Wholesale concoction and lie admitted by tribunal to frame Sayedee revealed by David Bergman, an independent and foreign journalist.
Sayedee trial analysis: Safe house register
Delwar Hossain Sayedee at the tribunal
This fourth analytical article considers what is perhaps the most significant issue that has come before the tribunal involving the trial of Delwar Hossain Sayedee.
It concerns the defense's application to review the 29 March 2012 order which allowed 15 unsigned statements to be admitted as evidence against Delwar Hossain Sayedee
An analysis of the 29 March order was dealt with in a separate post. There I concluded that though there were reasons to question the Tribunal's decision to admit the statements, it was arguably reasonable within the tribunal's broad discretion. The lack of reasoning in the order was however of concern, as well as the court's failure to provide the defense a copy of an investigation report upon which the tribunal based its decision.
However, the application filed for the review of this order opened up a whole new can of worms, raising very significant issues concerning the very integrity of the investigation and prosecution process.
The tribunal has so far failed to engage with the issues of integrity raised by this. In addition it passed orders that failed to assist the defense lawyers in proving the authenticity of documents that it had ruled the defense should prove
This is what happened.
15 witness statement order: On 29 March 2012 the tribunal passed an order which allowed 15 unsigned statements to be admitted as evidence without the relevant witnesses being brought to court. This order was given on the basis of prosecution arguments that the witnesses were either missing or were in hiding due to threats from armed men on the side of the accused.
Safe house registers: On 10 April 2012, the Amar Desh newspaper, a pro-BNP publication wrote an article alleging that three registers concerning the safe house (the place where prosecution witnesses stayed in Dhaka prior to attending court as a witness) showed that some of the witnesses whom the prosecution said were not available to give evidence (missing or threatened) and whose statement the tribunal had agreed to admit on the basis of the prosecution assertions, had in fact stayed at the safe house in Dhaka at the time when the court was hearing testimony.
As part of their application filed by the defense to 'review' the 29 March order, the defense lawyers initially appended the Amar Desh article and then subsequently on 3 June filed a copy of the actual registers with the court as part of their review application.
The defense lawyers appear to have received the register from the Amar Desh journalist, Oliullah Noman. This journalist has not revealed how he obtained these registers - and it is of course possible that Noman actually received the registers from the defense lawyers (though the defense lawyers deny this).
The registrars are very detailed daily records providing information not just on every entry and every exit of every person from the tribunal, but also administrative details about the house (including the names of all the police offices involved in dealing with the safe house, their mobile numbers, badge numbers, what was purchased etc).
The defense lawyers argued in court that the witnesses whom the register shows had come to Dhaka from Pirojpur, did not wish to give evidence to the tribunal, as they did not want to lie for the prosecution. The register however provides no actual evidence that this was the particular reason behind their non-attendance.
What the registers show: What the registrars do however show is that out of the 15 witnesses whose statements the tribunal agreed could be admitted as evidence without them having to be brought to court, seven had come to Dhaka and were available to give evidence during the period when the tribunal was taking testimony, and either they did not want to give evidence or the prosecution did not in the end for them to give evidence.
In two of the cases, the witnesses were actually brought to the tribunal itself and sat in the prosecution rooms but were not brought to court.
Specifically the registrar shows that, in date order:
- Abdul Latif Howlader was in the safe house between 31 December 2011 and 5th January 2012. During this period the register states that he was taken to the Tribunal consecutively on 2nd, 3rd and 4th January - but was never produced before the court. The register goes onto state that on 5th January along with five other people he went back to his home. 'At 6.30 am [they] started their journey for their house,' it states.
- Shohidul Islam Khan Selim stayed in the Safe House from 10th to 12th January and was taken to the prosecution room in Tribunal on the 11 and 12 January.
- three witnesses Ashish Kumar Mondol, Sumoti Rani Mondol and Somor Mondol were present in the safe house between 31st January and 16th March 2012. On the 16 March the register states that these witnesses at 6.20 am 'started their journey for their own house. However on 2 February the prosecution had told the tribunal that these three witnesses had left the house to go to a relative's and had never came back. In their application to admit their statement, the prosecution added that these three people had secretly gone to India
- Anil Chondro Mondol stayed in the Safe House from 12th to 16th January 2012.
- Ajit Kumar stayed at the safe house on 10 February and stayed until 13th February.
(I have checked the registers, with the help of an independent translator, and this is exactly what they show)
Defence review application: The defense lawyers first of all made their arguments on 22 May (here and here) on the basis of the Amar Desh article. [Note: On that same day the defense also showed video broadcast on Diganto and Islamic television in which four other witnesses, also amongst the 15 whose statements were admitted, denied Sayedee's involvement in offenses. This post does not deal with this relevance of the video evidence].
Prosecution response: On the next day, the prosecution responded and said that the information concerning the presence of these witnesses was 'false information'. The tribunal however asked the prosecutor to provide a written response.
In the written response, that came before the court on 3 June, the prosecution denied that such a register was ever kept, and that all the information in the Amar Desh article was false
Defence response: On 3 June in its response to this, the defense then filed a copy of the Attendance Registrar, General Diary Book and the Food Book of the Witness Safe House. The defense lawyer said that that the documents were now in the public domain having been put on the internet.
In camera proceedings: In response to seeing the documents, the tribunal passed the following order:
Upon the perusal of the reply we direct the person-in charge of the safe house where the prosecution Witness are kept, and all others persons of the safe house to be produced before the Tribunal on 7 June 2012. The investigation officer is directed to inform and bring them to the Tribunal.
On 7 June the safe house officers came to court and were questioned by the tribunal 'in camera' (i.e not in public). It is not known what was stated.
Defence 'prove' authentication: The matter then continued on 11 June. Here the defense went through the registers in detail, and showed how the comings and going of the witnesses to the safe house, as noted down in the registers, matched exactly the attendance of the witnesses in court.
As part of trying to prove the authenticity of the registers, the defense pointed to a number of entries in the registers that the defense could, they say, never have known about. This included:
- An entry numbered 175 on the page dealing with 12 January 2012 which stated that 'S.I. Kalachan has left the safe house to go to the CMM Court Number-31 Dhaka to give a statement on the case of Chawkbazar Police Station containing case no- 41(03)10 GR Case- 102/10 in Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 31, Dhaka.' The defense said that there was no way the defense could have known about this information and then produced the court documents to prove that in fact the police officer had indeed gone to the court as the register stated.
- An entry numbered 75 dated 06 February 2012 and Entry No. 175 dated 23 February 2012 which indicated that payment of telephone bills of the Safe Houses telephone numbers 7547810, 7547807 and 7547804 to BTCL needed payment. The November 2011 bill for those three numbers was stated for each of these numbers as 4912 taka, 4114 taka and 4168 taka. It was then written in the register that, 'The bill has been sent to the ICT Head Office.' A further entry numbered 374 stated that the bill had been paid. The defense then showed the tribunal copies of these paid bills;
- the mobile phone telephone numbers of all the police officers in the safe house;
- an entry numbered 59 dated 22 October 2011 which set out what furniture etc was purchased for the safe house.
- Entries numbered 115, 116 and 117 on the page dealing with 9 December 2011 which stated that someone had called Mr. Mahabubul Alam Hawladar and threatened him. The note states that: I the In Charge of Safe House, hereby note it down that I have called the Operation Officer Majharul Islam of Jatrabari Police Station to take necessary steps about the GD Entry No- 490, 491, 492, 516 and 534 dated- 08-12-2011 about the threats of the witness of the safe house over telephone. I hereby record the matter for the future reference. Majharul Islam has made a GD Entry No- 516, dated- 9-12-1011 about the above matter. Again the defense stated that it could never have known this detail of what happened.
The defense lawyer argued that these registers showed that the investigation officer had committed fraud upon the court and had perverted the course of justice as he failed to inform the court that these witnesses had been present at the safe house.
Prosecution 'concoction' allegation: In the afternoon of 11 June, the prosecution responded by saying that there was no need for the kind of establishment like the safe house to have a register and that it in fact it never had such a register. 'These documents never existed,' the prosecution said. 'These registers are concocted by some one who is expert in doing this. This is like fake currency. General people may not be able to identify it. But it is fake.' He went on:
'And my lord, a document which has been given by the defence these are nothing but fraudulently prepared. They have created these registers within this one month time for filing this review petition. there was fraud by you have to determine who have committed fraud. The defence prayer for discharge shows that these documents were concocted to substantiate this argument.
Full Analysis:
Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal: Sayedee trial analysis: Safe house register
Sayedee trial analysis: Safe house register
Delwar Hossain Sayedee at the tribunal
This fourth analytical article considers what is perhaps the most significant issue that has come before the tribunal involving the trial of Delwar Hossain Sayedee.
It concerns the defense's application to review the 29 March 2012 order which allowed 15 unsigned statements to be admitted as evidence against Delwar Hossain Sayedee
An analysis of the 29 March order was dealt with in a separate post. There I concluded that though there were reasons to question the Tribunal's decision to admit the statements, it was arguably reasonable within the tribunal's broad discretion. The lack of reasoning in the order was however of concern, as well as the court's failure to provide the defense a copy of an investigation report upon which the tribunal based its decision.
However, the application filed for the review of this order opened up a whole new can of worms, raising very significant issues concerning the very integrity of the investigation and prosecution process.
The tribunal has so far failed to engage with the issues of integrity raised by this. In addition it passed orders that failed to assist the defense lawyers in proving the authenticity of documents that it had ruled the defense should prove
This is what happened.
15 witness statement order: On 29 March 2012 the tribunal passed an order which allowed 15 unsigned statements to be admitted as evidence without the relevant witnesses being brought to court. This order was given on the basis of prosecution arguments that the witnesses were either missing or were in hiding due to threats from armed men on the side of the accused.
Safe house registers: On 10 April 2012, the Amar Desh newspaper, a pro-BNP publication wrote an article alleging that three registers concerning the safe house (the place where prosecution witnesses stayed in Dhaka prior to attending court as a witness) showed that some of the witnesses whom the prosecution said were not available to give evidence (missing or threatened) and whose statement the tribunal had agreed to admit on the basis of the prosecution assertions, had in fact stayed at the safe house in Dhaka at the time when the court was hearing testimony.
As part of their application filed by the defense to 'review' the 29 March order, the defense lawyers initially appended the Amar Desh article and then subsequently on 3 June filed a copy of the actual registers with the court as part of their review application.
The defense lawyers appear to have received the register from the Amar Desh journalist, Oliullah Noman. This journalist has not revealed how he obtained these registers - and it is of course possible that Noman actually received the registers from the defense lawyers (though the defense lawyers deny this).
The registrars are very detailed daily records providing information not just on every entry and every exit of every person from the tribunal, but also administrative details about the house (including the names of all the police offices involved in dealing with the safe house, their mobile numbers, badge numbers, what was purchased etc).
The defense lawyers argued in court that the witnesses whom the register shows had come to Dhaka from Pirojpur, did not wish to give evidence to the tribunal, as they did not want to lie for the prosecution. The register however provides no actual evidence that this was the particular reason behind their non-attendance.
What the registers show: What the registrars do however show is that out of the 15 witnesses whose statements the tribunal agreed could be admitted as evidence without them having to be brought to court, seven had come to Dhaka and were available to give evidence during the period when the tribunal was taking testimony, and either they did not want to give evidence or the prosecution did not in the end for them to give evidence.
In two of the cases, the witnesses were actually brought to the tribunal itself and sat in the prosecution rooms but were not brought to court.
Specifically the registrar shows that, in date order:
- Abdul Latif Howlader was in the safe house between 31 December 2011 and 5th January 2012. During this period the register states that he was taken to the Tribunal consecutively on 2nd, 3rd and 4th January - but was never produced before the court. The register goes onto state that on 5th January along with five other people he went back to his home. 'At 6.30 am [they] started their journey for their house,' it states.
- Shohidul Islam Khan Selim stayed in the Safe House from 10th to 12th January and was taken to the prosecution room in Tribunal on the 11 and 12 January.
- three witnesses Ashish Kumar Mondol, Sumoti Rani Mondol and Somor Mondol were present in the safe house between 31st January and 16th March 2012. On the 16 March the register states that these witnesses at 6.20 am 'started their journey for their own house. However on 2 February the prosecution had told the tribunal that these three witnesses had left the house to go to a relative's and had never came back. In their application to admit their statement, the prosecution added that these three people had secretly gone to India
- Anil Chondro Mondol stayed in the Safe House from 12th to 16th January 2012.
- Ajit Kumar stayed at the safe house on 10 February and stayed until 13th February.
(I have checked the registers, with the help of an independent translator, and this is exactly what they show)
Defence review application: The defense lawyers first of all made their arguments on 22 May (here and here) on the basis of the Amar Desh article. [Note: On that same day the defense also showed video broadcast on Diganto and Islamic television in which four other witnesses, also amongst the 15 whose statements were admitted, denied Sayedee's involvement in offenses. This post does not deal with this relevance of the video evidence].
Prosecution response: On the next day, the prosecution responded and said that the information concerning the presence of these witnesses was 'false information'. The tribunal however asked the prosecutor to provide a written response.
In the written response, that came before the court on 3 June, the prosecution denied that such a register was ever kept, and that all the information in the Amar Desh article was false
Defence response: On 3 June in its response to this, the defense then filed a copy of the Attendance Registrar, General Diary Book and the Food Book of the Witness Safe House. The defense lawyer said that that the documents were now in the public domain having been put on the internet.
In camera proceedings: In response to seeing the documents, the tribunal passed the following order:
Upon the perusal of the reply we direct the person-in charge of the safe house where the prosecution Witness are kept, and all others persons of the safe house to be produced before the Tribunal on 7 June 2012. The investigation officer is directed to inform and bring them to the Tribunal.
On 7 June the safe house officers came to court and were questioned by the tribunal 'in camera' (i.e not in public). It is not known what was stated.
Defence 'prove' authentication: The matter then continued on 11 June. Here the defense went through the registers in detail, and showed how the comings and going of the witnesses to the safe house, as noted down in the registers, matched exactly the attendance of the witnesses in court.
As part of trying to prove the authenticity of the registers, the defense pointed to a number of entries in the registers that the defense could, they say, never have known about. This included:
- An entry numbered 175 on the page dealing with 12 January 2012 which stated that 'S.I. Kalachan has left the safe house to go to the CMM Court Number-31 Dhaka to give a statement on the case of Chawkbazar Police Station containing case no- 41(03)10 GR Case- 102/10 in Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 31, Dhaka.' The defense said that there was no way the defense could have known about this information and then produced the court documents to prove that in fact the police officer had indeed gone to the court as the register stated.
- An entry numbered 75 dated 06 February 2012 and Entry No. 175 dated 23 February 2012 which indicated that payment of telephone bills of the Safe Houses telephone numbers 7547810, 7547807 and 7547804 to BTCL needed payment. The November 2011 bill for those three numbers was stated for each of these numbers as 4912 taka, 4114 taka and 4168 taka. It was then written in the register that, 'The bill has been sent to the ICT Head Office.' A further entry numbered 374 stated that the bill had been paid. The defense then showed the tribunal copies of these paid bills;
- the mobile phone telephone numbers of all the police officers in the safe house;
- an entry numbered 59 dated 22 October 2011 which set out what furniture etc was purchased for the safe house.
- Entries numbered 115, 116 and 117 on the page dealing with 9 December 2011 which stated that someone had called Mr. Mahabubul Alam Hawladar and threatened him. The note states that: I the In Charge of Safe House, hereby note it down that I have called the Operation Officer Majharul Islam of Jatrabari Police Station to take necessary steps about the GD Entry No- 490, 491, 492, 516 and 534 dated- 08-12-2011 about the threats of the witness of the safe house over telephone. I hereby record the matter for the future reference. Majharul Islam has made a GD Entry No- 516, dated- 9-12-1011 about the above matter. Again the defense stated that it could never have known this detail of what happened.
The defense lawyer argued that these registers showed that the investigation officer had committed fraud upon the court and had perverted the course of justice as he failed to inform the court that these witnesses had been present at the safe house.
Prosecution 'concoction' allegation: In the afternoon of 11 June, the prosecution responded by saying that there was no need for the kind of establishment like the safe house to have a register and that it in fact it never had such a register. 'These documents never existed,' the prosecution said. 'These registers are concocted by some one who is expert in doing this. This is like fake currency. General people may not be able to identify it. But it is fake.' He went on:
'And my lord, a document which has been given by the defence these are nothing but fraudulently prepared. They have created these registers within this one month time for filing this review petition. there was fraud by you have to determine who have committed fraud. The defence prayer for discharge shows that these documents were concocted to substantiate this argument.
Full Analysis:
Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal: Sayedee trial analysis: Safe house register
