SQC Trial: Why plea of alibi failed

As the application for review by Salauddin Quader Chowdhury ("the convict") has already been dismissed, no further legal barrier remains in executing the sentence awarded by the International Crimes Tribunal ("Tribunal") and confirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. However, in recent times, a certain vested quarter, both at home and abroad, have been waging a well-resourced public relations campaign to portray a convict of war crimes and crimes against humanity as an innocent person being unjustly persecuted.

Both inside and outside court, the principal narrative from the convict's side has been that he could not have committed the alleged crimes, as he was not present in Bangladesh at the time the crimes took place. This opinion looks at the reasons furnished by the Tribunal and the Appellate Division (both during appeal and review stages) for utterly rejecting this plea as having no credibility whatsoever.    

The convict claimed that he was not in Bangladesh from March 29, 1971 till April 20 1974. He stated that he left Dhaka for Karachi on March 29, 1971 and got admitted in final year BA (Honours) in Political Science at Punjab University. He along with his friends made a pleasure trip to Muree for 3 weeks and came back to Lahore. In the month of October 1971, he along with a group of friends motored to London from Lahore by road. He joined Lincoln's Inn in London. From December 16, 1971, he was in England and did not return to Bangladesh until April 1974.     

As per Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure (ROP) 2010 of the International Crimes Tribunal, the burden of proof as to plea of alibi lies upon the defence. But mere failure to prove the plea of alibi by the defence shall not render the accused guilty. Apart from the convict himself, the defence examined three other witnesses, all of whom were either his friends or relatives. Both the Tribunal and the Supreme Court found a number of contradictions in the statements of these defence witnesses as regards the plea of alibi.

The convict also relied upon some documentary evidence including affidavits. After careful consideration by the Tribunal and Supreme Court, the affidavits were disregarded as they showed multiple signs of fabrication, did not comply with the legal requirements and were raised in such an advanced stage of proceedings, as to call into question their motive and authenticity.  

Most importantly, the defence did not produce a shred of evidence in the form of any travel or residential documents to show the date of so-called visit to West Pakistan and stay therein during the War of Liberation. The convict could not produce any formal certificate of his purported degree from Pakistan. Instead he produced a mere informal testimonial of a family friend who happened to be the head of the said University department asserting about his degree.

Rather, during review, the convict presented a "forged" certificate. Although no such document was produced during the three and a half years the case remained at the Tribunal for trial and at the Appellate Division for appeal, this forged certificate was presented at the very suitable time of review, indicating that it was a recent fabrication by the defence as a last ditch effort. 

It should also be noted that the spellings for Punjab University are different (Punjab and Panjab) in the forged certificate and the earlier purported testimonial of a teacher, making both the documents suspect in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court made the following points regarding this forged "certificate" when dismissing the review application:

Such a document, if authentic, should have been presented at the trial or appellate stage, which was not the case;

The forged certificate mentions a grading system, although in 1971 there was no grading or semester system in honours degrees. Studies were conducted on a "year" basis;

One has to apply oneself for getting a certificate, and the defence could not present any evidence of the convict taking any such step;

Any such certificate has to be brought via the Bangladeshi Embassy, but the forged certificate contained no such authentication from the Bangladesh mission;

The forged certificate was purportedly issued in 2012, but the authentication came in 2015. In the three years in between, the defence did not submit this document or even mention it. In fact, this was not presented at the appellate stage even;

Any documents from Pakistan are to be considered scepticism at best in this regard. The Liberation War was against Pakistan. The Pakistan President and Parliament have made openly hostile statements about the International Crimes Tribunal.

An example of the fact that the certificate is a forged one is the number 1900 being bigger in font than the 71.

Making false or unsubstantiated claims vis-à-vis documents is, however, nothing new for the convict. In his affidavit for the 2008 general election candidacy that requires by law a full and truthful disclosure from all candidates, the convict did not claim to have any degree from the University of Punjab in 1971. Actually, he did not disclose his highest educational qualification at all. However, in view of his claim during 2001 election (law degree from University of London), his 'self-education' claim was rejected and he was asked to submit his certificates by the then Election Commission. The convict took part in the election with a condition that he would submit his certifications shortly, which he never did.

During appellate stage, the Supreme Court also noted that even the convict admitted but did not comment on the fact that murder cases were filed against him (some by people who actually testified more than 40 years later) in 1972 just immediately after the Liberation War, although he claimed to have been outside Bangladesh from March 1971 to April 1974.   

However, the defence of alibi not only failed because of insufficient evidence from the defence, but also because of overwhelming documentary and direct evidence from the prosecution that the convict was actually present in Chittagong during the relevant times in 1971. The prosecution presented three specific evidences to counter the plea of alibi:

First, a report by Dainik Pakistan (Exhibit 10) dated 29.09.1971which stated that the convict's car was bombed killing the driver and injuring the convict; Second, a report by the Special Branch of Police dated 02.10.1971which corroborated the Dainik Pakistan article stating that the convict's car had indeed been fired upon and attacked with grenade on 20.09.1971, killing the driver and injuring the convict;

Finally, witness testimony from a doctor who was on duty at Chittagong Medical College Hospital (CMCH) in 1971, named Dr. AKM Shafiullah, when he saw the convict at late September 1971 in CMCH receiving treatment for severe injury to his leg. Interestingly, this report by the Special Branch was written at a time when the administration was under the invading Pakistani army's control. There was no reason for the Pakistani authorities to falsely place him in Bangladesh, if he really was in Pakistan at that time.

Prosecution eyewitness testimony by at least 14 prosecution witnesses also placed the convict at various places of Chittagong throughout 1971 committing crimes for which he now stands convicted. Prosecution witnesses 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 28, 21, 32 and 37 all saw the convict accompanied by the Pakistan Army and Razakars in the act of committing or directing genocide by attacks upon unarmed people of the Hindu community of different villages of the locality, while a number of them actually saw the convict at his residence in "Goods Hill" while they were abducted and tortured therein.

With the legal process complete, victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity now await completion of justice via final execution of verdict. The judgments of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court explain in broad details why the convict was found guilty on each of the charges based on what evidence. They also set out why the defence failed in their plea of alibi, among others. Thus, there is no scope for doubting the process, as everything is out in the open for any interested person to study and analyse.

The writer is a campaigner for prosecuting crimes against humanity committed in 1971, Policy Analyst at Centre for Research and Information (CRI) and Assistant Secretary (Central Sub Committee) of Bangladesh Awami League.