& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Sayedee ’s War Crimes Trial

Defence lawyers walk out again

Protest acceptance of foreign newspapers as evidence

Staff Correspondent
The defence of Jamaat-e-Islami leader Delawar Hossain Sayedee for the second time walked out of International Crimes Tribunal-1 yesterday protesting the tribunal's decision to receive as evidence five volumes of foreign newspaper reports on the Liberation War.
The defence lawyers argued that they did not receive the reports beforehand and appealed for not accepting those as evidence. They also protested against not being given in advance the documents provided by the last prosecution witness.
In response, the three-judge tribunal led by its chairman Justice Md Nizamul Huq asked the defence to place their argu-ments during cross-examination of the 28th and last prosecution witness, who had presented the court with the documents.
The tribunal said the judges would listen to the defence and decide whether to keep the newspaper reports as evidence and that the court proceedings should follow its course until then.
The defence, however, kept on insisting that no new documents that were not given to it should be accepted as evidence until it places arguments regarding the matter.
The court refused to hear their arguments yesterday.
Abdur Razzaq, chief counsel for the accused Jamaat leaders, then told the court that it was not possible for them to continue. He then led the Jamaat defence team out of the courtroom at 3:00pm.
With nobody from the defence present and Sayedee allowed to leave early due to health issues, the tribunal had to adjourn yesterday's proceeding at 3:05pm until today morning.
Razzaq later told the media that the court's acceptance of the documents as evidence was against fair trial.
“As we are being deprived of justice, we placed submissions,’’ said Razzaq, adding, “As the tribunal did not accept our submission, we said that we'd walk out of the court.
"The court said it was our wish, so we walked out of the court with its permission. So we have boycotted the court for today.”
The defence counsels of Sayedee had walked out of the tribunal on November 16 last year protesting against Justice Nizamul Huq's presiding over the tribunal when a defence petition challenging his membership of the tribunal was pending.
Yesterday's courtroom drama began when Helal Uddin, the 28th prosecution witness, presented some documents including newspaper reports on the alleged atrocities of the accused during the Liberation War.
Helal, also the investigation officer probing the charges against Sayedee, at one point presented 10 reports of Bangla daily Janakantha, which were part of a series titled “Sei Rajakar” (That Collaborator) published in December, 2000.
Mizanul Islam, a defence counsel for Sayedee, told the tribunal that they did not receive the documents beforehand.
He argued that as per the International Crimes (THbu-
nal) Act-1973, the prosecution was bound to provide the documents to the defence. If prosecution wants to include new documents, it has to take permission from the tribunal and notify the defence.
But the prosecution neither sought permission from the tribunal nor did notify the defence, he said, claiming that now the documents could not legally be received as evidence.
Prosecutor Syed Haider Ali told the court that they had submitted the documents to the tribunal within the stipulated time and that they already provided the defence the seizure list of the documents.
Later, the tribunal in a written order directed the prosecution to give the defence photocopies of the documents and newspapers reports as soon as possible. The chairman said the defence could inspect the documents the tribunal already has.
The chairman had verbally told the prosecution to serve the documents within 4:00pm yesterday. “It is only a 22-page document. You [prosecution] will give the documents within 4:00pm today. We will be happy if you give it within 2:00pm,” said the chairman around 12:30pm yesterday.
The arguments heated up again when the witness presented five volumes of foreign newspaper reports on the Liberation War.
Defence lawyer Mizanul said they did not get the copies of these volumes either and appealed to the court to remove related part of the investigation officer's statement from the proceedings.
Prosecutor Syed Haider Ali argued that these were not additional documents as they were already listed on the seizure list submitted to the tribunal and the defence. Defence could inspect the documents since it was not possible to photocopy the volumes of newspaper reports, he claimed.
Abdur Razzaq, chief of defence counsels, then took the podium and appealed to the tribunal to not exhibit this part of Helal's statement as the defence could not go through the documents.
Then the tribunal told the defence that the defence would be able to place their arguments during cross-examination of Helal.
“If your point can satisfy the
tribunal then, the court has the power to delete this part of the statement,” said the tribunal chairman, asking the defence to place arguments in this regard today (Wednesday).
HEARINGS DEFERRED
The tribunal-1 yesterday fixed April 16 for recording defence arguments against charge framing of four Jamaat-e-Islami leaders— Motiur Rahman Nizami, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed, Muhammad Kamaruzzaman and Abdul Quader Mollah—in connection with their alleged crimes against humanity during the LiberationWar.
The tribunal was scheduled to record the defence arguments in the cases of Kamaruzzaman and Quader Mollah yesterday. It was scheduled to record the arguments in the cases against Mojaheed today and Nizami onApril 15. DAILY SANGRAM QUESTIONED When the tribunal started its proceedings at 10:40am yesterday, Prosecutor Sultan Mahamud placed before the court a report published by daily Sangram on Monday. He said the report was “totally distort".
“It damages the image of the entire tribunal and has given a wrong message to the nation about the tribunal proceeding,” said Sultan seeking the court's action against the newspaper.
The tribunal said a contempt of court rule against the newspaper was pending and it would see the matter on April 16, the date for hearing the contempt rule.