. Moreover he even did not express regret that means he is sure that no contempt has been committed or he does not bother for any result in the proceeding. Considering all these things, we find that although the opposite party No.2 is a journalist but he is influenced by hot sentiments which he should not contain. He even did not engage anybody to represent him rather represented himself in this Tribunal without any knowledge of the International Law. However we have found that the NEW AGE of which he is the editor is always committed to the cause of fair trial and only the instant report, we have found otherwise as such we want to show magnanimity to him by exonerating him from the charges after giving serious caution to him to remain careful in future.

As regards the opposite party No.3, we are of the view that, when he was absent on the date, the report was published, we want to exonerate him from the charges. We believe, all these will not be treated as weakness of the Tribunal, rather will give a guide line to everybody as regards how to deal with this Tribunal, because this Tribunal is a new one and wants co-operation from all in achieving its goal of fair trial and justice. Moreover in legal matter the writer and the editor should keep in their mind the understanding level of the general people about law. With this, the proceeding is disposed of.'