The defence of the war crimes tribunal is now waiting for the end of the incumbent government’s tenure as they think if the power is changed, the situation may turn into their favour.
According to the tribunal and its prosecution, the defence lawyers have long been delaying the trial procedures. They submitted applications one after another and the tribunal had to hear those. It took many working days for holding hearings on those applications.
The tribunal on many occasions mentioned in their observation that the defence had tried to extend the proceedings and kill time.
Latest on August 22, during the cross-examination of investigation officer in the case against former BNP state minister Abdul Alim, the tribunal expressed annoyance as defence counsel Ahsanul Haque asked irrelevant questions. Later, on his way out of the tribunal room, Ahsanul was heard telling his fellows: “Let the next government come into power. Then we will see.”
Another senior counsel who stands for both the Jamaat and BNP accused, said the situation would be changed.
“The election is knocking at the door. Some recent election results give us this impression,” he said asking not to be named.
However, defence counsel Tajul Islam said whether there would be any change in the government or not, the trial would continue. “But we have concerns about fair trial.
“It is my personal view that if the power is changed, those who in the tribunal have already created controversy must be replaced. The international observations and concerns of different organisations will help to do this. But this trial must not be stopped.”
Prosecution lawyers allege that proceedings were deliberately delayed in the cases against Jamaat leader Delawar Hossain Sayedee and BNP standing committee member Salauddin Quader Chowdhury.
In most of the cases, the defence submitted long lists of witnesses. The defence of Ghulam Azam case had submitted a list of 2,939 names; 1,153 in Salauddin Quader case; over 1,300 in the case against Kamaruzzaman; 3,328 in Abdul Alim’s case while to prove his alibi, the defence lawyers submitted to the tribunal a list of 965 witnesses in the case against Abdul Quader Molla.
The defence lawyers, mostly the senior ones who conduct the cases, had been absent at the hartal days. Citing shutdown as a reason, the defence repeatedly appealed for adjournments.
On such a day in March, junior defence counsel Sajjad Ali submitted as always that the senior defence lawyers could not turn up in the court due to “unavoidable circumstances.” The tribunal then termed Sajjad “hartal-day counsel.”
Senior prosecutor Haider Ali said the tribunal clearly told the defence not to waste their time. “Long list of witnesses, absence during hartals all these were to delay the proceedings, nothing else.”
Amid such “obstructions,” the tribunal after three years pronounced verdicts against identified war criminals Ghulam Azam, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed, Delawar Hossain Sayedee, Mohammad Kamaruzzaman, Abdul Quader Molla and fugitive Abul Kalam Azad alias Bachchu Razakar. The tribunal has kept pending the announcement of verdict in the case against BNP lawmaker Salauddin Quader Chowdhury. It will be delivered any day.
Meanwhile, both the defence and the prosecution have appealed with the Supreme Court challenging the verdicts delivered so far.
The prosecution thinks the defence is doing their last calculation about what they would do after the end of present government’s tenure. The questions raised against the tribunal from the international arena are part of that “defence calculation.”
However, according to the prosecution, the tribunal verdicts cannot be changed “politically.”
Prosecutor Haider Ali said: “If you think all these happened through political intervention then I should say it is stupid thinking. All the points the defence raised in every step of the trial, we answered those in a proper way. And the ICT Act gives them all the facilities that are not given in any war crimes trial around the world.”
About the “defence calculation,” Haider said: “Most of the defence counsels are also involved with particular political parties. So they will try to save their leaders. Let’s see!”
Since the very beginning of the trials, the defence has been terming the tribunal a “politically-motivated” one as most of the accused are leaders of the opposition parties Jamaat and BNP. They also argue that the ICT Act of 1973 was not applicable to crimes against humanity committed in 1971 Liberation War.
The government formed the first International Crimes Tribunal in 2010 and another last year to expedite the proceedings. It also appointed prosecutors and investigators. The state represents the victims who had filed cases against the local collaborators of Pakistani occupation forces during the 1971 Liberation War for committing crimes against humanity that involve murder, rape, arson and loot.
The Act was amended this year allowing both the parties to appeal against verdicts, a privilege earlier only enjoyed by the defence.