The murder of Major General Abul Manzur, Bir Uttam

SECURITY OF THE WITNESS
I propose the following to the Court and Prosecution. On January 20, 2014, the British newspaper, The Guardian, published a report about a “defector” from Syria who had left the country with several flash drives containing 55,000 digital images of photographs that he and other government photographers had taken of approximately 11,000 detainees all of whom had been severely tortured and subsequently executed. He was a member of an official documentation unit within the Syrian military police tasked to prepare photographic dossiers of each victim.

Three internationally renowned lawyers who served as lead prosecutors on UN war crimes tribunals related to Sierre Leone and the former Yugoslavia questioned the Syrian source over three sessions and found him to be credible, truthful and his account “most compelling”.  
{http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/20/evidence industrial-scale-killing-syria-war-crimes)
The Syrian defector's evidence was subjected to rigorous scrutiny and review. A 31-page report was produced and may become the basis for bringing of war crimes charges against leading figures in the Syrian government. The source's testimony was recorded and scrutinized in a way that carefully protected his identity.
Although there are clear differences in both situations, I suggest that similar procedures can nevertheless be followed in the Manzur Murder Case in order to protect the identity of the witness who claims he saw the high ranking military officer, a man he knew, enter the room where General Manzur was detained. Manzur was then allegedly executed by this individual before he abruptly exited the room.

MOIN'S PERSPECTIVE
I shared this account with General Moin because I wanted his assessment of my source's account. I did not tell him my source's identity or why the source had access to the Cantonment on that day.  Moin absolutely understood the need for discretion.  However, on the basis of his agreeing to maintain confidentiality I did inform Moin as to the identity of the officer who allegedly entered the room where Manzur was being held and then murdered.
I wanted to know what Moin could tell me about this military officer, and whether he could have traveled to Chittagong and killed Manzur without General Ershad's direct knowledge.  Moin knew that Manzur had been shot while in Army custody in the Cantonment. However, he was not sure who had actually pulled the trigger.
Moin knew the officer whose name I revealed to him. Moin said that this officer, a Major General, was perhaps General Ershad's closest associate. He was the logical choice. If this individual went to Chittagong to assassinate Manzur and was seen by a witness entering Manzur's cell, then it was Moin's view that Ershad had to have known, if not actually the one who ordered the murder.
We both agreed that only a successful investigation and prosecution could ultimately determine the truth. Would that be possible in Bangladesh?
In 2009, three years after General Moin and I reviewed this material together, Ziauddin Choudhury, the Deputy Commissioner of Chittagong at the time of Manzur's death, published his book, the “Assassination of Ziaur Rahman & The Aftermath”.
Although I had met Ziauddin Choudhury in 1970s at the house of a common friend in Dhaka, we had not met or spoken to each other until late January 2014, when I contacted Ziauddin to discuss his book.  Ziauddin's chapter on Manzur's death complements and corroborates what Moin and I pieced together, and perhaps more importantly Ziauddin has corroborated important elements of what my source reported to me regarding how Manzur had been tragically murdered in army custody. Ziauddin's source of information on Manzur's murder was distinct from mine. Thus, we had two separate and independent individuals reporting similar details.

According to Ziauddin Choudhury:
“The circumstances leading to Manzur's death were revealed to me several days later by the same army doctor who had prepared Zia's dead body only days before. Tragically, he was also the doctor who had to prepare the dead body (“bandage the wounds”) of Manzur prior to his burial…”
“After he was taken to the Cantonment, a senior army officer (a Brigadier) visited him [Manzur] in his cell (the doctor did not name the officer). The senior officer had one mission—to dispose of Manzur. He reportedly arrived from Dhaka, and told the attending Army officer that he was there to interrogate General Manzur. He went in, fired his pistol at Manzur, and walked out— all according to some agreed plan.”
“. . . Knowing Manzur as I did, I could not bring myself to believe that such a scatterbrained scheme could be cooked up by a person of his intelligence, cool temperament, and wisdom. Unfortunately, the dead do not speak. We do not have Manzur among us to tell us his side of the story.“

I called Ziauddin Choudhury after I read these paragraphs. We spoke at some length. I asked him if his source was certain that the military officer was a Brigadier, or a Major-General as Moin indicated when I told him the name I had been given. (When speaking with Ziauddin, I did not mention the officer's name.) Ziauddin stated that he was uncertain whether the army doctor knew either the name or the rank of the officer who had arrived from Dhaka. What the doctor did know was that a senior officer had arrived from Dhaka and had killed General Manzur while Manzur was in Army custody.
I believe that four people, working independently and finally together, may possibly have solved the murder of who killed General Abul Manzur and why. They are General Moin Choudhury, Adjunct General of the Bangladesh Army at the time of Manzur's death; Ziauddin Choudhury, former Deputy Commissioner of Chittagong; my confidential source who claims he witnessed a senior military officer, known to him, who arrived from Dhaka, and entered the room where moments later Manzur was murdered; and the only foreign correspondent, myself, who covered this story in 1981.
If after the eyewitness has securely testified, we have not definitively solved the murder and identified the organization that was behind it, then we will have, at the very least, laid a solid basis for a serious criminal investigation. Such an investigation in this case has not happened in over thirty years.

THE SADRUDDIN FILE
Air Vice Marshall Sadruddin said to General Ershad:
“You all have killed General Manzur. What you did was wrong.”
June 2, 1981

Shortly before this article was to go to press, the staff of Prothom Alo obtained a very important document.  It is the testimony provided by Air Vice Marshall Sadruddin to questions posed by an investigating officer of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).
The Air Vice Marshall gave his testimony on March 25, 1995, a month after General Manzur's elder brother filed a murder case against General Ershad. In the testimony Sadruddin describes how on June 2, 1981 after hearing Manzur had died only a few hours after being taken into military custody, he confronted Ershad saying: “You all have killed General Manzur. What you have done is wrong!”
Air Marshall Sadruddin and the Inspector General of Police A.B.M.G. Kibria had feared Manzur might be murdered. The day before on June 1st, they tried to persuade Acting President, Justice Sattar, not to accede to Ershad's repeated demands that General Manzur be turned over to the Army following his surrender to police on the outskirts of Chittagong.  
Sadruddin and Kibria appealed to Sattar to keep General Manzur securely in police custody. There is no doubt they feared he would be in danger if Sattar acquiesced and allowed Manzur to be handed over to the military units that had unilaterally entered into the Police Thana in Hathazari and were waiting to take control of General Manzur.
Air Vice Marshall Sadruddin had served as Chief of the Bangladesh Air Force for nearly three and a half years by the spring of 1981. His testimony describes how he traveled to Chittagong at the time of Ziaur Rahman's fateful trip. He was there to receive General Zia on arrival in Chittagong and then left Chittagong for Jessore on 29th  after inspecting the Chittagong Air Base.
At 7 AM the next morning (May 30st) in Jessore, Sadruddin was called by General Ersahd and informed that Ziaur Rahman had been assassinated the previous night in Chittagong. Ershad asked Sadruddin to return to Dhaka immediately. The Air Marshall arrived in the capital three hours later.
In his testimony Sadruddin's observations are not only astute but they are acutely sensitive to the deadly undercurrents within the armed forces, and between the Army and the Police. Sadruddin clearly saw and understood what was going on. A very intelligent man, he was no man's fool.
Sadruddin's description of his encounters with General Ershad and others during May 30th  and June 1st gives the distinct impression that the real coup wasn't taking place in Chittagong but in Dhaka. On his arrival from Jessore the Air Marshall went immediately to General Ershad, the Chief of Army Staff's office.
In his testimony Sadruddin describes the following scene:
“I saw [on May 30th]several senior army officers in his [Ershad's] office. Among them was Maj. Gen. Mir Shaukat Ali, Maj. Gen. Moinul Hussain Choudhury, Maj. Gen. Mannaf, Maj. Gen. Nuruddin and others. They were discussing the assassination of the President in Chittagong. General Ershad gave me a quick briefing. I was there for about twenty minutes. Maj. Gen. Shaukat and Maj. Gen. Moin followed me as I came out of the office. In the corridor they told me that a plan was afoot to trap Maj. Gen. Manzur in this incident. Maj. Gen. Shaukat further added, “I don't think Manzur could have done it.” I did not say anything in reply.”
“. . . I was in the office of the Acting President (Justice Sattar] on June 1, 1981 at around 5:30 PM. Lt. Gen. Ershad was also present there. We were discussing different subjects. A telephone call came and the Acting President spoke. The Acting President informed us after the call that the Inspector General of Police Kibria had informed him that Maj. Gen. Manzur and others had been captured by the police.”
“On hearing this news Gen. Ershad became agitated and immediately got up from his chair. Without further words he moved to the Red Phone by the President's side and dialed a number. What I heard him [Ershad] say over the phone was: “Manzur has been captured by the police. He should be immediately taken over and carry out That [sic] plan.”  He put down the phone. I said, 'Gen. Ershad, what is that plan . . . [you are] talking about. May we know it?'”
“Ershad got further agitated by this and said, “Air Chief, you do not understand anything!” I said, “What I do and do not understand, I don't have to know from you.” I later addressed the acting President and said, 'Sir, please make sure that nothing happens to Manzur, and that he is given a trial. If anything happens to Manzur, [you] will be answerable to the nation.' In reply, Mr. Sattar, said that there will be a trial.”
“In the evening [of June 1] IGP Kibria came to the Acting President's office. There were many discussions on the issue of handing over Gen. Manzur, and other army officers to the army. The IGP Kibria insisted that those who had been arrested should remain in the custody of the civilian authorities. On the other hand, Gen. Ershad was clearly putting pressure on having the prisoners handed over to the army. After a long discussion the Acting President gave the order for General Manzur and the other prisoners to be handed over to the armed forces following the advice the Army Chief [Gen. Ershad]. Immediately after this, General Ershad left the office for some time and then returned. I also left.”
“On June 2, 1981 at around 1:30/2:00 AM, Wing Commander Kamal, Director of Air Force Intelligence, gave me the news by telephone that Gen. Manzur had been killed. I called General Ershad around 6/7 AM over the telephone, and said, 'You all have killed General Manzur. What you have done is wrong..'”
(Note: Ershad's response in the Bengali language transcript is somewhat unclear. There are several English words given within the Bengali transcript that are not decipherable.  Ershad appears to be saying that some “troops . . .killed him”.] Sadruddin's response to Ershad's words appears very clearly in the transcript: “I replied [to Ershad] in an incredulous tone, 'Tell this to others. Don't ask me to believe it.'”
To sum up this important testimony there are six key points that are made by Air Marshall Sadruddin:
(1)    On his arrival in Dhaka Maj. Gen Shaukat Ali and Maj. Gen Moinul Hussain Choudhury tell Sadruddin that “a plan was afoot to trap Maj. Gen Manzur in this incident [the killing of Zia].”

(2)    When it became known that the police in Chittagong had taken Manzur into custody, Ershad immediately contacted an unnamed but key associate on the Red Phone instructing him to secure physical custody of Manzur by the Army, and then referring to a separate matter orders his associate “to carry out That [sic] plan”.  

(3)    Sadruddin and Ershad argued when Air Marshall Sadruddin asks Ershad, “What is that plan . . . [you are] talking about?  May we know it?”

(4)    Inspector General of Police Kibria and Air Marshall Sadruddin both feared that if the police were compelled to release Manzur into the hands of the army his life would be at risk.

(5)    Sadruddin clearly expressed his fears for Manzur's life on the evening of June 1st while Justice Sattar, the Acting President, was being pressed by Ershad to turn Manzur over to the Army.  The Air Marshal warned Sattar that “if anything happens to Manzur” then as Acting President, he would be “answerable to the nation”. Exactly as feared by Sadruddin that same night Manzur was murdered in Army custody inside the Chittagong Cantonment. The murder, allegedly committed by a high-ranking army officer sent from Dhaka, occurred while Manzur is in “protective” custody under army control.  

(6)    The next morning Air Marshall Sadruddin accused General Ershad of murder. “You all have killed General Manzur,” Saddruddin said. “What you have done is wrong.” Ershad said, “troops. . . killed him”.  Sadruddin replied to Ershad “in an incredulous tone” and said, “Tell this to others. Don't ask me to believe it.”

(FOURTH PART TOMORROW)