FROM PAGE 12
conversation, said protesters should be “finished off”, saying the claim was denied outright.
He argued that the imposition of curfew was lawful under Section 24 of the Special Powers Act, which empowers the home ministry to do so, noting that even the current government had imposed curfew in Gopalganj to maintain law and order.
According to the formal charge, indiscriminate shooting of students followed the alleged conversation in Dhaka and elsewhere.
Addressing another allegation that Salman led businesspeople to a July 22, 2024 meeting with then prime minister Sheikh Hasina and urged continuation of the crackdown, the prosecution said the act amounted to incitement and participation in crimes against humanity.
The defence countered that Salman, acting as an adviser and businessman, merely conveyed business concerns without any ill intent.
It added that the meeting was held at the Prime Minister’s Office, not Gono Bhaban, and claimed to have evidence to that effect.
On charges that Anisul oversaw the filing of 286 “false cases” against around 450,000 protesters -- leading to illegal arrests and torture -- the defence said the law minister had no authority over filing cases.
If aggrieved individuals do not lodge complaints, police file cases themselves, Munsurul said.
He argued that the charges lacked documentary support and that neither accused exercised control over law enforcement or auxiliary forces.
Police operations, he added, were directed by then Dhaka Metropolitan Police commissioner Habibur Rahman, not the accused.
Concluding his submissions, Munsurul said the prosecution had failed to show that Salman or Anisul acted beyond their legal responsibilities and again sought their discharge.
During the hearing, he requested that Anisul -- who was in the dock alongside Salman -- be given a pen and a piece of paper, which the tribunal allowed. Anisul later thanked the tribunal.
PROSECUTION’S REPLY
Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam urged the tribunal to reject the discharge pleas, citing recorded conversations among Salman, Anisul and then state minister for ICT Zunaid Ahmed Palak.
He said the recordings showed they acted beyond the rules of business and wielded authority over cabinet decisions.
Tajul alleged the accused planned curfews and internet shutdowns to conceal mass killings and suppress protests, referring to discussions on shutting down the internet, imposing curfew, and blocking eight apps, including Facebook, YouTube and WhatsApp, while misleading the public by claiming services were damaged.
He further claimed that Salman spoke with the then inspector general of police and doctors in Rangpur to alter Abu Sayed’s postmortem report, describing him as the de facto commander after the then prime minister.
Tajul rejected the curfew defence, arguing it was imposed to facilitate mass killings rather than restore order.
Meanwhile, in a separate case, ICT-2 yesterday allowed defence counsels to produce four witnesses on January 11 in a crimes against humanity case over the killing of seven protesters and the burning of six bodies in Ashulia on August 5, 2024.