Home
+
Published : 22 Oct 2025, 12:33 AM
Defence counsel Amir Hossain has argued that the verification of phone conversations allegedly involving deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina and her associates during the July Uprising is “not sufficient”.
Speaking before the International Crimes Tribunal on Tuesday, he said the audio evidence should have been subjected to independent international scrutiny rather than relying solely on the Criminal Investigation Department’s (CID) tests.
The arguments were heard by a three-member panel of the tribunal’s first bench, headed by Justice Md Golam Mortuza Mozumder.
On Jul 10, the tribunal ordered the trial of Hasina and two others on five charges, including inciting, instigating, and ordering the killing of 1,400 people during the Uprising, as well as superior command responsibility and joint criminal enterprise.
After the prosecution’s arguments on Thursday, Chief Prosecutor Tajul Islam demanded the death penalty for Hasina and former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan.
Another suspect in the case, former IGP Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, has already confessed and turned state witness.
Defence lawyer Amir opened his second day of arguments on Tuesday following prosecution’s presentation.
The other two judges on the tribunal are Md Shafiul Alam Mahmud and Md Mohitul Haque Enam Chowdhury.
During his submissions, Amir referred to several audio recordings allegedly containing Hasina’s instructions on different matters.
At one stage, tribunal Chairman Mozumder remarked that the instructions involved use of lethal weapons, drones, and helicopters.
In response, Amir said: “These audios were only examined by the CID. This is an international tribunal; they should have been tested internationally.”
The tribunal’s second senior judge remarked that BBC and Al Jazeera had examined the recordings, questioning why an additional neutral organisation was needed.
Amir replied that since the inception of judicial procedures, third-party neutral evidence has been required to verify authenticity. This is standard practice, though the court may decide based on a single opinion if it wishes.
When asked why he did not raise the issue of third-party evidence while cross-examining witnesses, the judge pointed out that Amir had not mentioned any shortcomings in the report and could have done so.
Lawyer Amir said, “I could have mentioned it. I didn’t. But the honourable court may cover that and has the opportunity to consider it. If the court thinks so, it can take it into account.”
“We do not think so,” the tribunal chairman replied.
The tribunal also reviewed a video showing a helicopter allegedly firing shots.
Regarding this, Amir said: “A helicopter was seen flying. However, it is unclear who fired from that helicopter, who was hit, or even if anyone was killed.”
The tribunal’s second senior judge then said instructions had been given to label the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami activists as “militants”.
Amir replied, “Hasina did not call Jamaat or Shibir militants. Militants exist in the country, and there may be militants within the Jamaat.
“But Hasina has played an important role in combating militancy. Even the United Nations has recognised her efforts.”
The tribunal adjourned proceedings for the day in the afternoon, setting Wednesday for continuation of the defence argument by Hasina’s lawyer.
