Contempt charge hearing begins

The International Crimes Tribunal-2 yesterday started hearing arguments on contempt proceedings initiated against David Bergman, a Dhaka-based British journalist, for allegedly demeaning the tribunal.

Following a contempt petition, the tribunal on April 17 started the proceedings and asked Bergman to explain why he should not be punished for making “derogatory comments” about the court through his three write-ups posted in his personal blog.

Bergman submitted his reply on July 8 and his counsel yesterday told the court that his client will contest the case.

During yesterday's proceedings, Mizan Syeed, lawyer for petitioner Abul Kalam Azad, said Bergman through his write-ups posted on November 11, 2011 and January 28, 2013 maligned the dignity of the tribunal and tended it and its members into public hatred.

Mizan said Bergman in his post of November 11 had made relentless efforts to justify that the tribunal was absolutely wrong in saying that three million people were killed and two lakh women raped during the Liberation War in 1971.

The International Crimes Tribunal-1 on October 3, 2011 in its indictment order in the case against Jamaat leader Delawar Hossain Sayedee mentioned the figures.

The figures were historical facts and a matter of common knowledge, which was also linked to public emotion, said Mizan, adding, “For whose interest did he [Bergman] try to raise question about the figures even after more than 40 years?”

On Bergman's argument that his write-ups fell under the purview of fair criticism and he did it for public interest, Mizan commented, “If it is fair criticism, then what is unfair one?”

About Bergman's reply, Mizan said he had regretted some parts of his write-ups and tried to justify other parts, making his stance “conflicting”. Mizan added, “He has to either regret or justify his write-ups. He can't take a dual stance simultaneously.”

After his incomplete submission, Bergman's counsel Mustafizur Rahman Khan said the petitioner did not mention which specific parts of his client's write-ups were contemptuous.

Upon receiving a contempt notice and following his advice, his client had removed two words of the write-ups and regretted for it, said Mustafizur, adding that had the applicant mentioned which specific part allegedly constituted contempt, it would have been better to take defence and advice his client.

On the applicant's arguments that Bergman was a “habitual contemptner” and that a tribunal had earlier cautioned him seriously for one of his write-ups, Mustafizur said his client was cautioned for his “inaccurate statement.”

But in this case, the applicant did not allege that his client had made an inaccurate statement but tried to establish it through arguments, said Mustafizur, who would give further submission on Monday.

The three-member tribunal headed by Justice Obaidul Hassan with members Justice Md Mozibur Rahman Miah and Justice Md Shahinur Islam adjourned the proceeding following Mustafizur's time prayer.

Bergman was present at the courtroom yesterday.