ICT jails Sangram editor, its Feni correspondent for contempt
Dhaka, Apr 26 (UNB) - The International Crimes Tribunal on Thursday sentenced Abul Asad, the editor of the daily Sangram, and its Feni correspondent to simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fined Tk 5,000 each for publishing contemptuous report about the tribunal.
Delivering the judgment upon a suo moto contempt rule issued under section 11 (4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, Justice M Nizamul Huq, chairman of the three-member tribunal, acquitted a dozen of Jamaat loyal advocates of Feni district bar association on the grounds of ‘benefit of doubt’.
In the judgment, the convicted Sangram editor and correspondent AKM Andur Rahim have been allowed 15 days’ time from today for depositing the penalty money to the public exchequer through chalan and report by May 13, failing which warrant will be issued for the arrest of them to serve a 15-day simple imprisonment.
In compliance with the preceding order, all the contemers were present at the tribunal.
The Sangram editor and its Feni correspondent served the jail terms for a few minutes as the tribunal rose for the day after delivering the judgment at 12:40 pm.
On April 2, the Tribunal-1 issued a suo moto rule asking the editor of the daily Sangram, the mouthpiece of Jamaat-e-Islami, its Feni correspondent and 12 lawyers of Feni District Bar Association to explain why proceedings should not be drawn against them for publishing a contemptuous report over the tribunal.
The daily Sangram had published a statement made by the 12 lawyers strongly condemning the tribunal’s order allowing prosecution’s plea for accepting its 15 witnesses’ recorded statements by the investigation officer as testimonies against war crimes accused detained Jamaat-e-Islami nayeb-e-ameer Delwar Hossain Sayedee, terming the ICT a partisan one.
About the impugned published statement made by the lawyers, the tribunal said, “It appears that the statement contains some materials which are not supported by the ICT Act. Its section 19(2) allows the tribunal to receive in evidence any statement recorded by a magistrate or an investigation officer being a statement made by any person who, at the time of the trial, is dead or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which the tribunal considers unreasonable.“
One may raise question about an order passed by the tribunal but he cannot tell beyond the Act, the tribunal said, adding that the statement clearly shows that it is a political statement claiming the release of the accused showing him a political party leader.
The tribunal observed that in the statement it has been mentioned that this tribunal is a partisan one and nobody will get fair justice in the tribunal, which is highly contemptuous and cannot be accepted in any manner and as such liable for prosecution and punishment.
About the editor, the tribunal said, “Nothing has been placed before us that the editor was not on duty on the night in between April 1 -2, and he does not know anything about the report published on April 2; as such we can decisively arrive at a conclusion that the editor has committed contempt of the tribunal by publishing the report containing contemptuous materials.
Besides, the version of the Sangram authorities as published on April 6 has not been placed before us by the editor which is suppression of fact and this is also unacceptable, observed the tribunal. We cannot act in favour of somebody who doesn’t come in clean hands and as such the unconditional apology sought by the editor cannot be accepted.”
About the unconditional apology, the tribunal said: “The unconditional apology was sought for by giving a defence case. In a case when somebody begs unconditional apology, he can’t give any defence. He is to beg clean apology and admit the guilt and beg unconditional apology. In the instant case that having not being done, the prayer for apology can’t be accepted.”
About the Feni correspondent, the tribunal said the correspondent has not also come in clean hands. So, he cannot get the benefit of tendering unconditional apology. “After perusing the Sangram version, we find the news was sent from his personal email account as there’s no statement from him to explain how the news was sent through his personal email.”
“The reporter cannot avoid the liability of sending contemptuous report,” the tribunal said, adding that it is clear to the tribunal that he has done it deliberately.
About the contemner-lawyers, the tribunal said it finds that they have also suppressed the fact and have not come in clean hands; as such their admission of unconditional apology also cannot be accepted.
“But the question arises as to whether the statement has been made by them, although we’re satisfied that they might have some part in making the statement, at least some of them if not all, but they can’t be linked directly with the making of the statement and as such all of them are entitled to get benefit of doubt.”
Advocate Zainul Abedin, also president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, appeared for the contemners while advocate Zead Al Malum for the prosecution.
Earlier, the recording of the cross-examination of the IO ASP M Helal Uddin by the defence counsel for war crimes accused Sayedee had taken place for the second consecutive day.
The tribunal adjourned the proceedings till May 7.
Delivering the judgment upon a suo moto contempt rule issued under section 11 (4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, Justice M Nizamul Huq, chairman of the three-member tribunal, acquitted a dozen of Jamaat loyal advocates of Feni district bar association on the grounds of ‘benefit of doubt’.
In the judgment, the convicted Sangram editor and correspondent AKM Andur Rahim have been allowed 15 days’ time from today for depositing the penalty money to the public exchequer through chalan and report by May 13, failing which warrant will be issued for the arrest of them to serve a 15-day simple imprisonment.
In compliance with the preceding order, all the contemers were present at the tribunal.
The Sangram editor and its Feni correspondent served the jail terms for a few minutes as the tribunal rose for the day after delivering the judgment at 12:40 pm.
On April 2, the Tribunal-1 issued a suo moto rule asking the editor of the daily Sangram, the mouthpiece of Jamaat-e-Islami, its Feni correspondent and 12 lawyers of Feni District Bar Association to explain why proceedings should not be drawn against them for publishing a contemptuous report over the tribunal.
The daily Sangram had published a statement made by the 12 lawyers strongly condemning the tribunal’s order allowing prosecution’s plea for accepting its 15 witnesses’ recorded statements by the investigation officer as testimonies against war crimes accused detained Jamaat-e-Islami nayeb-e-ameer Delwar Hossain Sayedee, terming the ICT a partisan one.
About the impugned published statement made by the lawyers, the tribunal said, “It appears that the statement contains some materials which are not supported by the ICT Act. Its section 19(2) allows the tribunal to receive in evidence any statement recorded by a magistrate or an investigation officer being a statement made by any person who, at the time of the trial, is dead or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which the tribunal considers unreasonable.“
One may raise question about an order passed by the tribunal but he cannot tell beyond the Act, the tribunal said, adding that the statement clearly shows that it is a political statement claiming the release of the accused showing him a political party leader.
The tribunal observed that in the statement it has been mentioned that this tribunal is a partisan one and nobody will get fair justice in the tribunal, which is highly contemptuous and cannot be accepted in any manner and as such liable for prosecution and punishment.
About the editor, the tribunal said, “Nothing has been placed before us that the editor was not on duty on the night in between April 1 -2, and he does not know anything about the report published on April 2; as such we can decisively arrive at a conclusion that the editor has committed contempt of the tribunal by publishing the report containing contemptuous materials.
Besides, the version of the Sangram authorities as published on April 6 has not been placed before us by the editor which is suppression of fact and this is also unacceptable, observed the tribunal. We cannot act in favour of somebody who doesn’t come in clean hands and as such the unconditional apology sought by the editor cannot be accepted.”
About the unconditional apology, the tribunal said: “The unconditional apology was sought for by giving a defence case. In a case when somebody begs unconditional apology, he can’t give any defence. He is to beg clean apology and admit the guilt and beg unconditional apology. In the instant case that having not being done, the prayer for apology can’t be accepted.”
About the Feni correspondent, the tribunal said the correspondent has not also come in clean hands. So, he cannot get the benefit of tendering unconditional apology. “After perusing the Sangram version, we find the news was sent from his personal email account as there’s no statement from him to explain how the news was sent through his personal email.”
“The reporter cannot avoid the liability of sending contemptuous report,” the tribunal said, adding that it is clear to the tribunal that he has done it deliberately.
About the contemner-lawyers, the tribunal said it finds that they have also suppressed the fact and have not come in clean hands; as such their admission of unconditional apology also cannot be accepted.
“But the question arises as to whether the statement has been made by them, although we’re satisfied that they might have some part in making the statement, at least some of them if not all, but they can’t be linked directly with the making of the statement and as such all of them are entitled to get benefit of doubt.”
Advocate Zainul Abedin, also president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, appeared for the contemners while advocate Zead Al Malum for the prosecution.
Earlier, the recording of the cross-examination of the IO ASP M Helal Uddin by the defence counsel for war crimes accused Sayedee had taken place for the second consecutive day.
The tribunal adjourned the proceedings till May 7.
Comments
No Comments on this News
