The lawyer for death-row convict war criminal Motiur Rahman Nizami has admitted before the court that the prosecution successfully proved that his client was a collaborator of the Pakistani occupation forces in 1971.
The counsel, however, argued that since the government was not trying the Pakistani Army for committing war crimes, it should consider the merit of trying a collaborator for abetting the Pakistani Army in war crimes.
It was the first time that any war criminal or his lawyer admits collaboration with the Pakistani Army that killed around three million people during the country’s liberation struggle.
Earlier, two executed war criminals – Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed and Salauddin Quader Chowdhury – sought presidential clemency, but were rejected. It means that they admitted the crimes for which they had been sentenced to death.
The defence counsel, Khandaker Mahbub Hossain, yesterday prayed to the court to commute Nizami’s death sentence to life imprisonment if the apex court found him guilty of his wartime offence. He also urged the court to acquit his client of all the charges.
Nizami, now 75, was the chief of al-Badr force as the head of Jamaat-e-Islami’s then student wing Islami Chhatra Sangha in erstwhile East Pakistan. He later became the chief of All Pakistan Chhatra Sangha. The incumbent Jamaat chief was sentenced to death on four charges and life-term jail on four others.
In response to a question after the hearing, Mahbub said that seeking reduced punishment did not mean admitting the crimes.
“The prosecution has proved that Nizami was a collaborator. But they could not prove that Nizami was involved with any particular offence.
“The prosecution has brought witnesses to prove that Nizami was with the Pakistani Army. [So] they [Army] should be the main accused [in the case]. Here, the [Pakistan] Army is not being tried. So, the court should judge the justification of the trial of Nizami as an abettor [of war crimes].”
He questioned whether the collaborators, who accompanied the Pakistani Army personnel during operations, had the ability to assist them in committing the crimes.
Mahbub also claimed that the witness statements had been inconsistent. They had been taught the facts by the state counsels at safe home.
