A new defence witness for Jamaat-e-Islami leader Delwar Hossain Sayedee
on Sunday said there were no incidents of loot, plunder or arson during
the nine-month Liberation War.
Abdul Halim Fakir, aged 55, said he was a student of ninth grade during the war, but did not see any Pakistani soldiers or their collaborators raid his village.
Although a large hospital bed, as ordered by the tribunal on Thursday, had been arranged and lay before the court, Sayedee's 15th defence witness, who had taken ill over lunch on Wednesday, did not need to lie down.
The 65-year old Abdus Salam Howladar faced Prosecutor Syed Haider Ali's cross-examination, which concluded to make way for another new witness from Sayedee's defence.
The three-judge International Crimes Tribunal-1, set up to try crimes against humanity during the 1971 Liberation War, indicted the Jamaat executive council leader for 20 war crimes on Oct 3, 2011.
The allegations include murder, rape, arson and loot in and around Parerhat of Pirojpur.
Saydee's third son, Masood Sayedee, has also completed his cross-examination. The defence submitted a large volume of material through Masood as he has been mainly assisting the defence team with material for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
There were no further witnesses for Sayedee although the defence still has four more witnesses to go.
The tribunal said after lunch, referring to its order of Thursday (Oct 18) that an order had already been passed and it stood. The tribunal had ordered that Sayedee's defence would not be allowed any more time after Sunday if they failed to bring all their witnesses on that day.
When Prosecutor Syed Haider Ali approached the tribunal to fix a date for closing argument which would be the next phase of the trial, chairman Justice Mohammad Nizamul Huq said, "An appropriate order will be passed tomorrow."
Jamaat chief defence counsel Abdur Razzaq put to the tribunal several times that the defence had already filed applications in this regard and if the tribunal chose to pass order in chambers, the defence be heard.
The tribunal, however, did not commit either way. Before rising, it reminded the senior defence counsel that he had failed to produce his remaining four witnesses by the end of the day.
Abdul Halim Fakir, aged 55, said he was a student of ninth grade during the war, but did not see any Pakistani soldiers or their collaborators raid his village.
Although a large hospital bed, as ordered by the tribunal on Thursday, had been arranged and lay before the court, Sayedee's 15th defence witness, who had taken ill over lunch on Wednesday, did not need to lie down.
The 65-year old Abdus Salam Howladar faced Prosecutor Syed Haider Ali's cross-examination, which concluded to make way for another new witness from Sayedee's defence.
The three-judge International Crimes Tribunal-1, set up to try crimes against humanity during the 1971 Liberation War, indicted the Jamaat executive council leader for 20 war crimes on Oct 3, 2011.
The allegations include murder, rape, arson and loot in and around Parerhat of Pirojpur.
Saydee's third son, Masood Sayedee, has also completed his cross-examination. The defence submitted a large volume of material through Masood as he has been mainly assisting the defence team with material for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
There were no further witnesses for Sayedee although the defence still has four more witnesses to go.
The tribunal said after lunch, referring to its order of Thursday (Oct 18) that an order had already been passed and it stood. The tribunal had ordered that Sayedee's defence would not be allowed any more time after Sunday if they failed to bring all their witnesses on that day.
When Prosecutor Syed Haider Ali approached the tribunal to fix a date for closing argument which would be the next phase of the trial, chairman Justice Mohammad Nizamul Huq said, "An appropriate order will be passed tomorrow."
Jamaat chief defence counsel Abdur Razzaq put to the tribunal several times that the defence had already filed applications in this regard and if the tribunal chose to pass order in chambers, the defence be heard.
The tribunal, however, did not commit either way. Before rising, it reminded the senior defence counsel that he had failed to produce his remaining four witnesses by the end of the day.
0 comments:
Post a Comment