Tuesday, March 19, 2013

20 Nov 2012: Sayedee defence closing, day 3

The defence lawyer, Mizanul Islam continued with his closing arguments (carried on from the previous day) and argued on the Shikder/Sayedee name issue discussed the previous day. (The summary of Sayedee defense closing arguments partly draws from defence lawyer's own notes of proceedings)
- PW 28 (IO) has named the Accused with bad names ‘Delu’ and ‘Deilla’ in his examination in chief and in other documents. This is to humiliate the accused. This indicates the malafide intension of the IO.

The chairman said that the particular documents are not exhibited documents and will not be taken into consideration.

Chairman again argued whether the dispute regarding name of the Accused has any relevance to the Charges?

The defence lawyer said that prosecution wants to show that previously the Accused was known as ‘Delwar Shikder’ and after liberation war he changed his name to be ‘Delwar Hossain Sayedee’. This is alleged by at least 10 PWs. But from the prosecution exhibited documents I will show you that the accused as never known as ‘Shikder’. ‘Sayedee’ was his Family title and he was always known as ‘Delwar Hossain Sayedee’. From the Prosecution document I will show you that there was existence of one Rajakar called ‘Delwar Shikder’ in 1971 in Pirojpur. He is different from the Accused. The accused was not holding the title ‘Shikdar’ in his name. Delwar Shikdar is another individual whereas the Prosecution is trying to make this accused responsible for the activities of the person named Delwar Shikdar by stating that the accused is holding the title Shikdar in his name.
6 seized documents have been presented before the Tribunal all of which show that- there is no mention of Shikdar in anyone of those exhibits, so why the Prosecution is trying to highlight the matter of inserting the name ‘Shikdar’? There is no proof that- Mr. Sayeede has changed his name, rather we can say the education board has changed his name by putting a cross mark. The name of Mr. Syeede’s father was Yousuf Syedee not Yousuf Shikdar. The book ‘Pirojpur Jelar Itihas’ has been written by Delwar Hossain Mollik. All the bills and documents of this accused shows that- from his birth he his named as Syedee not Shikdar. So we have been able to prove that- this accused and the Delwar Hossain Shikdar and Delwar Mollik are not the same persons. 
He then went on to discuss Sayedee’s education qualifications.
- PW 28 claimed that the accused had no educational qualifications to use title like ‘Maulana’ or ‘Allama’. But in cross examination he admitted that he did not enquired to the relevant authorities to check whether any educational qualifications are necessary to use the title ‘Maulana’ or ‘Allama’. There are many renowned politicians of this sub-continent who used these titles without having any educational qualifications.  No one has raised objection about using Mawlana before the names of the famous people- Mawlana Abul Kalam Azad and Mawlana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani. Even there is a precedent of random use of the title ‘Allama’ before a person’s name when he deserves so. The educational background is not mandatory to put these titles before the names of particular honorable people as the Prosecution has raised objection about. Even the term ‘Moulovi’ is being used before the honorable and educated people’s name.

- PW 28 claimed that the Accused name was changed in his Alim certificate. But when we asked him whether there was any provision if the authority makes any mistake in spelling name then it can be corrected, PW 28 gave evasive reply that he did not know. In another place he admitted that the Accused’s name in Alim Certificate was corrected following due procedure. Despite knowing that the Accused’s name in his educational certificate was corrected by the proper authority he is raising the false allegation only to humiliate the accused. Even in that incorrect Alim Certificate the Accused was not named as ‘Shikder’. PW 28 admitted in XX that in is Dhakhil Certificate issued on 1960 his name was written to be ‘Delwar Hossain Sayedee’

- PW 28 claimed that the Accused’s father’s name was ‘Yusuf Shikder’ while in every document his name was written as ‘Yusuf Sayedee’. He admitted in cross examination that he did not enquire with any member of his Family or relative to check the name of the Accused’s Father. He admitted that he had not checked the National Identity card, 1970 voter list, present voter list of the accused and his father to clarify their names. Everywhere their names are written as Sayedee. But despite knowing this the PW 28 concoct the Accused and his Father’s name as ‘Shikder’.

- Prosecution Exhibit 151 include the accused’s utility bills, holding tax receipts, educational certificates. Every were his family name is written as ‘Sayedee’ not ‘Shikder’. PW 28 has admitted in cross examination that in every official documents the Accused’s family name is written as ‘Sayedee’. But despite this he is claiming that the Accused’s original family name was ‘Shikder’ and later changed to be Sayedee. He could not show a single document in support of this claim.

- PW28 claimed that the accused was thrown out from Shahshina Madrasha (school) in 1960 for his involvement with Jamaat. The present principal of that school, Mr. Shorafat Ali and a staff Mr. Abdur Razzak were listed as PW. But they were not produced before this Tribunal. PW 28 admitted in cross examination that both these persons came to Dhaka and stayed in the witness safe house for giving evidence. He could not say why they were not produced. You may recall that in the Prosecution’s 19(2) application they claimed that these two persons were unavailable and could not be produced before the Tribunal. How can this be true when PW 28 admitted that they came to Dhaka and stayed in the witness Safe house?

The chairman said that we did not allow the prosecution’s 19(2) application regarding these two persons, so you are not allowed to argue about these two persons on the 19(2) issue.

The defence lawyer said that his point was that apparently the prosecution was not honest with this Tribunal.

- PW 28 admitted that in the record of the school of 1960 the accused’s father’s name was ‘Sayedee’ NOT ‘Shikder’.

- PW 28 admitted in corss examiatnion that there was a Rajakar called Delwar Shikder son of Rosul Shikder in Pirojpur. (17.07.12)

- PW 28 admitted that in Exhibit 35 Rajakar list the renowned Rajakars of Pirojpur e.g. Sekander Shikder, Moslem Mowlana are not listed. It does not include Delwar Shikder also. So this list is not authentic and cannot be relied upon (17.07.12)

- PW 28 also admitted that none of the PWs has said about ‘Delwar Shikder’ to him.

- Defence Exhibit (Book History of Pirojpur) in Page 213 there was a Rajakar called Delwar Hossain Mollik.

- The prosecution did not give suggestion to any of the DWs that the accused’s family name was ‘Shikder’.

- Ehibit of New report of the Daily Iffetaq dated 29 December 1974 shows that the accused was known as ‘Sayedee’ at that time. This also shows that the accused was not absconding until 1980 as alleged by the Prosecution as this news report was a news that the Accused was to address a religious gathering in Dhaka at that time.

- Exhibit of international passport of the Accused of 1975 where his name was Sayedee. His address was shown to be Barishal. This proves that the accused was not absconding as the authority would not have issued passport for an absconding person. They must have checked his address as that as required by law.

- Exhibit of record of Sharshina Madrasha of 1960 wshows that in Accused’s Father’s family name was ‘Sayedee’.
THe lawyer then said that from the above discussions it was clear the prosecution’s submission that the Accused and his father was original known as Shikders is not proved. From all the above exhibited documents we could show you that the accused was named as Sayedee from his birth. In all official documents the accused and his father’s family name is recorded as ‘Sayedee’. There was no record indicating the Accused’s family name as ‘Shikdar’.

The lawyer then moved onto the allegation of looting of Modon Shaha’s shop. He said that there was no specific charge, but PW gave evidence on this allegation.
- PW 1 – claimed that Modon shaha’s shop was taken away by the accused during the liberation war and after the liberation war they took from the Accused’s house and returned to Modon shaha. PW 2 also said this. PW supported this allegation.

- On the other hand PW 28 (3, 28-Sl 23) said that in his investigation he found that Modon Shaha went to India during the liberation war and never came back. If Modon Shaha did not came back then how the PWs returned the shop back to him.

- PW 28 exhibited Material Exhibit XI where he showed a video file showing a temporary structure to be Modon Shaha’s house. But in Material Exhibit XII PW showed a still picture showing a two storied permanent building to be Modon Shaha’s shop. This is totally different picture. How both can be true? This shows the quality of the investigation.

Chairman: We have to know, whether there is any mistake in presenting these two structures as the exhibits. 
Mizanul Islam: The video and the still image contain the name ‘Madan Shaha’ as its title. 
Chairman: We have to be satisfied. Let the matter be checked by ourselves 

The tribunal was adjourned for the morning

No comments:

Post a Comment