War crimes court reproaches ‘incompetent’ investigator of Mahidur Afsar case

The International Crimes Tribunal-2 has rebuked the investigation officer for including a decades-old charge in the war crimes trial of Chapainawabganj’s Mahidur Rahman and Afsar Hossain Chutu, for which they already served time in jail.

The special court, led by Justice Obaidul Hassan, in its verdict on Wednesday called Assistant Superintendent of Police ZM Altafur Rahman ‘incompetent’.

It advised against further assigning him as an investigator in cases of the tribunal.

The third charge brought by the prosecution stated that Rahman and Chutu aided the Razakar forces in looting, detention, torture, abduction, arson from Nov 2, 1971 to Nov 3 night.

The crimes were committed in the areas beside Sherpur Bhandar Adina Fazlul Haque Government College, Shibganj CO Office Army Camp and the mango grove owned by Yakub Biswas.

They also abetted in the killing of Kalimuddin Mandal, his son, brother and nephew.

However, another son of Mandal, Md Layesuddin, had filed a case under the Collaborators Act accusing the duo in 1973.

Rajshahi’s second special tribunal sentenced them to life terms in prison on the same charge. The verdict was upheld in the appeal and they served the sentence.

The much-wanted trial resumed after the Awami League came in power in 2009 and constituted the International Crimes Tribunal.

In 2013, a case was filed with a Chapainawabganj court against Rahman, Chutu and 10 others over the mass-killings on Binodpur School grounds and surrounding areas.

The case filed by Badiur Rahman Buddhu, family member of one of the victims, was later transferred to the tribunal.

Law enforcers picked up Rahman from Durlabhpur and Chutu from Binodpur on Sep 15, 2014.

The court framed charges with the third charge on Dec 11, 2014 due to a prosecution mistake and during the arguments, the mistake became a stepping stone for the defence.

They submitted a copy of a High Court verdict from Mar 5, 1973 for the same crimes mentioned in the third charge of the current proceedings. The convicts already served out the sentence. 

The defence also claimed that two cases were filed on the first and second charges with Shibganj police in 1972, but could not submit relevant documents. 

In Wednesday’s order, the tribunal said a convict cannot serve twice for the same crime, which was why it threw out the third charge by a majority.Trials of suspected war criminals stalled for more than 34 years, following the assassination of Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975.

One of the judges differed with the other two on the panel and said since charges were finalised based on evidence against the accused, the third charge will have to be resolved with the first two.

He also said they should take into consideration the fact that the prosecution failed in proving the charge and let off the accused. 

However, the other two voted to scrap the charge altogether.

In the verdict, the court reproached the investigation officer and said, “This very IO must be answerable for his utter negligence of duty.”

“For the sake of conclusive and unquestionable investigation of such extremely sensitive cases involving Crimes against humanity, genocide that usher the Tribunal in arriving correct decision and to mete out fair justice such IO should be relieved from assigning with any further investigation of any case triable by ICT.”

The court was also critical of the investigation agency for “endorsing such an incompetent and irresponsible Police officer to investigate such highly important case.”

The judges observed that it “cannot be absolved of its responsibility”.

ASP Rahman could not be reached for comments since he is outside the country.

Abdul Hannan Khan, coordinator of the investigation agency, told journalists that he wanted to read the whole verdict before commenting.

Prosecutor Turin Afroz said, “With full respect to the tribunal’s verdict, we want to say that we had worked sincerely and will continue to do so.

“We are respectful of the verdict the honourable court has given.”