23 Oct 2012: Sayedee final défense witness

The Sayedee defense called Ganesh Chandra Shaha, the 17th witness (see 16th witness)

Mizanul Islam: What is your name and state your identity.

Witness: I’m Ganesh Chandra Shaha. Father- Late Prionath Shaha, Mother- Bhagirothi Shaha. Aged- 51 years may be.

Mizanul Islam: How did your mother die?

Witness: She died on 1971. Some freedom fighters used to live at our house and my mother used to work at the Military Camp. My mother used to bring the news of the military camps to those freedom fighters. Motiur Rahman Sardar, Kalu Molla, Jalil Molla, Hanif Khan were the freedom fighters. Motiur Rahman Sardar is the Chairman of Pirojpur now. Mother used to come at home at the night and go to the camp at morning. Mother never let us hear her conversation with the freedom fighters. After some days Military has come to our village Baghmara, there were several shots of bullets then from where 10 militaries died. The soldiers fled to Pirojpur by leaving their arms. On that day my mother was there at the Pirojpur Camp and didn’t return home on that night. On the next morning I and my brother went outside in search of our mother. The name of my brother is Late Kartik Chandra Shaha. It was almost 12 P.M. when we have heard that one woman had been caught by the armies and afterwards we have also heard that- she has been caught and then dragged over the road from Army vehicle towards the river while her waist and legs were tied up with the vehicle.

[Witness started crying loudly by covering his face with hands and the defence counsels have tried to console him and take him back to the statement.(10:50 A.M.)]

Mizanul Islam: Then what happened?

Witness: Then after going at the place we have watched the distorted and injured body of our mother while 5 men were sitting on the vehicle. Among those 5 men 4 were holding arms on their hands and another was the driver. All of them were wearing military uniform. I don’t know anyone of them. I could not understand what they were discussing among themselves. After sometimes they have left the place with their vehicle.

Mizanul Islam: When have you at first came to know that- you are supposed to give a deposition in this case?

Witness: It was almost 1 and half years at the middle of May when I came to know that- I am a witness of this case. The journalists and correspondents of Court have gone to my area in the matter of my mother’s death and heard the incident from my voice. It is the first day while I’m giving statement about the death of my mother. At the middle of the May Mr. Rafique Syedee has visited me and asked who have killed your mother? Then I have stated Pakistani Armies have killed my mother. Then he has asked 'whether there was other people who were involved with this killing?' Then I have stated, 'No only Pakistan Armies were involved with this killing'. Then he has again asked me  please to confirm it. Then I have stated there were drama and novel about the death of my mother. Everyone has watched and each year those are being staged. Those novel and dramas are being conducted at Pirojpur. And no one else has told me about this matter. Then Mr. Rafique has asked whether 'my father has killed your mother?' Then I have asked 'who is your father?' Then he has replied 'Mr. Delwar Hossain Syedee is my father'. Then I have answered 'no he has not killed her.'

Syed Haidar Ali: My Lord, I have something to say. We have produced his name as the Prosecution witness, bit he remained absent then. Now he is giving deposition on behalf of the defence. Your Lordship may kindly declare him as a hostile witness.

Chairman: Now his status is though his name has been produced but the Prosecution has not produced him then the defence has produced him as the DW. So, there might be no problem.

Prosecutor: No, he has changed the side. Declare him as a hostile witness or purchased witness.

Chairman: Let the cross examination be finished at first. Then come with application with relevant laws.

Start your cross examination please.

Cross Examination:

Prosecutor: For how many days Mr. Rafique has gone to your house?

Witness: He has gone for one day. At the middle of the May he has gone for religious speech (Waaz/Mahfil). It is almost 7 months from today.

Prosecutor: Have you gone to his religious meeting?
Witness: No. When he has gone to our house I was there at the field. I have been called by the cell phone. Another man has gone with him to our house. I know the other man whose name is called as- Nanna and who is the maternal uncle of Mr. Rafique.

Prosecutor: If anyone has gone to your house other than that day?
Witness: No.

Prosecutor: Have you asked them- why they’re asking you those questions?
Witness: Then he has stated. 'we don’t know who have killed your mother, so we have come here to know who have killed her. I need to know that. '
Prosecutor: Have you asked why they have come to know about the matter after long years of the incident?
Witness: No.

Prosecutor: Whether they have gone to any other houses to get to know more about this matter?
Witness: No, they have just gone to our house.

Prosecutor: Whether there is a premise titled- “Bhagirothi Chottor” at Pirojpur at the name of your mother?
Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: When the correspondents of the Court have gone to your house?
Witness: On the last February. After their arrival they have stated- we are the correspondents of Court and come here for the purpose of investigation. They have not stated their names but just have said we have come from Dhaka. I have also not asked them their names. After one week they have again gone to my place. I have stated before them- who have killed my mother and what has happened there.

Prosecutor: Have you heard about the names of Razakars duting the liberation war?
Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: Among whom the liberation war has been conducted?
Witness: By liberation war I have understood the fight and shots of bullets between Pakistan Armies and Freedom Fighters. I have heard that the Razakars used to caught and assist killing the people.

Prosecutor: Among the correspondents of the Court the Investigation Officer Helal Uddin was the Chief.
Witness: It may be.

Prosecutor: [Calling the IO beside him and showing him to the witness and then asked.] Whether this is the person who had gone to your house from court?
Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: Do you know the name of the accused on behalf of whom you have come here to give statements?
Witness: The son of Mr. Sayedee has asked me. 'whether you have filed any case against my father? I have answered'- No. Then he has asked- whether you can go to the Court for the deposition? I have stated- Yes. And today I have come here for this purpose.

Prosecutor: You are giving false statements as Mr. Rafique and his uncle Nanna have provided you with monetary benefits.
Witness: Not true.

Prosecutor: Who has taken you here?
Witness: Mr. Nanna. I have arrived here at a Hotel and at this morning Mr. Nanna has taken me here.

Prosecutor: You have changed the side of being a witness for the monetary benefit.
Witness: Not true.

Prosecutor: You have given false statement after knowing that Mr. Syedee was directly involved with the killing of your mother?
Witness: Not true.

Prosecutor: It’s all about my cross examination.

Chairman: Okay the recording of the statements of the defence witness has come to an end here and the closing argument will be on 5 November. The defense lawyer urged the tribunal not to do that, but the tribunal chairman said that order had been given

22 Oct 2012: Chowdhury 16th witness testimony

After dealing with the recall application involving Sayedee, the tribunal started with the case of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, and the examination in chief of Prosecution Witness-16, Nizamuddin Ahmed (Father’s Name: Late Jahir Uddin Ahmed; Mather’s Name: Rahela Khatun; Age: 59 years old: Address: Village- Sufiniyajipara, Police Station-Lohagora, District- Chittagong.) (See 15th witness evidence)

In 1971 I was 18 years old. I have completed post graduation degree first part in Political Science from Chittagong University. I am a journalist. But after giving evidence to the investigation officer in this case I was sacked from Reuters. Now I am a freelance journalist. In 1971 I was a student of Intermediate 2nd year of Chittagong Government College. Then I was not involved with any political party. But there was a military training course named UOTC in different government schools and colleges, I was a cadet of it. After victory of 70’s election by Awami League, the then West Pakistan did not hand over the power to the East Pakistan and then the father of the nation Bangabondhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared the independence of Bangladesh in 26th March and on his behalf Major Ziaur Rahman read the declaration which was telecasted by Kalur ghat Radio Station and this created a special situation in the country.  

In the mean time on 25th March the Pakistani Military drove a steam roller of oppression among Bengali people. Afterwards Police, EPR, Bengali soldiers and the mass people of Bangladesh made a strong defense against that oppression. When mass people of Bangladesh started making strong defense Pakistani Army started shelling over Halishohor (an area of Chittagong) on EPR and Sholoshohor (an area of Chittagong) on Bengali soldiers. They brought tanks from cantonment and attacked on Bengali soldiers in Halishohor. After continuous attack the Bengali soldiers did not stand and they started retreating back towards Chakbazar (another area of Chittagong). The soldiers took their position from Medical College to Kapasgola Girls’ High school. After doing a heavy fight they were compelled to go back to Balurghat (another area of Chittagong).  

At that time I returned to my Chakbazar’s house. I lived there in a rented house and my father was a teacher of Chittagong University. In 3rd April Bengali soldiers took the possession of the city. In the name of searching, they set fire on various localities, caught people and killed people. We saw many dead bodies on the road of Chittagong district. Afterwards I tried to leave Chakbazar and to communicate with those who were fighting freedom fighters and I tried to help them. Then I made a decision in my mind that I would help those freedom fighters who returned to the country after taking training. Then two months passed. In the middle of June, a young man came to me named Siddique and told me that he heard my name from his friends that I would help him. He informed me that he took training from ‘Hit & Run’ institute. After hearing him I understood that it’s my time to help them and work with them. I made a group with him taking another 2 persons named Syed Wahidul Alam and Siraj in Nandan Kanan area. We made our camp on a half burnt house in Hathajari area. I said it a half burnt house because before that Pakistani Army set fire on all houses in Hathajari area. Using that house we stared giving help to those people who were working in favor of freedom fighters. Suddenly we were disconnected from Siddique. He stopped coming to our camp.  

On 5th July we were waiting for Siddique from afternoon suddenly at evening we heard ‘Hands Up’ but prior to this we heard the sound of coming a Jeep. Looking on window we saw that Pakistani soldiers were pointing their gun (Chinese Rifle) on us and they wore their uniform. Along with them there were three or four smart boys wearing civilian dresses. At gunpoint they fastened our hand tightly around our backs and pulled us onto the Jeep. We saw that there was another Jeep and there were lots of Pakistani soliders on it. We reached Goods Hill after about 5/6 minutes though the distance from Hathajari to Good Hills was one or one and half kilometers.  

After reaching Goods Hill the smart boys who were with that operation stepped up from the Jeep and shouted with joy saying, ‘mission successful’. I saw there was another 15/20 people like us waiting in the garden. We three were taken into the house. There I saw 10/15 familiar leaders. I saw there Mr. Fazlul Kader Chowdhury who wore Kurta and Pajama and a Zinnah cap. When we three were taken to him and, suddenly he got very excited and said that, ‘you are freedom fighter’? Then he held me very tightly and punched me on my face and told that, ‘You said Joybangla and the Hindus wave their tale of Dhuti. (Dhuti is a kind of clothing and waving its tale is the sign of expressing joy)’. Then he ordered his people to beat us. I personally respected him very much but after this incident his image changed to me. Then we were separated. I was taken to a small room and torture was started on me. They hit me by a rubber coated cane and asked me different questions. And this continued for two or three hours. Then I was brought into a drawing room beside this small room for a while. In that room a young boy aged 18 or 19 years old and a teenager girl came and teased me. It seemed to me that I was brought to them as an exhibition. I was again brought to that small room and people in civil dress started torturing me again. I was tortured from 7.30 to till midnight.  

From the conversation of those who tortured me, I came to know that amongst those who brought me to Goods Hill was the son of Mr. Fazlul Kader Chowdhury. Afterwards I came to know that he was Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. (Afterwards, I wrote this in different newspapers and other people also wrote this.) After that I was taken to a garage. I saw my two friends in a very injured condition. My hands were fastened so tightly that I couldn’t sit normally. I saw that my whole body was injured severely because of torture. Then each and every moment I spent there seemed to me like a year.

In the next morning, though no Bengali from Goods hill brought breakfast for me a Punjabi soldier did which was one porata (kind of bread) and tea. It was like heavenly breakfast for me. They untied my hand but I was unable to hold the bread and eat so I was kept hungry for all the day long. In next evening I was again taken to that small room and they tortured and interrogated me again and again. Then they brought me and my other two friends to the Army Camp of Stadium by a Jeep. There also I was tortured. One of us Sayed Wahidul Alam was set free by them for reason unknown. In the evening of 13th, I and Siraj were brought to the Cantonment. The chief of that cantonment was Major Gajanfar. He also interrogated me and tortured me. Around 11/12 pm we were taken in the Jail by a truck. I stayed there till 18 November. In Jail I was in a condemned cell. At last in 16 December our country got independence. Today Mr. S. Q. Chawdhury is present and I gave my evidence to the I.O. earlier.

Cross Examination by the defence lawyer Ahsanul Haque started

Defence: Did you file any suit for the torture which was done at 1971?

Witness: No, I didn’t.

Defence: The writer of the book named ‘Bangali Jatiyotabadi shongram, muktijuddhe chottogram’ do you know him?

Witness: Yes, I know him.

Defence: Did you read that book?

Witness: No, I didn’t.

Defence: In that book there were some thing else said.

Witness: It’s not true.

Defence: Who was the head of the institution Hit & Run?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Is Mr. Siddique alive?

Witness: I do not know.

Defence: Another name for Sayed Wahhidur Rahman was, ‘Julu pagla’ is that true?

Witness: Yes it is.

Defence: There was a MP named Sayed Wahidur Rahman in Chittagong, is that true?

Witness: Yes, it is.

Defence: Do you know advocate Mridul Guha?

Witness: Not by name.

Defence: Do you know the place Ajijnogor?

Witness: I heard the name.

Defence: Dr. Sadeq, Dr. Nowshad, Shopon, Rahim, Mridul Guha you all were caught with arms in 71, is that true?

Witness: No, It’s not true.

Defence: Ajijuddin Ltd was under non-Bengali control?

Witness: Might be.

Defence: Were you caught with arms?

Witness: When I was caught from our camp, after searching two grenades and one Revolver was found by them.

22 Oct 2012: Sayedee seeks time to call witnesses

After dealing with a number of other applications, the tribunal then came to the application seeking recall of the order of 18 October 2012. 

This application was one of the five applications made on 22 October 2012

1. That on 18th October 2012 this Hon’ble Tribunal directed the Defence to produce all the remaining defence witnesses (DWs) for giving evidence before the Tribunal on 21st October 2012, Sunday. In default, it was ordered that, the defence would be barred to call any further Defence witnesses.

2. That the DW 13 is being cross examined and will continue for today. The Defence tried its level best to produce as many DWs as possible, as a result of which DW 16 – Abdul Halim Fakir is present today before the Tribunal. That as a result of threats and harassments from different quarters it becomes impossible to bring the previously listed DWs in the instant case. The Accused Petitioner is filing the instant petition for recall of the said order with prayer to allow an adjournment for at least One Week so that he can produce the remaining Defence Witnesses (DWs) before the Tribunal.

3. That it is stated that the prosecution case started on 7th December 2011 and ended on 13th August 2012. Thereafter the defence case started on 2nd September 2012 and following is brief summary of the proceeding of the Defence case so far:

i. On 2nd September 2012 Mr. Shamsul Alam Talukder testified as DW-1. The next date was fixed on 4th September 2012.
ii. On 4th September 2012 DW-2 was present. But the Tribunal could not hear this case as it was busy in hearing other cases on that day.
iii. On the next date i.e. on 5th September 2012 Mr. Abdur Razzak Akond testified as DW-2 and his cross examination continued to the next day.
iv. On 6th September 2012 cross examination of DW-2 continued and concluded. Then the Tribunal fixed 9th September 2012 for examination of the next DW.
v. On 9th September 2012 DW-3 Nurul Haq Hawlader was sick and as such the tribunal allowed an adjournment for one day and fixed the next day to record his evidence.
vi. On 10th September 2012 DW-3 was examined and the prosecution could not complete his cross examination on that day.
vii. On the next day i.e. on 11th September 2012 DW-3 was sick and as such the matter was adjourned for that day and the Tribunal continued hearing the other cases fixed on that day.
viii. On 12th September 2012 Mr. Abul Hossen testified as DW-4 as the DW – 3 was sick until then.
ix. On 13th September 2012, DW-5 was ready, but the Tribunal could not record his evidence as it was busy to record a prosecution witness in another case throughout the day.
x. On the next day i.e. on 16th September 2012 Mr. Khosrul Alom testified as DW-5 and his cross examination was not completed on that day.
xi. On the next day i.e. on 17th September 2012, DW-5 was ready, but the Tribunal could not record his evidence as it was busy to record a prosecution witnesses in other cases throughout the day.
xii. On 18th September 2012 the remaining cross examination of DW – 5 was completed.
xiii. On 19th September 2012 DW-3’s remaining part of cross examination was recorded and then the Tribunal recorded prosecution witness in another case throughout the day.
xiv. On the next day i.e. on 20th September 2012 the case was adjourned as there was no DW.
xv. On the next working day i.e. on 23rd September 2012 the defence counsels and DWs could not attend the Tribunal due to Hartal and the matter was adjourned for the next day.
xvi. On 24th September 2012 Mr. Rowshan Ali testified as DW-6 and the Tribunal was busy with hearing of the other cases throughout the day.
xvii. On the next date of the case i.e. on 26th September 2012 the defence filed an application for adjournment for one week as the DW could not attend the Tribunal due to threat and harassments from the law enforcing agencies and members of Jubo League and Chatro League. The Accused Petitioner prayed for direction upon the law enforcing agencies to not to harass, arrest, threat, intimidate or visit any of the defenece witnesses before or after their testimony before this Hon’ble Tribunal in the instant case. Adjournment for one day was allowed and the next date was fixed to be 30th September 2012.
xviii. On 30th September 2012, DW-7, Mr. Jamal Hossen Fakir was ready, but the Tribunal could not record his evidence as it was busy to record a prosecution witnesses in other cases throughout the day.
xix. On the next day i.e. on 1st October 2012 DW-7 was ready, but the Tribunal could not record his evidence as it was busy to record a prosecution witnesses in other cases throughout the day.
xx. On the next day i.e. on 2nd October 2012 DW-7, Mr. Jamal Hossen Fakir was examined and the prosecution continued his cross examination until next day.
xxi. On 3rd October 2012 DW7, Mr. Jamal Hossen Fakir’s cross examination was continued by the prosecution.
xxii. On 4th October 2012 DW8, Mr. Kubad Ali was examined and cross examined.
xxiii. On the next working day i.e. on 7th October 2012, Mr. Hemayet Uddin testified as DW -9 and the Tribunal was busy throughout the day in recording evidence of a prosecution witness in another case.
xxiv. On 8th October 2012 the Tribunal was busy hearing all applications including the above two applications in the instant case and recording evidence of a prosecution witness in another case.
xxv. On 9th October 2012 Mr. Anwar Hossain testified as DW-10 and Mr. Golam Mostofa testified as DW-11.
xxvi. On 10th October 2012 Mr. Hafizul Haq testified as DW-12. On that day the proceeding of the case adjourned for one day at the application of the Accused to call the Safe House witness and the Witness for exhibiting the defence documents.
xxvii. On 14th October 2012 Mr. Masood Sayedee testified as DW-13 throughout the day.
xxviii. On 15th October 2012 Mr. Masood Sayedee testified as DW-13 throughout the day.
xxix. On 16th October 2012 Mr. Masood Sayedee testified as DW-13 throughout the day.
xxx. On 17th October 2012 Mr. Emran Hossen testified as DW 14 and Mr. Abdus Salam Hawlader testified as DW – 15 and his cross examination did not start. Mr. Masood Sayedee was also cross examined as DW 13 on that day.
xxxi. On 16th October 2012 cross examination of Mr. Masood Sayedee continued as DW-13 throughout the day.

4. It is therefore clear that on the last one and half months of the defence case it was adjourned only for 4 days i.e. on 9th, 11th, 20th and 26th September for lack of DW. In other days the DWs were present in the tribunal when either DWs were recorded or the recording of DWs were postponed as the Tribunal was busy with other cases.

5. That on the other hand the prosecution case continued for more than nine months. The prosecution case started on 7th December 2011 and concluded on 13th August 2012. During these nine months and seven days time the prosecution examined 28 prosecution witnesses (PWs). It is stated that despite assistances of all government machineries the prosecution obtained numerous adjournments for not being able to produce a PW. Following is a brief summary of the adjournments that the prosecution obtained for failure to produce a PW:

i. On 4th January 2012 Learned Prosecutor Haider Ali informed the Tribunal that he had two PWs in hand. One was Mokhles Poshari and another was Abdul Latif Hawlader. Mokhles Poshari became sick and could not come on that day and Abdul Latif Hawlader was present in the Tribunal but was also feeling uneasy and sick. As a result the case was adjourned and the next date was fixed to be 8th January 2012 for recording further PWs.
ii. On 12th January 2012 the prosecution obtained an adjournment as the PW Shahidul Islam Selim was Sick and could not attend the Tribunal.
iii. On 17th January 2012 PW 14 Abdul Halim Babul testified and the Tribunal had to close the proceeding at 12.10 pm as the prosecution had no further witness.
iv. On 18th January 2012 the prosecution could not bring any PW and the Tribunal allowed an adjourn for one week so that the prosecution could bring PWs and fixed 24th January 2012 for recording PWs.
v. On 29th January 2012 the prosecution examined seizure list witnesses and the proceeding of the case adjourned in the first half as the prosecution had no further witness.
vi. On 30th January 2012 the Prosecution examined seizure list witnesses and the proceeding of the case adjourned the before first half at 12.20 pm as the prosecution had no further witness.
vii. On 31st January 2012 PW 23 – Mr. Modhu Sudon Ghorami became sick at 11.05 am and the Tribunal proceeding concluded as the prosecution did not have other PWs.
viii. On 1st Feb 2012 PW 23 – Mr. Modhu Sudon Ghorami completed his testimony in the first half and the Tribunal proceeding concluded as the prosecution had no further witness.
ix. On 2nd February 2012 the prosecution could not bring any PW and the Tribunal allowed adjournment and fixed 7th February 2012 for recording of PWs.
x. On 7th February 2012 the PW 24 – Hosen Ali testified and the proceeding of the Tribunal concluded at 11.15 am as the prosecution had no further PW for that day. The Tribunal allowed an adjournment for one week and fixed 13th February 2012 so that the Prosecution can bring PWs.
xi. On 13th February 2012 the prosecution comes up with PW 25 – Mr. Mobarak Hossen and recording of his evidence completed before the lunch break. There was no further PW in Prosecution’s hand and the tribunal adjourned for that day after allowing three days to the prosecution to bring PW 26. The next date was fixed to be 16th February 2012.
xii. On 16th February 2012 the Hon’ble Tribunal recorded evidence of PW 26 – Mr. Abed Khan and allowed an adjournment and fixed 20th February 2012 for recording of further PWs.
xiii. On 22nd February 2012 the prosecution failed to bring any PW and as a result the proceeding of the case adjourned for the next day.
xiv. On the next day i.e. on 23rd February 2012 the Prosecution again failed to produce any PW and prayed for adjournment for brining Prosecution witnesses. The tribunal allowed one week adjournment and fixed 4th March 2012 for recording other PWs.
xv. On 4th March 2012 the cross examination of PW 26 completed and the Tribunal allowed an adjournment for two days and fixed 7th March 2012 for further PWs.
xvi. On 7th March 2012 the prosecution failed to produce any PW. The Tribunal allowed an adjournment for 11 days and fixed 18th March 2012 so that the Prosecution can bring PWs.
xvii. On 18th March 2012 the case was again adjourned without recording any evidence of prosecution witness.
xviii. The next prosecution witness was PW 28 i.e. the Investigation Officer, whose examination in chief started on 8th April 2012.

6. It is therefore clear that the Hon’ble Tribunal has allowed numerous adjournments to the Prosecution giving them ample opportunity to produce as many PWs as they can. As a result the prosecution case continued for more than nine months. It is submitted that in the interest of justice similar opportunity should be allowed to the Defence to produce the remaining DWs. Otherwise the Accused Petitioner will be deprived of his right to equal opportunity.

7. It is submitted that in the trials of cases before ICC, ICTR, ICTY and other international criminal courts it is a practice that the defence have been given equal time and opportunity as enjoyed by the prosecution to present the defence case.

8. It is stated the defence witnesses are from Pirojpur and Jeshore. The local police of Pirojpur and Jessore, the government agencies, members of Chatra League and Jubo League have been threatening the defence witnesses by telling them that if they give evidence for the Accused-Petitioner then they would be harassed by false criminal cases filed against them. Some of the defence witnesses were also threatened to suffer physical violence as a consequences of giving evidence for the Accused. The defence witnesses are hiding for their security and safety. As a result many of the DWs are untraceable. This was reported in national daily news papers. Copies of these newspapers were produced before the tribunal as ANNEXURE – 1, 2, 3 and 4 in an application for adjournment filed by the Accused Petitioner on 26th September 2012.

9. That on 16th October 2012 the Accused Petitioner submitted a list of the remaining 7 DWs before the Tribunal and to the Prosecution. Thereafter police and law enforcing agencies visited their houses and work places. DW 14 Mr. Emran Hossen is a teacher of Bagharpara Pilot Girls High School in Jeshore. On 16th October 2012 they called the School of DW 14 and enquired about him. DW 14 was in Dhaka for giving evidence in this case. At that time and the Headmaster of the School called to his mobile phone and asked him to return back to Jeshore without giving evidence before the Tribunal. It is submitted that as a result of these harassments the remaining DWs have been panicked and became traceless. It is submitted that the defence would require at least one week adjournment so that the remaining DWs can be produced before the Tribunal.

10. It may be noted that the defence had 48 defence witnesses. But the Hon’ble Tribunal limited the Accused Petitioner to only 20 Defence Witnesses. It is submitted that the Accused Petitioner should be allowed reasonable opportunity and time to produce all theses 20 DWs. Otherwise the Accused Petitioner will not be able to controvert the false allegations brought by the Prosecution. As a result the Accused Petitioner will be deprived from proving his defence.

11. That it is submitted that the order dated 18th October 2012 debarring the defence to call any further DWs was passed without any fault of the Defence. On 18th October 2012 DW 13 was cross examined throughout the day. Even if other DWs were present on that day they could not be examined. So there was no valid reason for the Tribunal to pass the order. As such the said order should be recalled for ends of justice.

12. In the above circumstances the Accused Petitioner should be allowed at least one week time so that the defence can produce the remaining 4 DWs before this Tribunal. Otherwise it will be impossible for the defence to bring any further witnesses and the Accused-Petitioner will be highly prejudiced.

Mizanul Islam the defense lawyer added following oral arguments: Our DW-1 was present at this Tribunal where he has been harassed, He is a freedom fighters. He has not got any protection. When we have given any names of the witnesses that person has been taken to the Police Station by the Police and threatened not to give evidence. Officers of secret services, local Chatro Leagues and Jubo Leagues visit their houses in Pirojpur and Jeshore and harassed. Some of them were picked to the police station and threatened to not to give evidence for the Accused. The police are asking the property documents from the DWs. We have informed this to the Tribunal on several occasions. But the Tribunal did not take any step. Now the DWs are hiding and became traceless. It has become difficult for us to bring them. We have tried to produce our witnesses in this kind of environment. Police has visited every witness’s home except the home of DW-13 Masood Syedee who is the son of the petitioner. We have produced 16 witnesses so far. We had intention to produce some more witnesses. We were unable to produce all of the remaining witnesses today. So we need more time from your Lordship.

Syed Haidar Ali: The list of the witnesses has been produced a long time ago. They have already got a long period oftime. The first five DWs did not complain about any harassment. But suddenly other defense witnesses started complaining. The police may visit a defense witness for different reason and not necessarily due to their being a defense witness. The defense have had sufficient time. So I pray before your Lordship to reject the petition as the order in this regard has been passed previously.You may have observed that all the DWs are interested witnesses.

Mizanul Islam: It is not relevant whether a witness has an interest or not. All defense witnesses have complained about harassment . But we were helpless. When the police is harassing there is no reasonable ground to expect protection from police. We are seeking for 1 week adjournment.

Syed Haidar Ali: We are not part of the Police. The investigation agency is separate from the police.

Chairman: We will pass a short order.

The order passed on 18-10-2012 stands. The date is fixed on 5th November, 2012 for argument. For the end of justice we allow defence to produce witness within tomorrow if they have any.

Chairman: I hereby read out section- 10(1) for both the parties.

10. (1) The following procedure shall be followed at a trial before a Tribunal, namely:-
(a) the charge shall be read out;
(b) the Tribunal shall ask each accused person whether he pleads guilty or not-guilty;
(c) if the accused person pleads guilty, the Tribunal shall record the plea, and may, in its discretion, convict him thereon;
(d) the prosecution shall make an opening statement;
(e) the witnesses for the prosecution shall be examined, the defense may cross-examine such witnesses and the prosecution may reexamine them;
(f) the witnesses for the defence, if any, shall be examined, the prosecution may cross-examine such witnesses and the defense may re-examine them;
(g) the Tribunal may, in its discretion, permit the party which calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party;
(h) the Tribunal may, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts, ask any witness any question it pleases, in any form and at any time about any fact; and may order production of any document or thing or summon any witness, and neither the prosecution nor the defence shall be entitled either to make any objection to any such question or order or, without the leave of the Tribunal, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question;
(i) the prosecution shall first sum up its case, and thereafter the defence shall sum up its case: Provided that if any witness is examined by the defence, the prosecution shall have the right to sum up its case after the defence has done so;
(j) the Tribunal shall deliver its judgement and pronounce its verdict.

Prosecution would you like to start the argument first?

Prosecution: Yes.

Chairman: Okay, the parties may submit written argument in support of oral argument but that must not exceed 10 pages.

Jsutice Jahangir Hossen said that the written argument should be in summary. It cannot be detailed.

The chairman said that we will limit time of argument also. But that will be determined at the time of commencement of the argument on 5th November 2012. We will not allow parties to make a long argument.

Mizanul Islam said you should extend the time for argument. The next week is Eid vacation. You are again requiring us to work on Eid Vacation for defence case. Everyone knows that 24th to 28th October is closed for Durga puja for Hindus and Eid of Muslims. How can you expect us to work on this vacation.

Chairman said that we will not extend the time.

Islam salsa said that you should consider allowing the accused to give explanation before the argument. It is his legal right.

Chairman said that we will think over this matter.

22 Oct 2012: Sayedee defense applications, order

After the cross examination of the witness against Nizami, the tribunal then started to deal with the case of Delwar Hossain Sayedee

Chairman perused the submitted petitions by the defence and started dealing with each one in turn. He said that he did not need to hear the parties

Application seeking recording of the reply of defense witness no 13, Masood Syedee. 
The written application was as follows:

1. That on 18th October 2012, at the time of cross-examination of Defense Witness No 13, Mr. Masood Sayedee, the learned Prosecutor asked the following question to him and he has given his reply to the question as follows:

Question: Have the senior lawyers come in your case or not?
Answer: they have come. Because they have been harassed in various ways, we did not get them as our lawyers for a long time. The recent raid by the DB police on our lawyer Advocate Tajul Islam is a clear example of that 

2. That this Hon’ble Tribunal did not record the reply given by the DW-13.

3. That it is submitted that the above question and its reply is very much important and relevant for proper adjudication of the matter and to ensure fair trial. Otherwise the Accused/Petitioner will be highly prejudiced.

The chairman ruled that the part of the answer should be kept on record except where he said ‘The recent raid by the DB police on our lawyer Advocate Tajul Islam is a clear example of that.'

Application to recall DW 13, Masood Sayedee under Rule 46A of the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 2010 to submit signed copy of Exhibit – AM.

Tribunal ruled that no recall was necessary and that the signed copy of Exhibit AM will be replaced in the file

 

Applications seeking Ganesh Chandra Shaha and Mr. Shukharanjan Bali to be summoned by tribunal as a defense witness

In relation to Ganesh, the defense written application is set out below:

1. In this application, the Accused-Petitioner prays to call as defence witnesses Mr. Gonesh Chondro Shaha who is not called by the prosecution.

2. That it is stated that at the time of commencement of trial the prosecution submitted a list of 68 prosecution witnesses. But during the trial the prosecution called just 20 PWs from the list as witnesses of fact. The prosecution called 8 other witnesses who are seizure list witnesses and the Investigation Officer.

3. That it is stated that the prosecution did not call 48 of its list of 68 PWs during its case.

4. On 20th March 2012 the prosecution filed an application under section 19(2) of the 1973 Act for the admission of the statements of the 46 witnesses alleged to have been recorded by the Investigation Officer. The prosecution claimed each of these witnesses was unavailable and that it was not possible to bring them before the Tribunal. On 29th March 2012 the application was allowed in respect of 15 witnesses, the Tribunal being satisfied that their attendance could not be secured without unreasonable delay and/or expense. The 15 witnesses included Gonesh Chondro Shaha.

5. That it is averred, contrary to prosecution suggestion, that the prosecution witnesses were in fact available and that the prosecution deliberately chose not to call them before the tribunal given their refusal to testify against the accused. Gonesh Chondro Shaha of the prosecution’s list of 68 witnesses is ready and willing to give evidence before the Tribunal. Since the prosecution did not to call him, the defence applies to call him on behalf of the accused.

6. That it is stated that Gonesh Chondro Shaha has direct knowledge of the alleged incidents of the case. He is son of Bhagirothi who was allegedly killed at the instruction of the accused as per charge 18 of the instant case. As such it is necessary to issue summon upon Gonesh Chondro Shaha so that he can give evidence as Defence Witess.

7. That it is submitted that Gonesh Chondro Shaha is a material witnesses in the instant case. His testimony will assist the Hon’ble Tribunal to come to adjudicate on Charges 18. As such this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly issue summon upon Gonesh Chondro Shaha so that he can give evidence as defence witness. Otherwise the Accused Petitioner will be highly prejudiced to produce him as Defence witness. Now, it is the responsibility of the defence to produce anyone as their witness. So we will not issue any Summons thereby.

A similar application was made in relation to Bali, but with the following paras 6 and 7

6. That it is stated that Shukharanjan Bali has direct knowledge of the alleged incidents of the case. He is the brother of the late Bishabali who was allegedly killed at the instruction of the accused as per charge 10 of the instant case. As such it is necessary to issue summon upon Shukharanjan Bali so that he can give evidence as Defence Witess.

7. That it is submitted that Shukharanjan Bali is a material witnesses in the instant case. His testimony will assist the Hon’ble Tribunal to come to adjudicate on Charges 10. As such this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly issue summon upon Shukharanjan Bali so that he can give evidence as defence witness. Otherwise the Accused Petitioner will be highly prejudiced.

The chairman ruled that it is the responsibility of the defence to produce anyone as their witness, so the court will not issue any Summons.

Application for privileged communication with the defence counsel.
The written application stated as follows:

1. That the Accused Petitioner is filing this application for privileged communication with the defence counsels.

2. That it is stated that the Accused Petitioner may be examined in this case very soon and after examination of the Accused the argument of this case will commence.

3. That it is submitted that the defence counsel may kindly be allowed to have privileged communication for at least 2 days with the defence counsels for ends of justice.

4. That it is submitted that no one will be prejudiced if the Accused Petitioner is allowed to have privileged communication with the defence counsels. But if this application is rejected the Accused Petitioner will be highly prejudi

 Mizanul Islam said he needed to submit on this point. He said that the accused needs to consult with his counsel before his gives explanation. You should recall that he was absent from the trial for long time after his son’s death. We need his instruction before legal argument.

The chairman responded by saying that there is no further scope for the accused to explain the charges. The next step is argument. You do not need instruction for legal argument.

Islam said that at the time of commencement of the defence case we wanted that the Accused should be allowed to make statement. At that time you told us that you would allow the accused to explain the charge after examination of the defense witnesses

The chairman said that this is possible under section 342 of Cr.P.C. but that there is no such provision under the 1973 Act. So there is no scope for the accused to make any statement.

He then rejected the application for Privileged communication.

An application under Section Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure 2009 for production of documents.
Mizanul Islam said that the prosecution has challenged existences of certain documents. Under Rule 40 you have power to call for the records of these documents from relevant authorities.

The chairman said that the tribunal would not call for any record.

Application to allow Mr. Md. Habibur Rahman Khan to give evidence as defence witness (DW).
The application was allowed.

An application to allow the defense witness Mr. Masood Sayedee to exhibit Safe House Documents
The chairman said that the application would be kept on record.

Application seeking recall of the order of 18-10-2012.
This is set out here

22 Oct 2012: Nizami 1st witness cross exam day 6

Following the show cause order against Tajul Islam, the cross Examination of Misbahur Rahman Chowdhury then continued, (following on from this hearing)

Mizanul Islam: How many training camps of Al Badar were there during the liberation war?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: When and in which district the Al-Badar camp has first been formed?

Witness: I don’t know.

Defence: Was there any Pakistan Officer who was in duty to train the members of Al Badar?

Witness: I don’t know it specifically but Pakistan Armies have trained them.

Defence: Have you collected any certificates of any trainees of Al-Badar who has got the training?

Witness: No.

Defence: How many Al-Badars have been interviewed by you during your research?

Witness: More than one.

Defence: How many rape victims have been interviewed during your research?

Witness: No one.

Defence: How many direct witnesses of Genocide have been interviewed during your research?

Witness: None but several researchers on this topic have been interviewed.

Defence: How many mass graves have been visited by you?

Witness: 3 or 4. I don’t know when I have first gone to visit. After coming back from London in 1976 I have first gone to Rayerbazar killing ground.

Defence: What is the distance of Rayerbazar killing ground from your house at Mitali Road?

Witness: The distance is less than 1 KM. I have stayed at that house of Mitali road since 15 or 16 days before 16th December, 1971 till 15 or 16 days afterwards.

Defence: How has the incident of Rayerbazar mass grave has been came to your attention?

Witness: I used to read newspapers at that time. I have got to know about that on that time.

Defence: Have you investigated anything about Rayerbazar before your departure towards London?

Witness: No. But from the newspapers I have came to know that the Al Badars have committed this occurrence.

Defence: Have you given any list of Al-Badars to the investigation officer about who were involved with the Rayerbazar incident?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did your father make any obstacle in your taking part in liberation war?

Witness: After getting the letter of Sirajul Islam Motlib on August, 1971 when I was thinking about taking part on liberation war, then at that time my father has sent me to London.

Defence: Did you get any copy of the decision of Islamia Chatro Sangha where it has been stated that- everyone of the Islamic Chatro Sangha is asked to join the Al Badar?

Witness: No, I got to know about that from the letter.

Defence: Have you got any letter before or after 1971 which has been written by Motiur Rahman Nizami where there was a direction to join the Al-Badar?

Witness: No.

Defence: Who has joined the Islamic Chatro Sangha?

Witness: I have watched 80 or 85 member leaders of Islamic Chatro Sangha at the meeting of Islamic Chatro Sangha in 1970 all of whom have joined Al Badar afterwards. I don’t know nothing about the other members.

Defence: Have you tried to visit the other members except those 80 or 85 leaders for the purpose of your research?

Witness: Yes. I found two or one of them.

Defence: at the meeting of Islamic Chatro Sangha in 1970 at Sylhet how many members have taken part from Moulovibazar?

Witness: 10 to 15 people.

[Then the defence counsel has started asking contradiction with the statements of the witness from the examination in chief and the stenographer has started copying and pasting the quoted lines from the previous record.]

Defence: To become a political hero you have made the letter.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Moulovibazar has never been selected as the organizational district of Islamic Chatro Sangha.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You are a political beneficiary and giving false statement against the petitioner.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: You used to change your political motive and belief for the sake of getting benefits.

Witness: Not true.

Defence: Okay that is all about my cross examination.

Chairman: Okay. Next day for this case is 11-11-2012.

22 Oct 2012: Defence lawyer 'showcause'

The defense counsel Abdur Razzaque, first mentioned that they had 6 applications relating to the trial of Delwar Hossain Sayedee.

These were: 

1. Application to allow Mr. Md. Habibur Rahman Khan to give evidence as defence witness (DW).
2. Application to issue summon on Gonesh Chondro Shaha so that he can testify as defence witness.
3. An application to allow privileged communication between Defence counsels and Accused-Petitioner before commencement of argument.
4. An application to recall DW 13, Masood Sayedee under Rule 46A of the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 2010 to submit signed copy of Exhibit – AM.
5. Two applications to record the Reply given by DW-13 willingly in an answer to the Prosecution question.
The chairman said that they should raise them when the case is called later that day.

The court then called the witness relating to the trial of Nizami.

Munshi Ahsan Kabir, the Defence Counsel then stated: My Lord, I would like to draw your kind attention to yesterday’s unwanted incident which occurred in this court room during the second session. There was an unwanted event between the witness and the defence counsel Tajul Islam, where the witness has mentioned that the counsel was a political cadre. It is unexpected. We want to see him apologize before the Tribunal for yesterday’s incident.

Chairman: Sorry is a word which we have almost forgotten these days. Defence is instructed to start their cross examination and to complete it within half an hour. And it is our clear direction that- no one is allowed to talk during the cross examination except the conducting counsel and the witness.

Mizanul Islam: My Lord, I wish the Court will pass an order for yesterday’s unwanted incident. What is the remedy for the misbehavior by the witness against the learned counsel? This is the second incident where the counsel Tajul Islam has been addressed as the political cadre. I think it was intentional.

Chairman: You are losing your time. You have got only half an hour in your hand.

Mizanul Islam: I expect your Lordship will give a proper decision in this regard. There is no authority in the hands of any witness to insult a counsel, in the same way that a counsel has not got any scope to humiliate any witness.

Chairman: You have already said the witness has no authority, so when there is no authority we’d not have any intention to pass any comment in this regard. And you are losing your time. We will stop exactly at 11:10 A.M.

Mizanul Islam: Your Lordship may stop taking the record at any time you wish. But I’d like to mention there was a similiar sort of unwanted incident in the other tribunal where action has been taken. I can’t agree that you have no authority to make comment or taking actions.

Justice Jahangir Hossain: The Chairman has made his comments, but you’re still debating. Please proceed on because you do not have enough times in your hands. After that you may talk about it.

Mizanul Islam: If the Tribunal remains silent about the matter then in coming days another witness will be interested to do similiar activities.

Chairman: Do you think so?

Tajul Islam: I’m the officer of this Court and as well the conducting lawyer. I have applied for my protection, but the Tribunal has not agreed to secure any proper remedy. As my protection has not been secured so I’m leaving the room.

Chairman: Mr. Tajul; stop. And don’t leave the room.

Tajul Islam: No I will not stay here during the cross examination of this particular witness who has misbehaved with me yesterday.

Chairman: As you are the conducting lawyer you are not allowed to leave the room during the proceeding. Let me read Rule 45(B).

Tajul Islam: I know the contents of Rule- 45(B).

Tajul Islam: You are not giving me any protection, so I will not stay here whatever is said in the aforesaid rule.

Tajul leaves the room

The Tribunal became very silent at this point and the Chairman has passed the following order.

It appears that Mr. Tajul Islam when appears before this Tribunal seems always angry. Yesterday we have seen that Tajul Islam has stood up every 3 or 4 minutes. The witness at certain point of time could not control himself and made some comments. Then there arose a chaos in the Court room. We found Tajul Islam liable for everything that happened. And today when Mizanul Islam started speaking we have directed everyone to keep silent except the conducting counsel to talk; then Tajul Islam stood up and prayed for action against the witness. He told that- if the action is not taken he will leave the room. We have warned him that- if he is supposed to leave the room it will fall under misconduct under Rule- 45(B) of the ICT Rules of Procedures. Afterwards he has left the room in a very rough way.

Now at this circumstance he is directed to show cause why it is not to be counted as misconduct. And he is asked to give a reply within 15 days. Then we will decide what to do.

Once after a similar sort of misconduct, a show cause notice had been issued but this was not proceeded on after the request of Mizanul Islam.

We will add some other points in this order afterwards.

Mizanul Islam: It is very unfortunate.

Chairman: It is really unfortunate for everyone except the person who is responsible for this.

Okay start the cross examination.

21 Oct 2012: Nizami 1st witness cross exam day 6

After dealing with Sayedee, the tribunal then moved onto Nizami’s case.

The tribunal then moved onto the case of Nizami, and the continuation of the cross-examination of Mesbahur Rahman Chowdhury, the first witness against the accused. (This continued from here)

Mizanul Islam: Did you see any FIR filed for the killing of Intellectuals in1971?

Mesbahur Rahman : No, I didn’t.

Mizanul Islam: Did you know who filed those FIRs?

Mesbahur Rahman: No, I didn’t.

Mizanul Islam: Did you give your evidence to the Investigation Officer in every cases filed in ICT or only in this case?

Mesbahur Rahman : Only in this case.

Mizanucel Islam: Do you know any brothers, sisters and nieces of Golam Azam?

Mesbahur Rahman: I know one or two brothers of Golam Azam but not his sisters or nieces.

Mizanul Islam: When did you first meet Golam Azam?

Mesbahur Rahman: In 1970 we first meet each other.

Mizanul Islam: After that next when did you meet?

Mesbahur Rahman: In March of 1974.

Mizanul Islam: In Saudi Arabia, when did you meet?

Mesbahur Rahman: In 1974 we met in Saudi Arabia.

Mizanul Islam: Except these above mentioned meeting did you meet him anywhere else?

Mesbahur Rahman: In London we met but didn’t talk that time.

Mizanul Islam: Except these times, did you meet him anywhere?

Mesbahur Rahman: No.

Mizanul Islam: You were selected as a member of the ‘Board of Governors’ of Bangladesh Islamic Foundation in 2008.

Mesbahur Rahman: Yes, it’s true.

Mizanul Islam: In 2008, the election commission made a list of those political parties who were rejected after asking Registration for election, did you know that?

Mesbahur Rahman: Yes, I know.

Mizanul Islam: Was the name of ‘Freedom Party’ (a political party of Bangladesh), in number 1 of that list of those parties rejected for registration?

Mesbahu Rahman: It was not in the rejected list of registrations, it was in the list of parites whose registration was cancelled.

Mizabul Islam: Did you see the list with the names that were rejected?

Mesbahur Rahma: No I didn’t see that list.

Mizanul Islam: Do you know the name of those political parties whose application for registration for election was rejected?

Mesbahur Rahman: I don’t know all the names of those parties.

Mizanul Islam: You said in your examination-in-chief that, ‘when I got the invitation for joining in Badar force I didn’t communicate with Jamat-e-Islami and Islami Chatra Sangstha, I only communicated with my father and went to London’. Is that true?

Mesbahur Rahman: Yes. It is.

Mizaul Islam: When did you get married to Munni Begum?

Mesbahur Rahman: In 1978.

Mizanul Islam: When did you get ‘Khola’ divorce with her?

Mesbahur Rahman: In that same year.

Mizanul Islam: When did your present wife pass SSC examination?

Mesbahur Rahman: I can’t remember right at this moment. But when we got married in 1981, she was a student of Bachelor of Commerce.

Mizanul Islam: Do you know anyone living in Canada named Khaled Chowdhury son of Fazlul Wadud Chowdhury and Lutfunessa Chowdhury?

Mesbahur Rahman: No, I didn’t know anyone like this but my sons name is Khaled Chowdhury and my sister and brother-in-law’s names are Fazlul Wadud Chowdhury and Lutfunessa Chowdhury.

Mizanul Islam: Do you know Abdus Sobhan was arrested in a case of this Tribunal some days ago?

Mesbahur Rahman: Yes, I know.

Mizanul Islam: Do you know him (Abdus Sobhan)?

Mesbahur Rahman: I don’t know him personally but I heard his name.

Mizanul Islam: When did you hear his name?

Mesbahur Rahman: Many days ago.

Mizanul Islam: Do you know whether he was a member of ‘ Nizam-e-Islmai’?

Mesbahur Rahman: No. I don’t know.

Mizanul Islam: What is his political identity?

Mesbahur Rahman: As far I know he did Jamaat-e-Islami.

Mizanul Islam: Did he join any other political party?

Mesbahur Rahman: I don’t know.

Mizanul Islam: What is the present condition of your General Diary which you filed to collect the letter written by Nurul Islam to Mr. Motlib?

Mesbahur Rahman: It is now under investigation.

Mizanul Islam: What is the name of the investigation officer of that case?

Mesbahur Rahman: I couldn’t remember at this moment.

Mizanul Islam: Mr. Malek did which party?

Mesbahur Rahman: I don’t know.

Mizanul Islam: Who was his chief secretary?

Mesbahur Rahman: I don’t know.

Mizanul Islam: In 1971 who was elected as MP (Member of Parliament) in Dhanmondi area of Dhaka?

Mesbahur Rahman: I can’t remember at this moment.

Mizanul Islam: Who was the candidate of MP from Jamaat in 1971?

Mesbahur Rahman: I also can’t remember.

Mizanul Islam: Did you take any interview of any acting DC, SP or OC in 1971 for your research?

Mesbahur Rahman: Yes, I took.

Mizanul Islam: Did you take the interview of Deputy Collector of the then Dhaka? What was his name?

Mesbahur Rahman: No, I didn’t. I don’t know his name also.

Mizaur Rahman: Who was the SP (Police Super) of the then Dhaka?

Mesbahur Rahman: I don’t know.

Mizanur Rahman: Did you take the interview of DC, SP or OC of the then Pabna and Sathiyan (a Thana of Pabna)?

Mesbahur Rahman: No, I didn’t take any interview of them, I didn’t feel that was necessary.

Mizanur Rahman: Did you take the interview of that DIG who was appointed for the investigation and scrutinization of the cases of killing of intellectuals.

Mesbahur Rahman: I don’t remember.

Mizanul Islam: In 1973/74 who was the Superintendant of Police of Dhaka city did you take his interview?

Mesbahur Rahman: Yes, I did.

Mizanul Islam: What was his name?

Mesbahur Rahman: SP Mr. Mahbub.

Mizanul Islam: Did you make the list of war criminals and criminals of crime against humanity?

Mesbahur Rahman: Yes, I did.

Mizanul Islam: How many names of Pakistani soldiers came in that list?

Mesbahur Rahman: There was no name of Pakistani Army, I made the list of Al-Badr force.

An argument between defense counsel and chief of the Tribunal, in which defense counsel Tajul Islam alleged that the Tribunal was influencing the language of the witness which the Tribunal took exception to.

Then Mizanul Islam asked the next question about which commander or officer of Pakistani Army controlled the Al- Badr force of East Pakistan and West Pakistan also. Though subsequently this question was not accepted, Mesbahur Rahman started giving answer saying that the political control of Badr force was under Jamat-e-Islami’s hand but he was stopped by the defense counsel and it led to a chaotic situation.

The witness suddenly lost his control and said to Tajul Islam, ‘You have been ridiculing me ever since I came here in the morning’. Tajul Islam vehemently denied having insulted the witness. The witness replied in a warning tone, ‘don't speak like that to me. I am also into politics.’ This got Tajul Islam flying into a fit and he kept shouting alternatively addressing the witness and the tribunal. He said he sought protection for having been threatened in front of the court. A former member of Jamaat's student wing, Islami Chhatra Shibir, he said, ‘I come here as a lawyer and not a Shibir cadre. I seek the protection of the court,’ Tajul Islam kept saying athis nd the tribunal Chairman, Justice Mohammad Nizamul Huq indicated that he heard what had been said and said, ‘do take your seat.’

But the defense counsel was not satisfied with this and continued to complain to the tribunal. The witness told the court that the kind of remarks that the counsel was passing were more like a politician than a lawyer. The prosecutors had stood up by this time and began shouting at the defense counsel across the aisle almost entirely drowning out the judges trying to calm the situation. The defense counsels on their part told them the prosecutor to quieten down as it was their time with their witness.

Defense counsel Mizanul Islam was clearly heard shouting to the witness in a very loud, "What is this?" The witness had hardly stopped shouting back at the counsels and at one point he and Tajul Islam were both standing, waving angrily at each other and shouting at the top of their voices. Tribunal member Justice Jahangir Hossain managed to quieten down the witness and also asked Tajul Islam to take his seat.

Prosecutor Syed Haider Ali who had stepped out of the court for some time came to find it in middle of the heated quarrel and was the first one to take the initiative to placate all the parties. After the situation was a bit normal the chief of the Tribunal ordered the defense counsel to continue the cross examination but Mizanul Islam refused to continue saying that now it is quite impossible to continue after this situation. The Tribunal at first refused then Mizanul Islam asked another question and that was

Mizanul Islam: When did the Government of Pakistean declare A-Badr as an auxiliary force of Pakistan Army?

Mesbahur Rahman: I can’t remember right at this moment.

Then again Mizanul Islam asked the Tribunal to stop and then court was adjourned and Mizanul Islam was given half an hour to complete his cross in the next day.