The International Crimes Tribunal has disposed of the contempt proceedings brought against Zafrullah Chowdhury and Mahfuz Ullah for their remarks on the trial of war crimes convict BNP leader Salauddin Quader Chowdhury in a Channel 24 talk show when the case on trial.
In its order yesterday, the tribunal 1 mentioned that as the accused had apologised unconditionally it could be assumed that they made the comments “unintentionally.”
The tribunal also said everyone should be more cautious while making comments on the judiciary and subjudice matters. It also directed the Channel 24 authorities not to broadcast the particular episode of the talk show “Muktobaak” in future.
On September 18 last year, the private channel aired the talk show in which Zafrullah suggested that Salauddin Quader had not been given the opportunity to place his witnesses and that his rights had been curtailed. According to the prosecution petition, Mahfuz echoed his view. The case was awaiting verdict at that time.
The tribunal issued the contempt notice on September 26 the same year saying: “The accused knows it well that the trial proceeding against war crimes accused Salauddin Quader Chowdhury is underway, but they have made comments on the case and criticised the tribunal proceedings. Such criticism will cast doubts on the tribunal proceedings.”
The prosecution said the comments had been “biased, baseless, utterly false, fabricated and ill-motivated.” The petition was filed on September 24 against Channel 24, represented by its managing director; its chief executive officer; executive director; head of programme;episode producer; Mahmudur Rahman Manna, anchor of the programme; Zafrullah, trustee of Gonoshasthaya Kendra, and Mahfuz, secretary general of Centre for Sustainable Development.
The duo appeared before the court, and from the first day, Mahfuz sought unconditional apology as his words were only continuity of remarks by Zafrullah.
The tribunal yesterday observed that before making such a comment, Mahfuz had not checked the reality and that it was “unexpected from him.”
Appearing before the tribunal, Zafrullah earlier submitted a written reply to the notice. He claimed that he had not committed any offence by expressing his views in the light of “freedom of speech.” The tribunal, however, strongly criticised his reply.
