Prayer not to take statements of 15 witnesses as evidence

The defence of Delawar Hossain Sayedee yesterday prayed to the International Crimes Tribunal-1 to review its decision of taking the statements of 15 witnesses given to the investigation officer as evidence against the Jamaat leader.
Tribunal-1 on March 29 decided to receive the statements as evidence in response to a prosecution prayer that it would not be possible to produce 46 prosecution witnesses against Sayedee since they were either very sick or could not be reached.
It had claimed that 19 of the 46 witnesses were key eyewitnesses to war crimes allegedly committed by Sayedee during the Liberation War.
The tribunal had granted the prosecution prayer for 15 witnesses and refused to do the same for the 31 others.
Yesterday, Sayedee's defence said many of the prosecution witnesses failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting their claims. It said the prosecution did not provide any documents proving that the witnesses were really sick or missing.
The defence also presented two news reports of Islamic TV and Diganta TV where four of the witnesses were interviewed.
The footage had a 78-year-old woman, who the prosecution claimed was too sick to travel, and another witness the prosecution claimed to be missing.
The three-member tribunal headed by Justice Md Nizamul Huq adjourned the hearing until today. It is supposed to hear the prosecution's response to the defence prayer.
Jamaat Nayeb-e-Ameer Delawar Hossain Sayedee is facing 20 specific charges of crimes against humanity committed during the 1971 Liberation War.
BNP leader Moudud Ahmed, former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Khandaker Mahbub Hossain, present SCBA President Zainul Abdein and Sayedee's chief defence counsel Abdur Razzaq yesterday argued for the review petition.
The defence cannot be deprived of cross-examining the witnesses in such a case, said Moudud Ahmed, adding that it is a matter of not only international standards, but also national standards.
Referring to the footage, he said the statement provided by the investigation officer, also a prosecution witness, was not an honest one.
“This will be erroneous and ultra vires, and a gross injustice,” he said.
The defence lawyers pleaded that the witnesses should be brought for cross-examination, or the prosecution should give material evidence supporting its claims.