Sloppy prosecution irks tribunal again

The International Crimes Tribunal-2 yesterday again criticised the prosecution in Subhan's case for not being properly prepared, making points that had already been made and thereby wasting the court's time.

The tribunal even raised questions about the language used by Prosecutor Zead Al Malum while placing arguments on legal aspects in the case against Jamaat-e-Islami leader Abdus Subhan.

“You are not placing legal arguments the way it should be. If you want to place legal arguments, you have to use legal language,” said a member of the tribunal.

Last week, both the war crimes tribunals expressed discontent over the lack of preparation and sloppiness on the part of the prosecution leading to several mistakes in the documents they had submitted.

The courts had asked them to do homework.

Yesterday was scheduled for the prosecution's closing arguments on legal aspects. When Zead Al Malum started his submission around 11:30am, Justice Md Mozibur Rahman Miah asked whether the prosecution wanted to hold Subhan responsible for his “superior status” in any particular charge.

Malum said Subhan was to be charged with superior responsibility on all nine charges and started to readout from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

At one point, Tribunal-2 chief Justice Obaidul Hassan said, “You need not go into facts as we have heard it [during factual arguments]. You have to establish a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused and his alleged subordinates.”

Citing the testimony of the second prosecution witness, Malum said Subhan advised his men to commit crimes that indicated his superior status over them.

As he started to read from another testimony, Justice Mozibur said, “The portion you read out does not contain even the name of the accused.”

But Malum said, “I am just speaking about incident. His presence and participation in such crimes has been proved from the testimonies of earlier two witnesses.”

Malum said Subhan held superior position over his subordinate as the district ameer of Jamaat and Razakar commander of Pabna.

When Justice Mozibur Rahman asked whether the prosecution would get any benefit if they could prove Subhan's superior liabilities, Malum replied in the affirmative.

Justice Hassan said, “You have held him [Subhan] liable for 4 (2) [superior responsibilities]. Didn't he commit crimes under other capabilities?”

In reply, Malum said, “Perhaps, I am failing to make my lords understand.”

“What is the necessity to prove his superior status, if his direct participation in crimes could be proved?” asked Justice Hassan.

Malum said he held a command responsibility, apart from his individual criminal liabilities.

“If the accused was hanged for his individual criminal liabilities, whether he will be hanged again for his superior status,” asked Justice Hassan.

Malum cited the verdict in Mir Quasem Ali's case to back his point of superior responsibilities, but the court found it to be related to joint criminal enterprise.

As Justice Mozibur Rahman asked Malum to show Subhan's superior status with regard to other charges, Malum once again started to read from the testimonies apparently in an unprepared manner leading Justice Hassan to say, “Everything [in the evidence] should have been at your fingertips. You have to take note from what your juniors prepared and told us.”

“If you read the whole one after another, then it would take the entire day -- it may even take four more days,” said Justice Hassan. The prosecution has already taken six days to complete factual arguments.

Then Justice Mozibur Rahman said pressing the third charge, the prosecution said the Pakistan army was under Subhan's control. “Would you please show how the Pakistan army worked as subordinate to the accused?” asked the judge.

Again citing the testimony of a witness, Malum said there were Pakistan army men and their collaborators in a camp and the victims were released from the camp following Subhan's orders, which proved Subhan's superior position over the army.

“Had the Pakistan army not obeyed Subhan, how would they [victims] have gotten released? In this specific incident, the Pakistan army worked as subordinate to Subhan,” claimed Malum.

Justice Mozibur Rahman said while pressing the fifth charge, the prosecution claimed that Subhan had control over the Pakistan army. “How will you prove it,” he asked.

Subhan took the Pakistan army to the spots and showed the people to be killed and this indicated his control and command over the army, Malum said.

“Does it not raise questions about around 200 army men working under one civilian [Subhan]?” said Justice Hassan while Justice Mozibur asked, “Do you think pointing [at someone at a crime scene] and holding superior responsibility are the same?”

“But Subhan was not a peanut vendor,” said Malum which apparently irked the tribunal and it asked Malum to use legal language.

As Malum was repeatedly mentioning “operation searchlight” carried out on the night of March 25, 1971, Justice Mozibur Rahman said, “We are very much aware of the fact. Why are you repeating this? You just convince us how Subhan had superior status.”

Justice Md Shahinur Islam was seen smiling now and then while all this was going on.

At 1:00pm when Malum sought more time to complete his arguments, the tribunal asked him to resume at 2:00pm but Malum sought more time, which was supported by Subhan's counsel leading the court to adjourn the case proceedings until today.