Fraud at the heart of Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunals

17 Dec
http://www.bdictunveiled.com/bdictunveiled/

The Website Exposing the Tribunals’ Clandestine activities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Until 11 December, 2012 the International Crimes Tribunal-1, Dhaka was composed of Mr. Justice Md. Nizamul Huq (Nasim) as Chairman, with Mr. Justice Md. Jahangir Hossain and Mr. Justice Anwarul Hoque as Members. The International Crimes Tribunal-2, Dhaka on the other hand was composed of Mr. Justice A.T.M. Fazle Kabir as Chairman, with Mr. Justice Obaidul Hasan (Shaheen) and Judge Shahinur Islam as Members. On 11, December, Mr. Justice Md. Nizamul Huq resigned when his clandestine skype conversations with a third party were disclosed. Following the resignation, the Tribunals were swiftly reconstituted. Mr. Justice A.T.M. Fazle Kabir was brought in from Tribunal-2 to serve as Chairman of Tribunal-1. Mr. Justice Obaidul Hasan was promoted to the post of Chairman of Tribunal-2 and a new member was inducted into Tribunal-2. The skype conversations which led to Mr. Justice Md. Nizamul Huq’s resignation show the level of impropriety and manipulation of the trials by the Executive and even the Judiciary itself. Some of the main themes are as follows:-

  1. The conversations between Mr. Justice Huq and Dr. Ziauddin clearly show that they had discussions not only as to who should depose as Prosecution Witness, but also as to the contents and length of the deposition. 

  2. Emails between Dr. Ziauddin and Mr. Justice Huq show that the orders of the Tribunal framing charges against Ghulam Azam, Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Delwar Hossain Saydee (i.e., the indictment orders) were in fact drafted by Dr. Ziauddin and emailed to Mr. Justice Huq the evening before they were announced in open court by the erstwhile Chairman of Tribunal-1. As such, fair trial can be ensured only by ordering a retrial.
  3. Email exchanges between Ahmed Ziauddin and Nizamul Huq clearly show that the Formal Charge in the case of Ghulam Azam was prepared at the behest of Ahmed Ziauddin. It is clear therefore the order of cognizance taken by the Tribunal on the basis of Dr. Ziauddin’s Formal Charge is illegal. In such circumstances, the order of cognizance should be recalled and the Accused, Professor Ghulam Azam should be released from custody.
  4. Mr. Justice Huq had regular meetings with the Prosecutors during which decisions were taken regarding filing of petitions by the Prosecutors and passing of orders thereon by the Tribunal. Not only that, Ziauddin played an important role in advising the erstwhile Chairman and the Prosecutors, often acting as a conduit for the exchange of information between the Tribunal and the Prosecution. A fair trial can only be ensured by removing the Prosecutors who were seeking to pervert the course of justice. 
  5. The conversation between Mr. Justice Huq and Dr. Ziauddin clearly show extensive executive interference, in particular that of the State Minister for Law, with the process of the Tribunal. Furthermore, there is evidence to show that the erstwhile Chairman of the Tribunal had been offered promotion to the Appellate Division) upon disposal of as many as three cases. 


    Conclusion: Most of the judges of the Tribunals appear from the skype conversations to be appointed because of their political leanings. There is evidence of extreme level of interference by Ministers. Dr. Ziauddin also seems to have influence over the judges in both Tribunals. Although the evidence of interference by Ministers is available in respect of one judge (due to the benefit of hacked skype conversations), it is only reasonable that the same Ministers who influenced Mr. Justice Huq would also seek to influence other judges of the Tribunal. All the judges have been tainted. So the only course open is to hold a re-trial with new judges in all cases. Click for detailed conclusion.

    Report on Tribunal Leaks (word file of the the Executive Summary & Full Report).

REPORT:

Witness Selection and Training:

  1. The conversations between Mr. Justice Nizamul Huq Nasim and Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin clearly show that they had discussions not only as to who should depose as Prosecution Witness, but also as to the contents of the deposition. The conversation also gives us an indication of extensive witness tutoring being conducted at the instance of Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin. Furthermore, there is clear evidence of the Tribunal, Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin and Prosecutor Zead Al Malum determining the contents of the deposition of the Prosecution Witnesses.

  2. In a conversation on 10th September 2012, Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin said that the deposition of Adv. Sultana Kamal should not be too long as otherwise she would be subjected to ‘too many questions’ during cross-examination (Translation of transcripts of conversation of 10th September available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/component/k2/item/246-e-2012-09-10 ). Later on 15th September 2012, Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin expressed his satisfaction with the deposition of Sultana Kamal noting that she had realized which points to emphasise after a ‘good number of discussions’ with her and ‘supplying her all relevant information’.
  3. In a conversation on 13th September 2012, Mr. Justice Huq also stated that the deposition of Sultana Kamal was ‘high class’ and that according to his assessment, no further witnesses were required in the case of Ghulam Azam (apart from witnesses regarding the Siru Miah killing and a few seizure list witnesses). (Audio Conversation of 13th September may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 04.30-4.50).
  4. During the conversation of 15th September, Mr. Justice Nizamul Huq stated that the incidents of 19th March 1971 in Joydebpur Park should be brought on record so as to facilitate in the delivery of his judgment. Dr. Ziauddin however expressed his dissatisfaction with Major General (Retd) Shafiullah’s capacity to depose as Prosecution Witness, stating that Maj General(Retd) Shaifullah does not have a good memory and that he has the ‘attitude of a commander’ and that both he and Prosecutor Zead Al Malum were concerned that Shafiullah would portray the Pakistan Army as the ‘main protagonist’. Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin also went on to say that Maj General (Retd) Shafiullah was a ‘heavy weight witness’ and that if his deposition was off mark, it would create major problems. (Translation of transcripts of conversation of 15th September 2012 are available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/component/k2/item/218-e-2012-09-15 )
  5. In the same conversation, Mr. Justice Nizamul Huq Nasim suggested that since Muntasir Mamun would be returning to the Tribunal to depose, the incidents of 19th March 1971 could be brought on record by re-examining him Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin readily agreed to the proposal stating that Muntasir Mamun was a ‘historian’ and could be accepted as an ‘authoritative witness’ and that the ‘back-up plan’ was to ‘fill up the gaps’ in the evidence by re-examining him.
  6. Earlier in their conversation on 2nd September 2012, Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin and Mr. Justice Nizamul Huq had discussions regarding an eye witness who would be produced as Prosecution Witness in the case against Mr. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury (Audio Conversation of 2nd September 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive- for relevant excerpts, see 1.40-1.58 and 04.05-05.35).

  7. In a conversation on 12th October 2012, Mr. Justice Huq candidly stated to Dr. Ziauddin how the Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud, by making unnecessary objections with regard to recording of depositions of Prosecution Witnesses was in fact unwittingly weakening the Prosecution case against Ghulam Azam. Mr. Justice Huq also severely criticized the Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud and explained to Dr. Ziauddin how he had to intervene to ensure that the deposition was not recorded in a manner which would not be prejudicial to the case of the Prosecution (Audio Conversation of 12th October 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts from 5.15-7.05).

Charge Framing Orders prepared by Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin

  1. Email correspondence between Dr. Ziauddin and Mr. Justice Huq show that the orders of the Tribunal framing charges against Ghulam Azam, Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Delwar Hossain Saydee were in fact drafted by Dr. Ziauddin and emailed to Mr. Justice Huq the evening before they were announced in open court by the erstwhile Chairman of Tribunal-1. The order framing charge against an accused person (i.e., the indictment) marks the commencement of the trial. Since the order of indictment has not been passed by the Tribunal but by Dr. Ziauddin, the proceedings pursuant to such indictment has been vitiated, thereby necessitating a retrial.

    Professor Ghulam Azam:

  2. In an e-mail dated 6th May 2012, Ahmed Ziauddin sent a document titled “Ghulam Azam Charges” to Nizamul Hoque Nasim. Thereafter by an email dated 12th May 2012
    (See Ref: Pg 147, Pg 148), Ahmed Ziauddin sent another document titled, “GhulamAzamChargesFinalDraft.doc“.  By comparing the draft order sent by Ahmed Ziauddin with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 13th May 2012, it becomes clear that the tribunal has framed charges against Ghulam Azam — one of the chief accused — as directed by Ahmed Ziauddin. The order delivered by the Tribunal dated 13th May 2012 is exactly the same as that contained in the attachment by Ahmed Ziauddin.

  3. In an e-mail dated 16th June 2012, (Ref: Pg 54, Pg 55 ) Ahmed Ziauddin sent a document titled “20120616-ReviewOfOrderDated-20120513-SecondDraft-NoMarkup.doc” to Justice Nizamul Hoque Nasim. The attached document contains a draft of the Order to be passed by the Tribunal on the application filed by the Defence for review of the charge framing order dated 13 May 2012 in the case of Ghulam Azam. Once again, if one compares the draft order as sent by Ahmed Ziauddin and the order passed by the tribunal dated 18th June 2012, it is clear that the tribunal disposed of the aforesaid application for review as directed by Ahmed Ziauddin.
  4. In an e-mail dated 26th May 2012
    (Ref: Pg 144), Ahmed Ziauddin sent a document titled “ChargesAgainstMotiurRahman Nizami.doc” to Nizamul Hoque Nasim setting out the charge framing order to be delivered by the tribunal in the case of Motiur Rahman Nizami. However, upon being informed by Mr. Justice Huq that he had not received the said document, Dr. Ziauddin, by an e-mail dated 27th May 2012, re-attached a document titled “ChargesAgainstMotiurRahmanNizami.doc” and sent the same to Nizamul Hoque Nasim with the following text “Very surprised about your SMS that I opened as I woke up, no idea why you did not receive the attached draft”.  By an e-mail of the same date (Ref: Pg 142,Pg 140,Pg 141,Pg 143), Ahmed Ziauddin re-sent the document titled “ChargesAgainst MotiurRahmanNizami.doc” after making some corrections in the said document. In the text of the e-mail, Ahmed Ziauddin expressed the hope that the attached document “should be largely acceptable now”. Ahmed Ziauddin also expressed an intention to discuss with Nizamul Hoque Nasim the contents of Charge Number 16 that he considers as genocide for the reasons set out therein. If one compares the draft order, sent by Ahmed Ziauddin and the order passed by the Tribunal it is clear that the Tribunal has framed charges against MRN as directed by Ahmed Ziauddin.

  5. It is undisputed that no arguments were made either by the Prosecutor or by the Defence counsel regarding the contents of Charge number 16 during the course of charge hearing in the case of Motiur Rahman Nizami. However acting at the behest of Ahmed Ziauddin, Nizamul Hoque Nasim delivered the charge framing order containing Charge number 16, although the same has no basis in the formal charge submitted by the prosecution.

    Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury:

  1. In an email dated 10th February 2012, Nizamul Hoque Nasim informed Ahmed Ziauddin that he ‘could not work on the SQC [Salahuddin Quader Choudhury] Charge’. Ziauddin also said that he would appreciate it if Nizamul Hoque Nasim could share the draft that he was working on ‘so that we can look at it and provide our inputs for your consideration.’ He also proposed to reschedule the hearings of the cases so that the cases of Ghulam Azam and Matiur Rahman Nizami could be heard before that of Ghulam Azam . In the email, Ahmed Ziauddin stated ‘Since there is not much time in hand, I am thinking whether you should consider postponing it so as also to bring up Golam. Also, for the same reason, Nizami’s hearing could also be rescheduled accordingly.’).

    Delwar Hossain Sayedee:

  1. In an email dated 27th September 2011, addressed to the then Tribunal Registrar, Ahmed Ziauddin stated that they were conducting ‘further research’ and that according to ICC and ICTY jurisprudence, the ‘crime of persecution’ could be interpreted to include ‘destruction, looting of private properties as international crimes.’ In an email dated 2nd October 2011 (http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/justice-denied/tribunal-delivers-orders), Ahmed Ziauddin sent Nizamul Hoque Nasim a document titled ‘20111002-Caseno1ChargesJV.doc’ containing the charge framing order to be delivered in the case of Delwar Hossein Sayedee. In the text of the email, Ahmed Ziauddin stated that ‘we are now suggesting to consider use of ‘crime of persecution’ on any of four grounds instead of ‘inhuman acts’ for arson, burning, looting.’ A comparison of the draft order sent by the Ahmed Ziauddin and the charge framing order delivered by the Tribunal clearly shows that the Delwar Hossein Sayedee was charged for Crimes Against Humanity according to the dictates of Ahmed Ziauddin.

Formal Charge against Ghulam Azam submitted by Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin

  1. Email exchanges between Ahmed Ziauddin and Nizamul Huq Nasim clearly show that the Formal Charge in the case of Ghulam Azam was prepared at the behest of Ahmed Ziauddin. Although the ICTA 1973 requires the Prosecution to submit the Formal Charge against the accused person, in the case of Ghulam Azam, the Formal Charge was prepared by Dr. Ziauddin, who is not a member of the Prosecution. It is clear therefore the order of cognizance taken by the Tribunal on the basis of Dr. Ziauddin’s Formal Charge is illegal. In such circumstances, the order of cognizance should be recalled, the Prosecution should be directed to submit a Formal Charge afresh and the Accused, Professor Ghulam Azam should be released from custody.

  2. On 10th December 2011 (Ref: Pg 254), Ahmed Ziauddin sent Nizamul Hoque Nasim an email attaching a document titled “GA-FC.doc” containing an outline of the charges to be brought out against Ghulam Azam by the prosecution. On 11 December 2011, after having a telephone conversation with the Prosecutors, Ahmed Ziauddin sent an e-mail (Ref: Pg 247, Pg 248, Pg 249, Pg 250, Pg 251, Pg 252, Pg 253) to the prosecutors Sultan Mahmud (‘Simon’) and Zead Al-Malum setting out “the five ‘broad’ charges that we feel could be brought against Ghulam Azam under which all the incidents mentioned in the draft and in the Investigation Report would likely to fit in.” In the e-mail Ahmed Ziauddin also stated that the formal charge has to decipher the “coded” words allegedly used by Ghulam Azam to give “specific” messages and instructions in order to “make sense of offences committed by him” for otherwise ” the expressions look benign”. The said e-mail was immediately forwarded to Ahmed Ziauddin by Nizamul Hoque Nasim on the same day, i.e. 11th December 2011.
  3. In an email dated 12th of December 2011 (Ref: Pg 240), Ahmed Ziauddin sent a document titled “FormalChargeGhulamAzam12122011” to Nizamul Hoque Nasim setting out details of the charges to be brought against Ghulam Azam by the prosecution. On the same day, Ahmed Ziauddin sent another e-mail to Nizamul Hoque Nasim containing two attachments, one titled “FormalChargeOnProf.GhulamAzam.doc” the other titled “GA.doc“.
  1. In an email dated 18th December 2011 (Ref: Pg 232, Pg 233, Pg 234), Rayhan Rashid warned the Prosecutors Zead Al-Malum, Sultan Mahmud and Saiful Islam of the possibility of a leak of the Formal Charge. In the text of the email he stated ‘I am writing to check if you are aware that Golam Azam’s Formal Charge document may have been leaked to the media’. He also warned that ‘with one obvious incident of leak, the possibility remains that there may be other such incidents which significantly reduce any strategic advantages that the prosecution team may currently be enjoying.’ This email was also forwarded by Rayhan Rashid to Ahmed Ziauddin and Nizamul Hoque Nasim on the same day.
  2. On 19th December 2011, Ahmed Ziauddin sent an email (Ref: Pg 230) to Nizamul Hoque Nasim with a document bearing the title ‘Formal Charge 2.doc‘ which was a draft of the formal charge to be submitted against Ghulam Azam.  By an email dated 20th December 2011 (Ref: Pg 228), Ahmed Ziauddin sent Nizamul Hoque Nasim another document, bearing the title ‘Formal Charge Version 3.doc’ which was an amended draft of the formal Charge to be submitted against Ghulam Azam.

  3. On 23rd December 2011, Ahmed Ziauddin sent an email (http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/justice-denied/unparalleled-power) with a revised version of the formal charge against Ghulam Azam to Nizamul Hoque Nasim. In the e-mail Ahmed Ziauddin stated that the attached sketch of the charges will be explained to Nizamul Hoque Nasim by one Sanjeeb. Ahmed Ziauddin also informed Nizamul Hoque Nasim that he will also be “available if needed”. The document attached to the email dated 23rd December 2011 (http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/justice-denied/unparalleled-power) contains a revised structure of the formal charges against Ghulam Azam, which was prepared by the lobby-group (run, amongst others by Rayhan Rashid) International Crimes Strategy Forum (ICSF) on 23rd December 2011. The said ICSF document sets out in detail the strategy to be adopted and the path to be followed by the prosecution in order to establish the commission of crimes against humanity by Ghulam Azam. In the document it was stated that “most importantly we have to establish a link, i.e. a chain of command between the top echelon of the Jamaat-e-Islami and Peace committee with these forces, i.e. Razakars etc.” In the same document ICSF expressed a desire to have Jamaat Islami established as an auxiliary force. The statement that “we want to establish Jamaat Islami as an auxiliary force” which appears in the second page of the document was underlined and written in bold letters to emphasize its importance. Unsurprisingly, such desire of Ahmed Ziauddin and ICSF to see Jamaat Islami established as an auxiliary force was in part fulfilled when Jamaat Islami was so regarded in the charge framing order dated 13th May 2012 delivered by the tribunal.

  4. Pursuant to such collaboration between Ahmad Ziauddin, Nizamul Hoque Nasim and the Prosecutors in drawing up the formal charge, on 26th December 2011 the Tribunal presided by Nizamul Hoque Nasim passed an order directing the prosecution to submit a formal charge against Ghulam Azam in an appropriate format by 5th January 2012. Such order was passed by Nizamul Hoque Nasim knowing full well that in the meantime, the formal charge was being prepared with the active help and collaboration of Ahmed Ziauddin, with whom Nizamul Hoque Nasim was in constant communication.
Collusion between Tribunal and Prosecution

:

  1. The conversation between Mr. Justice Huq and Dr. Ziauddin reveal the manner and extent of collusion between the Tribunal and the Prosecution in determining the course of proceedings of the cases pending before the Tribunal. Mr. Justice Huq had regular meetings with the Prosecutors during which decisions were taken regarding filing of petitions by the Prosecutors and passing of orders thereon by the Tribunal. Not only that, Ziauddin played an important role in advising the erstwhile Chairman and the Prosecutors, often acting as a conduit for the exchange of information between the Tribunal and the Prosecution. These conversations clearly establish that the Tribunal had been acting in collusion with the Prosecution to secure conviction of the accused persons. A fair trial can only be ensured by removing the Prosecutors who were seeking to pervert the course of justice.

  2. On 8th September 2012, Mr. Justice Huq told Dr. Ziauddin that in a discussion with the Chief Prosecutor, he had told him that in the case of ‘No. 1’ (i.e., Ghulam Azam), no adjournments would be given and that if the Prosecution is able to produce witnesses, this case will continue (Audio Conversation of 8th September may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 13.42-14.00). In fact, a large part of the conversation of 8th September shows how the Tribunal, the Prosecution and Dr Ziauddin were working together to determine the pace at which the trials should run and as to the scope of the Tribunal-1 delivering judgment in the case of Ghulam Azam before any other case.

  3. On 13th September, Mr. Justice Huq told Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin that if he needed a copy of the day’s proceedings (i.e., deposition of Sultana Kamal), the Prosecutor Zead Al Malum could have simply called him (Mr. Justice Huq) and obtained a copy from him and that he (Malum) could then just scan the document and send it to Ziauddin. Mr. Justice Huq himself also stated that the normal process is to make a formal application for certified copy, which naturally takes time. He expressed disappointment that the Prosecutor did not call him to obtain a copy of the deposition. This conversation clearly shows that Mr. Justice Huq is in constant communication with the Prosecutor Zead Al Malum and that Mr. Justice Huq did not consider it improper for a Prosecutor to speak to him directly over the phone. (Audio Conversation of 13th September may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 2.20-4.30).

  4. In a conversation with Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin on 5th October 2012, Mr. Justice Huq said that he had summoned the Prosecutors in the evening and that he had informed them that the Prosecution case (in the case of Ghulam Azam) had now reached a stage where it could be closed after producing the Investigating Officer as the final Prosecution Witness. Mr. Justice Huq also said that he had asked the Prosecutor to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal so that he could restrict the number of Defence Witnesses. (Audio Conversation of 5th October may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 02.30-4.10). The next day (which was a Saturday, a weekly holiday in Bangladesh), Mr. Justice Huq, upon being queried by Dr. Ziauddin, admitted that the Chief Prosecutor and the Prosecutor Zead Al Malum had come to visit him in the morning and that he had asked them to come up with an appropriate application whereupon he would pass ‘proper orders’. Mr. Justice Huq also stated that he wanted the application to be filed expeditiously by the Prosecution (Audio Conversation of 6th October may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 00.10-00.45).

  5. In yet another conversation on 12th October 2012 (which was a Friday, a weekly holiday in Bangladesh), Mr. Justice Huq admitted to Dr. Ziauddin that the Chief Prosecutor and the Prosecutor Zead Al Malum had come to visit him in the morning and that they had come to a ‘common conclusion’. (Audio Conversation of 12th October 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 00.10-00.30).

Executive Interference with the process of the Tribunal

  1. The conversation between Mr. Justice Huq and Dr. Ziauddin clearly show extensive executive interference with the process of the Tribunal. Furthermore, there is evidence to show that the erstwhile Chairman of the Tribunal had been offered promotion (elevation to the Appellate Division) upon disposal of as many as three cases pending before the Tribunal. According to Justice Huq, the Chief Justice (whom he refers to as the “Big Guy”) told him if he passed a judgment in Prof. Golam Azam’s case, he would be elevated. But another Appellate Division judge asked for three judgments. In the conversation he clarifies that the 3 judgments are that of Delwar Hossain Sayedee, Prof. Ghulam Azam and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury. (Audio Conversation of 6th September 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 57.00-58.59). Mr. Justice Huq says the following to Dr. Ziauddin at various points of his skype conversation on 6 September, 2012:

    Mr. Justice Huq:     The Bug Guy [i.e. the Chief Justice] is waiting for that one [i.e Ghulam Azam’s case]

    …….

    Mr Justice Huq:     He [the Chief Justice] says give me one. Sinha Babu – ‘says give me three by December. This one [i.e. Delwar Hossain Sayeedee], Ghulam Azam’s and Saqa’s [i.e. Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury]. If you can deliver judgments in these three then its confirmed. Then we will bring you here. You won’t be needed there anymore.’ I said do whatever you will but give me the promotion first.

    (Reported in the Daily Amar Desh on 9 December, 2012)

    In the ordinary course of events Mr. Justice Huq would never make it to the Appellate Division. He was offered an otherwise unattainable promotion as an incentive. He would be superseding 50 Judges in the Seniority List to be appointed as a judge of the Appellate Division. It is difficult to believe other judges in both Tribunals-1 and 2 were not given similar incentives. In fact it is only natural that they were.

  2. On 5th October, Mr. Justice Huq told Dr. Ziauddin that he would speak to the Law Minister and convey to him his concerns regarding appointing Tureen Afroze as a ‘Researcher’ for the Tribunal. Mr. Justice Huq told Dr. Ziauddin that he would tell the Law Minister, ‘Sir, you can appoint Tureen as Researcher for the Prosecution …’ (Audio Conversation of 5th October 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 16.55-17.15). In a subsequent conversation on 8th October 2012, Mr. Justice Huq told Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin that he would try to meet the Law Minister the next Friday with regard to the appointment of a researcher for the Tribunal (Audio Conversation of 8th October 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 08.30-08.50). The tenor of the conversation suggests that he meets the Law Minister on a regular basis.

  3. In a skype conversation of 27 August 2012, Mr. Justice Huq told Dr. Ziauddin that the latest appointee to the Tribunal, Mr. Justice Jahangir has been selected by the State Minister for Law. Dr. Ziauddin then asks how can he be appointed. Does not the Prime Minister know about this. Justice Huq replies by saying that the Prime Ministers does. This is the conversation:

    Justice Huq:     He is not our choice. Not even the Law Minister’s choice. However, his name came up and then he was recommended by the Chief Justice . He is a lawyer from the lower courts. Quamrul (i.e. State Minister for Law) made him a Tribunal judge. He was a Public Prosecutor at the Smuggling Court. He was nick-named “Gold Dealer Jahangir”.

                ( Reported in Daily Amar Desh, 9 December, 2012 )

    Then again later on the following conversation takes place on the same day.

    Justice Huq:     I believe he has come on the Quamrul Quota. He has been appointed on the Quamrul Quota.

    Dr. Ziauddin:     How is this possible? Does not the Prime Minister know?

    Justice Huq:     She does but she really like them (meaning Quamrul and his men)……

    ( Reported in Daily Amar Desh, 9 December, 2012 )

  4. In the same conversation, Mr. Justice Huq describes the newly appointed judge as corrupt. And then he clarifies – “At least he was corrupt”. He then says later on in the conversation that since Mr. Justice Jahangir is corrupt, he will not cause any problems.

    ( Reported in Daily Amar Desh, 9 December, 2012 )

  5. When Dr. Ziauddin asks Mr. Justice Huq of Justice Jahangir’s Political background, he replies that he is an Awami Leaguer (Amar Desh 9 December,2012 ) The following conversation took place:

    Dr. Ziauddin:     So what are his political leanings?

    Justice Huq:     Awami. Awami.

    Dr. Ziauddin:     My goodness. If there are too many Awami Leaguers, then …..

    Justice Huq:     I believe that’s exactly what they had in mind. Babu is JSD (i.e. a socialist party) and Tagore is CPB (i.e. Communist Party of Bangladesh). So they thought they would appoint an Awami Leaguer.

    Dr. Ziauddin:     So divide and rule. Our Law Minister could not do anything then.

  6. On 1st September 2012, Mr. Justice Huq told Dr. Ziauddin that the latest appointee to the Tribunal, Mr. Justice Jahangir a political person and has been ‘instructed’ to say ‘Ok’ in court to whatever Mr. Justice Huq says, and that if he wanted to say anything, he (Justice Jahangir) should do so privately in Justice Huq’s room (i.e. chambers). (Audio Conversation of 1st September 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 11.15-12.40). The relevant portion of the Skype conversation of 1 September, 2012 is as follows:-

    Justice Huq:     I know him from before. He’s good. He is a political person …..

                ……..

    Justice Huq:     Let’s see. He won’t be bad. He has been instructed to express his views inside the room. In court he has been told to say Ok to whatever the Chairman say.

  7. In a conversation on 28th August 2012, Mr. Justice Huq informed Dr. Ziauddin that Justice Jahangir had been ‘instructed’ to say ‘Yes’ to whatever the Chairman says (Audio Conversation of 28th August 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 01.30-02.00).

  8. Mr Justice Huq also said that a former Member of Tribunal-1, Mr. Zaheer Ahmed had been removed from the Tribunal at the behest of the Law Minister. Mr. Justice Huq stated that the Law Minister had summoned Mr. Zaheer Ahmed to his residence on the evening of 26th August 2012 and had asked him to resign and further that the Law Minister had assured Mr. Zaheer Ahmed of an appointment in the Law Commission (Audio Conversation of 28th August 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 03.30-04.25). In a subsequent conversation on 1st September, Mr. Justice Huq said that he had advised Mr. Zaheer Ahmed to tell everyone that he had resigned on medical grounds (Audio Conversation of 1st September 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 07.05-08.00). On 1 September, the skype conversaion of Mr Justice Huq reveals the following about his instructions to Mr. Zaheer Ahmed:

    Justice Huq:     I told him [Mr. Zaheer Ahmed] ‘you will not talk to anyone about anything. You will simply say you resigned for medical reasons- which is the fact. You will not say anything else’. If he uses the language he used with me then we will have problems. He will also lose his job offer [at the Law Commission].

  9. On 6th September 2012, Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin expressed his satisfaction, in a conversation with Mr. Justice Huq, that Mr. Justice ATM Fazle Kabir (the former Chairman of Tribunal-2 and the newly appointed Chairman of Tribunal-1) will make statements on political considerations


    (Reported in the Daily Amar Desh on 9 December, 2012.)

  10. A conversation between Mr. Justice Huq and Dr. Ziauddin on 1st September 2012 clearly shows that the administrative functionaries of the Tribunal are political appointees. The two men discuss how the new Assistant Registrar, Shawkat had been involved beforehand with ICSF (which has long been campaigning for trial of Jamaat leaders) and that he was considered as reliable by them. (Audio Conversation of 1st September 2012 may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 03.15-05.25). Also see email dated 30 August 2012 of Rayhan Rashid to Dr Ziauddin (copied to the Mr. Justice Huq) available at http://www.bdictunveiled.com/bdictunveiled/index.php/component/k2/item/258-emails1-53 .

  11. On 8th September 2012, Mr. Justice Huq and Dr. Ziauddin agreed that the case of Professor Ghulam Azam should be disposed of first given that there was a ‘political signal’ regarding its disposal (Audio Conversation of 8th September may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 28.42-29.00). On 14th October 2012, Mr. Justice Huq stated that the Government had gone mad for a judgment and that they are extremely keen to have a judgment delivered by 16th December 2012. See also Economist Report – Trying war crimes in Bangladesh available at http://www.economist.com/world/asia

  12. On 14th October 2012, Mr. Justice Huq informed Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin that the Government had gone absolutely mad for a judgment, but that he could deliver a judgment in Saydee’s case within December 2012, but not that of Professor Ghulam Azam, which would continue till January-February 2013. He also said that the Government would ‘cool down’ only after a judgment has been delivered (Audio Conversation of 14th October may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 10.45-11.43). This is also reported in Amar Desh:

    Justice Huq:    The Government is mad for a judgment. If its Sayedee they want I can deliver a judgment in December. The Government is mad. They want a judgment.

                ( Reported in Amar Desh 9 December, 2012)

  13. In a conversation on 15th October 2012, Mr. Justice Huq stated that the State Minister for Law had visited him and that he (the State Minister) had asked him to deliver judgment in the case of Professor Ghulam Azam quickly. Mr. Justice Huq also stated that the State Minister had said that a meeting would be arranged of all the judges of the Tribunals in order to ensure that that judgment in the case of Professor Ghulam Azam before any other case. Dr. Ziauddin also indicates that a similar message was sent by him to the Law Minister Audio Conversation of 15th Octiber may be accessed from the archive available at http://www.tribunalsleaks.be/index.php/documentation/archive/audioarchive – Relevant excerpts of the audio at 00.20-01.15. This conversation was also reported in the Daily Amar Desh.

    Justice Huq:    Today he [State Minister for Law] came to see me in the evening …..

    ….

    Justice Huq:    …. He [the State Minister for Law] says – ‘after I come back [from Hajj] I will make the two tribunals sit together with Sir [i.e. Law Minister] in one room and discuss the matter. You [Tribunal-1] will deliver Ghulam Azam’s judgment first, then they will deliver theirs.’

                (Reported in Amar Desh on 15 October, 2012)

  14. Mr. Justice Huq and Dr. Ziauddin express their glee over the cabinet reshuffle. They are happy with the appointment of Dr. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir as Home Minister in place of Sahara Khatun. They describe Dr. Alamgir as an ‘informal ICT contact person’. On 15 September Dr. Ziauddin and Mr. Justice Huq have the following conversation:-

    Dr. Ziauddin:    Sahara Khatun has been removed. This is good news. And the person who has replaced her has good access to a lot of people. And he was already the ICT’s informal contact person. So this will be positive. ……

  15. They also express satisfaction in their 15 September skype conversation over the appointment Hasanul Hoque Inu as the Information Minister.

    Dr. Ziauddin:    On the other hand Inu Bhai has been given an important responsibility- Information.

    Justice Huq:    Yes.

    Dr. Ziauddin:    We have to get two things done by him. There is a policy document which was being prepared on information or the web, with which Im worried needs to be dealt with. Plus the Information Ministry has been used the least of all by the ICT. And the Government has done nothing. It is work of the Law Ministry by giving n publicity is the work of the Information Ministry. These two tasks have to be done through Inu Bhai. … I have shared my concerns with Inu Bhai with respect to the ICT. He is aware of my concerns. This is good. So Im happy with this appointment. Both appointments are good news. Both are key ministries. ……

        (Reported in Amar Desh on 15 September, 2012)

  16. Skype conversations show Dr. Ziauddin and Mr. Justice Huq took control over Tribunal-2 through the prosecutors and one of the judges. It was easy to for Dr. Ziauddin to influence proceedings Tribunal-1 directly through its Chairman, Mr. Md, Nizamul Huq. However, Dr. Ziauddin initially had no access to the judges of Tribunal 2. The two seem worried that Tribunal-2 is advancing really fast with three cases – (1) Abdul Kader Mollah, (2) Md, Kamaruzzaman and (3) Abdul Alim.

  17. Skype conversations show how Dr. Ziauddin and Mr. Justice Huq planned and prepared to take control over the Tribual-2. They both perceived that Tribunal-2 was trying to compete with it to pass the first judgment. They were of the impression that since they were dealing with the prominent leaders of Jamaat – Professor Ghulam Azam, Motiur Rahman Nizami and Delwar Hossain Sayeedee they should be the first in passing judgment. It appears from a number of discussions that there was an unhealthy competition to pass the first war crimes judgment in Bangladesh. According to Dr. Ziauddin, A.T.M. Fazle Kabir And Shahinur Isam did not like Mr. Justice Huq. So they approached the other member Mr. Justice Obaiudul Hassan Shaheen to influence proceedings in this Tribunal. Dr. Ziauddin also had meetings with the Prosecutors of Tribunal-2 to slow things down. In fact they even list the help of the executive so as to be the first in passing judgment. Justice Huq tells Dr. Ziauddin how the State Minister for Law offered to help:-

    Justice Huq:    …. He [the State Minister for Law] says – ‘after I come back [from Hajj] I will make the two tribunals sit together with Sir [i.e. Law Minister] in one room and discuss the matter. You [Tribunal-1] will deliver Ghulam Azam’s judgment first, then they will deliver theirs.’

                (Reported in the Daily Amar Desh on 15 October, 2012)

  18. On 8 September, 2012, Dr. Ziauddin tells Mr. Justice Huq that he has spoken to the prosecutors of Tribunal-2 who are willing to co-operate so that the cases in Tribunal-2 fall behind and Tribunal -1 can pass the first judgment in Prof. Ghulam Azam. Dr. Ziauddin tells Mr. Justice Huq:-

    Dr. Ziauddin:    Day before yesterday I spoke to a few of them –those who are in the Prosecution there. Saiful [Saiful Islam is the prosecutor in Md Kamaruzzman’s case] and others.

    Mr. Justice Huq: Yes.

    Dr. Ziauddin:     I wanted to know what their position was. They too were perhaps thinking about the matter (i.e. about order in which cases should be disposed) … They (i.e. Tribunal-2) were moving ahead swiftly with three cases – Kader Mollah, Kamaruzzaman and Alim …….

    ….

    Dr. Ziauddin:     That day for the first time a number of prosecutors from this side [meaning from Tribunal-1] were present in the Skype meeting. Malum, Simon and Tarek [Saiful’s nick name] were also there…… …. We agreed on two things considering all the legal aspects. Firstly, that the first judgment must be delivered by Tribunal-1. There can be no competition here …….

                (Reported in Amar Desh on 9 December 2012)

  19. Dr. Ziauddin is also heard to say later on

    Dr. Ziauddin:     So now that the Prosecutors will cooperate in Ghulam Azam’s matter [i.e . they will make sure that Ghulam Azam is first and the other cases in Tribunal-2 will be slowed down]


    (Reported in Amar Desh on 9 December 2012)

  20. Dr. Ziauddin continues

    Dr. Ziauddin:     There is a political signal as well. …. There is no way that Tribnal-2 can pass the first judgment. .. If required we will engineer this outcome. And they [i.e. the Prosecutors] will agree to this. Everyone agrees that this case [i.e. Prof Ghlam Azam’s case] will be very significant.

                (Reported in Amar Desh on 9 December 2012)

  21. That the Prosecutors of Tribunal-2 actually slowed down proceedings in the cases of Tribunal-2 is apparent from Mr. justice Huq’s conversation with Dr. Ziauddin , on 14 October 2012 regarding Saiful, nick-named Tarek (one of the Prosecutors of Tribunal-2) Mr. Justice Huq says of Saiful (Tarek):-

    Justice Huq:     ….. No Tarek looks after Kamaruzzaman’s case. He has slowed down proceedings there.

                (Reported in Amar Desh on 9 December 2012)

  22. So here we have one example of how the Prosecutors colluded with Dr. Ziauddin and Mr. justice Huq to affect court proceedings.

Judge and Prosecution acting in collusion to deceive the Public.

  1. 1The Amar Desh disclosed on 10 December, 2010 how the former Chairman of Tribunal-1 and the Prosecutor, Zead Al Malum, put on an act to show to the defence and the public that they (i.e. the Tribunal and Prosecution) are not on good terms. The Chairman tells Dr. Ziauddin over Skype that he (the Chairman) and the Prosecutor Malum have agreed that – Mr. Malum will stand up and make meaningless objections in court and the Chairman will order him to sit down. All this would be done to show to the public that there is no good relationship between the Tribunal and the Prosecution. The Chairman is heard to say the following to Dr. Ziauddin :

        Justice Huq:    No there was no reason. I scolded and asked him to sit down. Later I called him back to his room. He then said – “you have done the right thing. I will stand up and you will order me to sit down. Let people see that you do not favour me.”

    (Skype Conversation dated 12 Sept 2012– Reported in Amar Desh on 10 Oct, 2012)

  2. Note how a Judge is expressing his glee in deceiving the public by hiding his true relationship with the Prosecution.
  3. And then Dr. Ziauddin approves of this deception saying that this is Mr. Malum’s strategy to raise public confidence in the Tribunal.

        Dr. Ziauddin:     That is his strategy. It is appropriate from that aspect. People we see that the Prosecution is trying and failing. That will inspire confidence in the process.

Judge involved in Prosecution Strategy.

  1. Judge, Prosecution (particularly Zead Al Malum) and Dr. Ziauddin acting were acting in collusion throughout the trial. Dr. Ziauddin says that the Prosecution strategy should only be known to 5 people – i.e. 3-4 core Prosecutors and to the two of them (i.e. Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin). Dr. Ziauddin tells the Chairman:-

        Dr. Ziauddin:     Only 5 of us will know -3 to 4 core prosecutors and the two of us.

        (Reported in the Amar Desh on 10 December)

How Dr. Ziauddin and Justice Huq exercised control over Tribunal-2

  1. Moreover, it may be mentioned here that in Kamaruzzaman’s case which was specifically being dealt with by Prosecutor Saiful (i.e. Tarek), 13 prosecution witnesses were produced and examined from 15 July to 15 October, 2012 . However, from 16 October to 16 December, 2012 the deposition of only one additional witness has been complete. Interestingly, the judges of the Tribunal-2 has also facilitated this slowing down. This Prosecutor spent one and a half months in the United States and the Tribunal-2 (rather un-characteristically) adjourned Kamaruzzman’s case to facilitate Saiful’s holiday. Compare this with the situation where Defence Lawyers who were absent on a hartal day ( 4 December, 2012) were asked to explain in writing as to why they did not appear before the Tribunal-2 on that day.

  2. The slowing down of proceedings would not have been possible without collusion of the judge(s) of Tribunal-2. In this regard they [Dr. Ziauddin and Mr. Justice Huq] tried to establish contact with Mr. Justice Obaidul Hasan Shaheen a Member of Tribunal-2. In his skype conversation dated 6 September, 2012, Mr. Justice Huq says he contacted Justice Obaidul Hasan Shaheen, who when approached by Mr. Justice Huq said:

    “Let me see and understand how things are going on.”

            (Reported in Daily Amar Desh on 9 December, 2012)

  3. Now according to Dr. Ziauddin, two of the judges of Tribunal-2 (A.T.M Fazle Kabir and Shahinur Islam do not like Mr. Justice Nizamul Huq. So they have to establish contact with the other judge Justice Obaidul Hasan Shaheen of the same Tribunal.

  4. On 8 September, 2012 the following conversation take place:

    Dr. Ziauddin:     … …. I don’t know how you’ll take it but those two – ATM Fazle Kabir, J and Shahinur Islam J [judges of Tribunal-2] – don’t like you.

    Justice Huq:     Hah Hah.

        Dr. Ziauddin:     …. These two – they are not gentlemen. Their main target is just that [i.e. to deliver a judgment first]. And that’s what they have told the Law Minister. They even told the Law Minister, give us Prof. Ghulam Azam’s case – we will do it better …..

            (Reported in Daily Amar Desh on 9 December, 2012)

  5. So on 16 October, 2012 Dr. Ziauddn tells Mr. Justice Huq that he has not been introduced to the other judge of Tribunal-2, Mr. Justice Obaidul Hassan Shaheen. He complains how Judge Shahinur Islam did not introduce Mr. Justice Obaidul Hassan Shaheen to him. Mr. Justice Huq then say he will introduce him to Mr. Justice Obaidul Hassan Shaheen at his own residence when Dr. Ziuaddin comes to Bangladesh on 22 October, 2012

        Justice Huq:    No need to go there. We will at my residence.

    Then again when Dr. Ziauddin complains repeatedly about how he was not introduced, Mr. Justice Huq says:

        Justice Huq:    God willing, this time it [meaning the introduction with Justice Obaidul Hassan Shaheen] will happen.”

        (Amar Desh -13 December 2012)

  6. Due to lack of availability of skype conversations after 22 October, 2012 (when Dr. Ziauddin came to Bangladesh) we don’t know what happened at that meeting or if took place. But looking at the proceedings in the Tribunal-2, one would have to say proceedings have slowed down dramatically . From mid July up to mid October an average of 5 witnesses were being examined in each month. After mid October not even one is being completed in a month.

Conclusions:

  1. The above was information from one set of skype conversations and emails with one judge of one Tribunal. This limited information show Executive pressure on judges to deliver judgments and incentives of promotion if judgments are passed within a specified time. It shows how judges are involved in the tutoring of witnesses. It also shows the extent of the influence of Dr Ahmed Ziauddin over both Tribunals.

  2. Although strictly speaking it may be argued that the skype conversations and emails show executive interference and giving of incentives in respect of one judge only, it is difficult to believe that this one judge having been so influenced, other judges were allowed to act independently. It would only be a logical conclusion that executive interference practiced on Justice Huq was practiced on all others. If Ministers and Junior Ministero gave directions to one judge and visited them, it is almost certain they visited the other judges. One cannot be expected to police judges. The judges were expected to independent and honest. But they have fallen short of such standards. Now the entire Tribunal has to be replaced by ‘fresh judges’.

  3. One cannot be expected to provide ‘hacked’ conversations and email of all the judges to justify the above claim. It is a miracle that these conversations have been made available in the first place. But the information made available so far is more than sufficient to indicate a serious miscarriage of justice by both the Tribunals. The Tribunals have lost their credibility. In such situation, a new Tribunal has to be constituted with new judges not tainted by Dr. Ziauddin, Mr. Justice Huq and the various Ministers and Junior Ministers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: