 |
Emran Hossain
Dhaka, Nov 1 (bdnews24.com)—Apparently deliberate waste of time by the defence has become a major cause of concern for both the tribunals dealing with crimes against humanity during the Independence War in 1971.
Observations and decisions both the tribunals made on Thursday shed some light on their concerns, giving rise to anticipation by observers that those standing trial might come out clean if trials are not completed before the Awami League-led alliance government ends term.
On Thursday one judge declared: “I must say time is being wasted.”
Campaigners, who have long been demanding that governments ensure justice for the crimes in 1971, have also repeatedly complained of protracted hindrance to holding the trial.
They fear that the delay could help the perpetrators get away with the crimes.
Prof Muntassir Mamoon told bdnews24.com: “The defence is evidently doing this. They are wasting time as they think that they will be able to avoid the trial once the current government’s tenure ends.”
He urged the judges to intervene. “In order to prevent the defence from wasting time, the Tribunals should fix a timeframe to complete the trial.”
Observers are worried about the fact that major opposition BNP’s most dependable coalition partner is Jamaat-e-Islami, and nine of its top leaders, including its former chief and ideologue, Ghulam Azam, current chief Motiur Rahman Nizami, the party’s Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed, Assistant Secretary General Mohammad Kamaruzzaman, are facing charges of crimes against humanity. Many of these accused became ministers in the past during the rule of BNP-led coalition government.
Two of BNP’s own men, including senior politician Salauddin Quader Chowdhury MP, are facing similar charges.
“I must say time is being wasted,” said Judge Shahinur Islam, one of the three judges at the second war crimes tribunal.
His comment came half an hour into the tribunal’s proceedings after lunch recess on Thursday. The tribunal was hearing the defence’s questioning of police detective Abdur Razzaq Khan, who investigated allegations of crimes against humanity against Jamaat’s Assistant Secretary General Abdul Quader Molla.
Judge Islam made the comment after he failed to make the defence counsel, Abdus Sobhan Tarafder, understand one of the points after trying for about 15 minutes.
Throughout Thursday the tribunal was patient enough to make Tarafder understand how he should perform his professional acts like taking contradictions, making suggestions to the witness, and what is the difference between these two and argument, legal terms representing different activities during a trial.
The situation worsened when the prosecution counsel stood up just for the sake of opposing the defence.
“You all understand more than us,” said Islam indicating at both the defence and the prosecution counsels.
The questions the defence threw for Khan made the tribunal laugh at times; and to intervene at other times seeking a clarification as those were unclear, and deemed ‘irrelevant’ and ‘immaterial’ by the tribunal. It cost the tribunal a large part of Thursday.
“You (Khan) did not make any of those who were martyred at Ghatachar a witness in this case,” was one of the questions that touched off laughter at the tribunal.
“How could he (Khan) make a martyr a witness!” wondered Justice Obaidul Hasan, another member of the tribunal led by Justice ATM Fazle Kabir.
At times, the defence had no choice but to expunge its questions as those carried no meaning and the defence counsel himself was convinced by the tribunal about their irrelevance.
Tarafder would take minutes to ask a question, and then he would turn back to consult with his juniors sitting behind whether the question was rightly asked, making the three-member tribunal sigh.
At one stage of the questioning, it was revealed that the prosecution gave defence one of its (prosecution’s) witnesses’ deposition made before the tribunal in place of the statement she had made to the investigation officer.
“Nobody cares. Neither you (prosecution), nor the defence,” said Islam.
The situation was no different at the first war crimes tribunal as the defence took 12 days for questioning Matiur Rahman, who investigated the case against Ghulam Azam, only on seven exhibits against a total of 523 shown in the case. It forced the tribunal to decide that the questioning should be completed by lunch recess on Sunday.
The tribunal led by Justice Mohammad Nizamul Huq wondered how long it might take if the defence decided to question the investigation officer on all the exhibits.
Defence lawyer M Tajul Islam, however, continued insisting that the deadline for completing Investigation Officer’s questioning should be lifted for the sake of justice.
Justice Huq said the law empowers the tribunal to fix a timeframe for any part of the proceedings to be completed, and that it would not be beneficial for the defendants already in custody either if it takes too long.
He reminded the defence that the prosecution took only five sessions to present the case against Azam.
Tajul Islam continued arguing the tribunal for recalling its order on the deadline. Finally, the tribunal rose for the day at 4:45pm, 15 minutes behind scheduled closure, sticking to its decision.
The defence questioned ASP Mohammad Helal Uddin, investigation officer of the case filed against Delwar Hossain Sayedee, for almost 50 days. The case is expected to see the prosecution and the defence engaged in argument this month.
“Justice delayed, Justice denied,” said Justice Anwarul Huq, a member of the first war crimes tribunal, as on Thursday he tried to convince the defence lawyers that the proceedings should be hastened.
Source: The Daily Star
