Closing written arguments by Defence 1

This is the first of three sections of the written arguments submitted by the defence to the Tribunal which focuses on the nine charges.

INCOMPLETE, FAULTY AND DISTORTED POLITICAL    BACKGROUND SUBMITTED BY THE PROSECUTION   

1. The Formal Charge submitted by the prosecution contains incomplete, faulty and distorted version of the history and lacks complete factual background of the case. In this regard, the Defence categorically submits that the subject matter and the period for holding trial is confined from 1st July to 5th August, 2024 till before the departure of the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from the country. But in the Order of framing charge dated 02.11.2026 [Para 10-36] certain backgrounds have been brought as proposed from the side of the Prosecution in order to create an impression without referring to other incidents or historical backgrounds including the historical background of the independence of Bangladesh and other related post-independence historical facts and backgrounds. In particular, the Prosecution  intentionally and with ulterior motive suppressed the relevant facts and backgrounds of the period of 1975-1981,  1981-1990, 1991-1996, 2001-2006 and 2006-2008. However, in the application for discharge submitted by the  Accused Mr. Hasanul Huq Inu under Rule 37 of the  International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 2010,  the Defence brought the complete historical facts and backgrounds    of   the   country   which    deserves   equal consideration by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
2. In Chief Prosecutor vs. Md. Saiful Islam and others [ICT- BD (ICT-2) Case No. 02 of 2025], the Prosecution narrated similar faulty and distorted facts and the said facts were  mentioned in the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2026  passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal-2 in the said case [Para 111-  151]. However, the Defence humbly disagrees with those  narratives as proposed by the Prosecution as those lack  complete factual background of the case. After careful  reading of the distorted facts and backgrounds as narrated  by the Prosecution in the Formal Charge, it transpires that  the politically influenced Prosecution team, during the  regime of the interim government (2024-2026, took an attempt to replicate and replace our historic struggle for  independence with the events of July-August, 2024 with an  ulterior motive to hide/erase the stigma casted upon those  who sided against the independence of Bangladesh in 1971  by glorifying them.
3. Admittedly the Accused Mr. Hasanul Huq Inu is a political leader and valiant Freedom Fighter. His concern over incidents jeopardizing and dragging the State into a  paralyzed situation should be treated and considered as a  positive feeling. The question that now arises whether the acts from 1st July to 5th August, 2024 was limited to one  issue of “Quota Movement” which admittedly was organized  by the students, the Defence by has shown from Prosecution  evidence as well as from documentary evidence adduced and  exhibited by the Defence that the said movement was not  ultimately limited to student movement, rather the violent  acts as well as subsequent admission to such acts by the  leaders of the movement including the statement of political  leaders clarified that the ultimate goal of the purported  movement was to oust an elected constitutional government
4. The attacks on life and property of State and of persons were directed by the attackers from various angles all over the country at different time on different dates and in various places which clearly shows the movement was militant in nature organized   and    performed   against   a   lawful government as such it is important to scrutinize the events of July-August, 2024 events in their true perspective

THE PROSECUTION COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE NEXUS  BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND THE UNDERLYING PROHIBITED ACTS.  

1. Charge No.1: alleged interview to “Mirror Now” on 18 July 2024

1.1   That in Charge No.1 the Accused has been charged in  the following terms:

“That on or about 18 July 2024, during the period of the   nationwide student-public  movement  against   discrimination, being then the President of Jatiya   Samajtantrik Dal (JSD), a component of the ruling 14-party alliance, you, in collaboration with others,   intentionally incited, abetted, and facilitated the killing of   unarmed student protesters throughout Bangladesh,   including the Dhanmondi area of Dhaka Metropolis, by   publicly   characterizing the    protesters as “BNP”,   “terrorists”, “Jamaat” and “Communal elements” through   a statement broadcasted on MIRROR NOW, a Mumbai-   based television channel.

By making and disseminating such statement, you   knowingly encouraged and instigated the security forces to   use   lethal   weapons  and excessive force,   thereby   contributing to the shooting and killing of more than 1,400   student protesters across the country from 01 July to 05   August,2024.

Such acts of murder, committed as part of a widespread   and systematic attack directed against a civilian   population, constitute Crimes Against Humanity under   Section 3(2)(a) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 and you are thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 20(2) and 20A of the said Act.”

1.2   In support of the Charge No.1 the Prosecution  adduced an interview of the Accused broadcasted in  “Mirror Now” a Mumbai based television channel and  marked as Material Exhibit No. IV appertaining to  Exhibit No. 01(Ga) [Seizure List, Prosecution  Document, 1st Volume, Page 19-20]. During the  interview Accused clearly distinguished the protesters  from BNP, Terrorists, Jamaat and Communal  elements. He categorically said, “So now I think and  we think that the students proposal and the government  position and the court position is almost the same” and  then he distinguished the protesters from “BNP”,  “terrorists”, “Jamaat” and “Communal elements” by  saying, “So there is no point losing life and confrontational politics that is giving a handle to the  identified communal terrorist networks of the country  headed by Jamaat e Islam and especially those who  boycotted the elections. The one of the parties, BNP. So  they are trying to use this quota issue into an outer of  the government issue. That is the situation. So, the  conspirators have already infiltrated into the students  movement.” The said statement of the Accused gets  support from the OHCHR Fact Finding Report (Para  41) wherefrom it is evident that on 16.07.2024 the  leadership of BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami called on their  followers to support the effort at the students’  programme of shutdown [Prosecution Documents, 3rd   Volume, Page 1014-1126] and also from the  statement of Nayeb Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami Syed  Abdullah Muhammad Taher (At present a Member of  the Parliament) during his interview with BBC Bangla  on 30.06.2025 where he admitted and confirmed that  said Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Chhatra Shibir were  the driving force behind the movement in the disguise  of general students and people. Thus, it is evident from  the prosecution document that the students protest  was infiltrated by BNP and Jamaat as such the  statements of the accused made on 18 July 2024 was  factually correct and by such statement, the Accused  did not characterise the protesters as “BNP”,  “terrorists”, “Jamaat” and “Communal elements”.

1.3   It is submitted that the Prosecution totally failed to  establish any causal nexus between the interview and  the alleged killings or other crimes against humanity.  None of the Prosecution asserted that the accused’s  remarks caused, encouraged, or materially contributed  to any act of violence. Thus, the allegation of  ‘incitement’, ‘abetment’ and ‘facilitation’ to the  commission of alleged killing of ‘unarmed protesters’  has not been proved.

1.4   It is further asserted that, absent any proof of direct  communication between the accused and alleged  perpetrators, or any contemporaneous act linking the  interview to specific offences, no prima facie nexus  exists. The case rests on conjecture rather than  evidence, falling short of the standard required by  section 9(1) of the Act and Rule 37 of the Rules of  Procedure.

1.5   The Hon’ble Tribunal must take judicial notice of the  findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary  Detention  in  Opinion No.  40/2025  [https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/document  s/issues/detention-wg/opinions/session103/a-hrc-  wgad-2025-40-bangladesh-aev.pdf], which  characterized the detention of leaders from the 14-  party alliance context as arbitrary and based on  political opinion rather than concrete evidence of  criminal nexus. The WGAD has affirmed that the  State cannot impute criminal liability for ‘inducement’  based on public statements that fall within the  protected sphere of political discourse under the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  (ICCPR).

1.6   It is further noted that the evidentiary and legal  deficiencies discussed in relation to Charge No. 1 apply  mutatis mutandis to the present charge. In particular,  the absence of any causal nexus between the accused’s  remarks and the alleged offences, the lack of intent  (mens rea) or direct participation (actus reus), and the  failure of the Prosecution to demonstrate any plan,  policy, or conspiracy under section 4(2) are equally relevant here. The present charge is, in essence, a  repetition of the earlier unfounded allegation, without  any new evidence or material to justify its inclusion.

2. Charge No. 2: Order [to commit murder] as a Crimes against Humanity  

2.1   That in Charge No.2 the Accused has been charged in   the following terms:

“That on or about 19 July 2024, during the course of the   nationwide student movement against quota reform and   discrimination, you, Hasanul Haq Inu, being then the   President of Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) and a senior   leader of the ruling 14-party alliance, were present at a   meeting held at Ganabhaban, chaired by the then Prime   Minister Sheikh Hasina.

At the said meeting, you and other leaders jointly decided and   resolved to suppress the ongoing student-public movement by   using the most extreme and extreme measures, including the   imposition of curfew throughout the country and the issuance   of a “shoot-at-sight” order.

Pursuant to that joint decision and order, law enforcement   agencies and armed forces opened fire upon unarmed and   innocent student protesters, resulting in the killing of more   than 1,400 persons and the serious injury of over 25,000   others in various parts of Bangladesh, including Dhaka,   Kushtia and other major cities.

By participating in, endorsing and approving that collective   decision, you thereby ordered, instigated, abetted and   facilitated the commission of murder, a crime against   humanity, committed as part of a widespread and systematic   attack directed against the civilian population.   Your acts fall within the definition of Crimes Against   Humanity, under article 7(1)(a)(3) of the Rome Statute as   well as Order to commit Murder under Section 3(2)(a) of the   International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 and you are   punishable under Sections 20(2) and 20A of the same Act.”

2.2   In support of the Charge No.2 the Prosecution  adduced a part of a news report published in the Daily  Manobzamin on 20.07.2024 and marked as Exhibit-  16 (Series) [Prosecution Documents, 1st Volume,  Page-24]. But there is no proof that the Accused  jointly decided and resolved to suppress any  movement by using the most extreme and extreme  measures,   including  the   imposition    of   curfew  throughout the country and the issuance of a “shoot-  at-sight” order. There is also no proof that pursuant to  any joint decision or order, to which the Accused was  a party, law enforcement agencies and armed forces  opened fire upon unarmed and innocent student  protesters. Rather it transpires from the Manobzamin  report that two meetings were held at Ganobhaban on  19.07.2024 and before taking the decision to impose  nationwide curfew, the then Prime Minister met the  Minister of Home Affairs, Inspector General of Police,  Director General of BGB and thereafter, the Ministry  of Home Affairs issued the Notification imposing  curfew as per the provision of section 24 of the Special  Powers Act, 1974 [Prosecution Document, 3rd  Volume, Page – 1275].

2.3   It transpires from the Notification of imposition of  curfew dated 19.07.2024 that all the Deputy  Commissioners in  District   level    and   Police  Commissioners in Metropolitan areas were vested  with exclusive authority to impose curfew in  accordance with section 24(1) of the Special Powers   Act, 1974 and to deploy army in aid to civil power as  per Code of Criminal Procedure within their  jurisdiction as and when the situation demands.  Furthermore, it is evident from the said Notification  that no “shoot-at-sight” order or any other order to  suppress any movement by using the most extreme  and extreme measures was ever issued by the then  Government. It should be noted here that imposition of curfew in a crisis moment of the country is not an  offence, rather a permissible act under section 24(1)  of the Special Powers Act, 1974.

2.4   The Hon’ble Tribunal needs to consider the situation  prevailing in the country from 16th July to 19th July,  2024 which demanded imposition of curfew at the  relevant time. Continued violence including attack on  Government  infrastructures,   members  of   law  enforcement agencies, life and properties of citizens,  blockade of the key roads etc. as evident from  Prosecution documents [Prosecution Documents, 4th Volume, Para 1492 and 1674; OHCHR Fact Finding  Report, Prosecution Documents, 3rd Volume (Page  1014-1126), Para, 41, Page 31, Para 44, 99, 110,  114, 116, 212] justify the imposition of curfew to  curve down the situation at the relevant time.

2.5   It is categorically stated that imposition of curfew is a  lawful instrument of the Government to meet any  aggravated situation as per the provision of section 24  of the Special Powers Act, 1974. The Notification  issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs empowering  Deputy Commissioners and District Magistrates of   respective areas shall be evident from the Notification   itself. It is not proper address to hold that curfew is a   measure to oppress using extreme power of the   Government in aid with auxiliary forces.

2.6   The question is whether mere participation in a   meeting establishes the Accused’s nexus with the   alleged crimes. The answer is – no, because mere   presence does not establish his participation with   intent or knowledge to commit, or endorse or approve   the alleged crimes. The prosecution could not establish   the conscious participation of the accused   in   connection with any such crimes [United States of   America v. Altstoetter et al. (“Justice Case”), 3   L.R.T.W.C. 974,    981–982  (1951),    p.   974;   Prosecutor v. Kordic (Case no. IT-95-14/2-T),   Judgment, 26 February 2001, para 217; Prosecutor   v. Kvocka et al. (Case no. IT-98-30/1-T), Judgment,   2 November 2001, para 199-201].

3. Charge No. 3: Murder as Crimes against Humanity – Section 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1)

3.1   That in Charge No.3 the Accused has been charged in   the following terms:

“That on or about 20 July 2024 at about 12:14:57   PM, during the period between 1 July 2024 and 5   August 2024, you, being a leader of the ruling 14-Party Alliance and a former Member of Parliament   from Kushtia-2 constituency, as well as an influential   political figure, after viewing video footage of the student and public movement against discrimination,  talked to Superintendent of Police, Kushtia and ordered the arrest, detention, torture and killing of the  protesting students and civilians, with intent to  suppress the said movement.  That, pursuant to your order and instigation, the  Superintendent of Police of Kushtia District, along  with the local police and armed cadres of the 14-Party  Alliance, opened indiscriminate fire upon unarmed  protesters at various places within Kushtia town,  including Burmese Street, Haripur-bound Road near  Aarong, Tula Patti, and the area opposite the Fire  Service office, resulting in the killing of several  identified victims-Ashraful Islam, Suruj Ali Babu,  Abdullah Al Mustaqin, Md. Usama, Bablu Faraji,  and Yusuf Sheikh-and many others and causing severe  injuries to numerous unnamed victims including  Raisul Haque, an anti-discrimination activist.  By such acts, you participated in and were responsible  for murder, being part of a widespread and systematic  attack directed against the civilian population, which constitutes the offence of Murder as a Crimes Against  Humanity, under section 3(2)(a) and punishable  under Section 20(2) & 20(A) of the International  Crimes (Tribunals) Act,1973.”

3.2   The Prosecution miserably failed to prove the Charge  No.3. The Prosecution failed to bring any call record  of the alleged conversation between the Accused and  the then Superintendent of Police, Kushtia. The then Superintendent of Police, Kushtia was neither brought   as witness, nor was he implicated as an accused in the   instant case by the Prosecution.

3.3    The only reference to the alleged conversation   between the Accused and the Superintendent of   Police, Kushtia may be found in the conversation held   between the Accused and the then Prime Minister   Sheikh Hasina. But no order or instigation to ‘torture’   or ‘killing’ of protesting students can be found or   inferred from the said conversation with Sheikh   Hasina.

3.4    The prosecution failed to establish the nexus of the   Accused with the alleged incidents. The prosecution   also failed to establish an authority relationship   between a Superintendent of Police and the Accused   who is not a MP or a leader of Awami League, direct   instruction from the accused and the presence of the   contextual knowledge of the accused. Furthermore,   the accused was a former MP and he was not a political   leader of the Bangladesh Awami League, hence, he did   not have the power or capacity to provide the alleged   order.

4. Charge No.4: (Murder as a Crime Against Humanity- Section 3(2)(a) read with Sections 4(1) and 4(3) of the Act)  

4.1    That in Charge No.4 the Accused has been charged in   the following terms

“That on or about 20 July 2024 at about 14:02:56  hours, and during the period between 1 July 2024 and  5 August 2024, you, being an influential leader of the  ruling 14-Party Alliance and a close associate of the  then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, conspired,  planned and instigated the commission of murder  through the use of lethal weapons, aerial bombings and  armed assaults to suppress the nationwide student-  public movement against discrimination.  That, pursuant to your planning, instigation and  advice, law enforcement agencies and armed members  of the 14-Party Alliance surrounded, attacked, bombed  and fired upon unarmed protesters at various places  throughout Bangladesh, including the Ganabhaban  and Dhanmondi areas of Dhaka city and other  districts.  As a result of such concerted and systematic attacks,  more than 1,400 unarmed students and civilians were  killed, and over 25,000 others were seriously injured.  By such acts, you committed Murder as a Crime  Against Humanity, under section 3(2)(a) of the  International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, being part of a widespread and systematic attack directed  against a civilian population, punishable under  Section 20(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals)  Act, 1973.”

4.2   In support of the Charge No.4, the Prosecution  adduced a telephone conversation held between the  Accused and the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina  on 20.07.2024. But no such conspiracy, planning or  instigation to commit murder through the ‘use of lethal  weapons’, ‘aerial bombings’ and ‘armed assaults to  suppress the nationwide student-public movement  against discrimination’ as proposed from the side of  the Prosecution can be found or inferred from the said  conversation.

4.3   The conversation of the Accused with the then Prime  Minister Sheikh Hasina was no where to use any hard  or repressive measure but to make a way out to ask he  people and protester students to go home back  abandoning on going atrocities – which cannot be  treated as an offence by stress of imagination ever  because the whole conversation is self-explanatory.  However, if any confusion arises concerning any word  uttered or sentence said purportedly by the Accused,  the same needs to be read in a way to the benefit of the  Accused which is the settled principle of criminal  jurisprudence.

4.4   The Prosecution took an attempt to mislead the  Hon’ble Tribunal by picking a word ‘bombing’ as  heard to have been said by Sheikh Hasina in the said  conversation and thereby tried to establish the  allegation of ‘aerial bombing’. But it transpires from  the OHCHR Fact Finding Report as relied upon by the  Prosecution that no bomb or lethal weapon was used  from helicopters from 1st July to 5th August, 2024  [OHCHR Fact Finding Report, Para 142].

4.5   It is, therefore, submitted that the said conversation   as brought by the Prosecution lacks any temporal,   factual, or causal nexus of the Accused with any   specific criminal act. No materials and documents   submitted by the prosecution link the alleged   conversation to any of the deaths or incidents cited   elsewhere in the charge.

5. Charge No.5: Incitement to Murder as Crime Against Humanity- Sections 3(2)(a), (g), (h), read with Sections 4(1) and 4(3) of the Act  

5.1  That in Charge No.5 the Accused has been charged in   the following terms:

“That on or about 27 July 2024, while present at the   News24 Channel Studio situated at Bashundhara   Residential Area, Baridhara, Dhaka and during the   period between 1 July 2024 and 5 August 2024, you,   being a senior leader of the ruling 14-Party Alliance   and President of Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD),   made provocative and inciting statements during a   televised broadcast by labelling unarmed student  protesters of the anti-discrimination movement as   “BNP,” “Jamaat,” “terrorists,” and “militants.”   By such deliberate and inflammatory statements, you   incited and encouraged the law enforcement agencies,   party cadres, and armed wings of the ruling coalition   to treat the protesters as “enemies of the state” and to   attack, torture, and kill them in the guise of   maintaining public order.   That at all material times, you, Hasanul Haq Inu, as   President of the Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) and a  key partner in the ruling 14-Party Alliance, had influence, authority and the capacity to prevent or  restrain your party members, affiliates and alliance  operatives from participating in the crimes committed  pursuant to the curfew and state policy of suppression.   You, being fully aware of the killings, disappearances  and acts of torture, failed to take any step to prevent or  punish those responsible. On the contrary, your  continued approval and endorsement of the violent  suppression further emboldened the perpetrators.  By your failure to act despite having knowledge and  capacity, you incurred criminal liability under the  doctrine of Command Responsibility, punishable  under Section 20(2) of the International Crimes  (Tribunals) Act,1973.”

5.2   It is submitted that the allegations under Charge No.  5 are factually incorrect, legally misconceived, and not  supported by evidence. The News 24 interview, on its  face, contains no statement that can reasonably be  construed as an order, incitement, or call to violence.  It was an analytical political comment on a rapidly  deteriorating public order situation.

5.3   It is stated that the Prosecution has produced no  material to demonstrate any nexus between the  accused’s televised remarks and any subsequent  unlawful act. No statement of the purported witnesses  proves that violence occurred as a result of, or was    encouraged by, the broadcast. The allegation therefore  fails to satisfy even the threshold of a prima facie case  under section 9(1) of the Act and Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure.

5.4   It is further noted that the evidentiary and legal  deficiencies discussed in relation to Charge No. 1 apply  mutatis mutandis to the present charge. In particular,  the absence of any causal nexus between the accused’s  remarks and the alleged offences, the lack of intent  (mens rea) or direct participation (actus reus), and the  failure of the Prosecution to demonstrate any plan,  policy, or conspiracy under section 4(2) are equally relevant here.

5.5   The present charge is, in essence, a repetition of the  earlier unfounded allegation, without any new  evidence or material to justify its inclusion. It is  further stated that section 3(2)(a) of the Act  criminalises murder when committed as part of a  widespread or systematic attack against civilians. The  accused neither committed nor directed any such act.  His statements were confined to commentary on public  disorder and contained no language advocating harm  or persecution.

5.6   It is submitted that section 3(2)(g) punishes abetment,  conspiracy, or incitement to commit crimes within the  Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Prosecution failed to  provide any legal or factual showing the requisite  actus reus or mens rea—namely, a deliberate intent to   provoke or facilitate the commission of any offence.  Mere expression of political opinion cannot constitute  abetment in law.

5.7   It is asserted that section 3(2)(h) concerns complicity  or failure to prevent crimes. The accused-petitioner  was not in any position of authority—political,  administrative, or military—capable of directing or  preventing law-enforcement actions. Hence, the  necessary element of “effective control” under section  4(3) is wholly absent.

5.8   It is further submitted that, during the alleged period,  the accused was not a Minister, nor did he hold any  executive or command position. The Prosecution’s  attempt to attribute “superior responsibility” is  therefore misplaced and contrary to section 4(3) of the  Act, which limits such liability to persons exercising  control over subordinates or operations.

5.9   Section 4(2) requires proof that any contribution to a  crime was intentional and made either with the aim of  furthering a criminal purpose or in the knowledge that  a group intended to commit such crimes. The  Prosecution has failed to demonstrate any such  intention on the part of the accused; none can be  inferred from a brief television interview.

5.10 The Prosecution relies primarily on the broadcast  itself and a handful of witness statements. Out of  twenty witnesses named, only twelve statements have  been supplied; none establish any causal connection   between the interview and the alleged offences. The  remaining eight witnesses have not been produced or  disclosed, contrary to Rule 18(2) of the Rules of  Procedure, which requires full disclosure of both inculpatory and exculpatory materials.

5.11 St the time of the News 24 interview, public violence  had    already   reached grave   proportions—police  killings, arson, and destruction of state property had  been   widely    reported.    The    accused-petitioner’s  comments acknowledging infiltration of extremist and  opposition elements were consistent with facts then  publicly known. Describing those realities cannot be  equated with an intent to dehumanise or incite.

5.12 Viewed in context, the accused’s statements were a  warning against escalation, not a call for repression.  He urged that law enforcement act proportionately  and protect life and property. Such expressions of  concern fall squarely within the bounds of legitimate  political speech and cannot, by any reasonable  interpretation, satisfy the actus reus or mens rea  required for crimes under section 3(2).

5.13 The Prosecution’s characterisation of the accused’s  remarks as “incitement” is a misreading of language  and intent. Incitement under international criminal  law demands a direct call to imminent unlawful action,  which is entirely absent here. The alleged broadcast  lacks both the content and context necessary to  establish such liability.

5.14 In light of the foregoing, no plan, policy, or   conspiracy—as contemplated by section 4(2)—has   been established. The Prosecution’s claim rests on   speculation and political inference rather than   evidence admissible under the Act.

5.15 The attempt to criminalise a televised comment   undermines the principle of legality and the right to   freedom of expression protected by law. Legitimate   political analysis, however disagreeable to some,   cannot in law constitute a crime against humanity.

5.16 The evidentiary and legal deficiencies discussed in   relation to Charge No. 1 apply mutatis mutandis to   the present charge. In particular, the absence of any   causal nexus between the accused’s remarks and the   alleged offences, the lack of intent (mens rea) or direct   participation (actus reus), and the failure of the   Prosecution to demonstrate any plan, policy, or   conspiracy under section 4(2) are equally relevant   here. The present charge is, in essence, a repetition of   the earlier unfounded allegation, without any new   evidence or material to justify its inclusion.

6. Charge No. 6: Conspiracy, Instigation, and Complicity in Crimes Against Humanity   

6.1   That in Charge No.6 the Accused has been charged in   the following terms

“That you, Hasanul Haque Inu, on or about 29 July    2024, at a meeting of the 14-Party Alliance held under    the chairmanship of Sheikh Hasina at Ganabhaban,    Dhaka, being present therein as one of the senior    partners of the alliance and President of the Jatiya    Samajtantrik Dal (JSD), did conspire, plan and    participate in discussions to suppress the student-    public movement against discrimination.    In pursuance of such conspiracy, you approved and    endorsed the plan to ban a veteran political party,    “Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami”, with the ulterior    motive of stigmatizing the protesters as “BNP”,    “Jamaat”, “terrorist” and “communal”, thereby    diverting and discrediting the movement.    By doing so, you incited, instigated and assisted the    commission of large-scale killings, torture and    persecution perpetrated by law enforcement agencies    and armed cadres of the 14-Party Alliance across    Bangladesh.    Through your acts and speeches, you intentionally    contributed to the design and execution of the said    criminal acts and thereby committed offences of    murder, persecution and other inhumane acts as    crimes against humanity, punishable under Sections    3(2)(a),(g),(h)read with Sections 4(1), 4(2), and 4(3)    of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,1973.    Your involvement, approval, and facilitation of these    acts, being integral to the joint criminal enterprise of    the   14-Party   Alliance,   render   you    criminally    responsible under Sections 3(2)(a),(g),(h)read with  Sections 4(1), 4(2), and 4(3) of the Act for the  commission of murder, torture, persecution and other inhumane  acts   as crimes   against   humanity,  punishable under Sections 20(2) and 20A thereof.  Therefore, You, Hasanul Haque Inu, are hereby  charged on the counts stated above for your individual,  joint and superior responsibility in the commission of  crimes against humanity-including murder,  persecution, torture, and other inhumane acts-as  defined and punishable under the International  Crimes (Tribunals) Act,1973.”   6.2   The allegation as proposed from the side of the  Prosecution is    legally    unfounded, factually  misconceived, and politically motivated. The charge  mischaracterises a factual statement of historical truth  as “incitement.” Calling Jamaat-e-Islami a terrorist  and communal organisation does not constitute a crime  under any provision of the Act, nor under any  recognised principle of international criminal law.

6.3   The allegation itself implicitly concedes that Jamaat-  e-Islami and its student wing had become deeply  involved in the violent phase of the 2024 movement.  Otherwise, criticism of Jamaat-e-Islami could not  logically be equated with criticism of the movement  itself. The Prosecution’s own framing thereby  corroborates the Defence’s case that extremist  infiltration had occurred

6.4   After 5th August, 2024 top leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami  and its student wing Islami Chhatra Shibir publicly  disclosed that they were the driving force behind the  so called movement in July-August, 2024. In an  interview with BBC Bangla on 30.06.2025, the  Nayeb Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami Syed Abdullah  Muhammad Taher (At present a Member of the  Parliament) said, “The intelligence agencies knew that  we were behind this movement, the government knew  it. That’s why they banned us, they banned Shibir.  They didn’t ban any other party.” He further said,  “We were very conscious that this was not to be  revealed as a movement of Jamaat-Shibir. We wanted  it to be given a universal form. If it were revealed that  Jamaat-e-Islam played a key role behind this through  Chhatra Shibir, then a reservation would have been  created among those who do not like Jamaat-e-Islami  very much. So we took a strategy to ensure the  participation of all classes of people.” [Exhibit-R  adduced by the Defence]

6.5   Such admission from one of the top leaders of Jamaat-  e-Islami proves that the statement made by the  Accused about Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Chhatra  Shibir at the relevant time was factually correct and  the same vitiates the charge proposed by the  Prosecution.

6.6   The Hon’ble Tribunal needs to look into the actual  scenario of the July-August, 2024 events to get a  complete picture of the situation. There were two  parts of the movement – (1) Movement against the  High Court’s judgment on the matter of quota in  Government jobs, and (2) Against the Government.  The matter of quota was resolved on 21st July, 2024  when the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of  Bangladesh set aside the Judgment and Order passed  by the High Court Division in quota matter. After the  resolution of the quota matter by the Apex court, the subsequent movement was absolutely taken over by  the vested quarters in the disguise of students and  public.

6.7   It is noteworthy that Jamaat-e-Islami’s long record of  sectarian and violent activity is a matter of judicially  recognised fact, not political opinion. This very  International Crimes  Tribunal  has  in  severaljudgments—Chief Prosecutor v. Ghulam Azam  (para 375), Chief Prosecutor v. Motiur Rahman  Nizami (para 416), and Chief Prosecutor v. Maulana  Abdus Sobhan (para 578)—described Jamaat-e-  Islami as a “criminal enterprise” and a “communal as  well as criminal organisation.” The party’s culpability  for crimes against humanity and genocide committed during the 1971 Liberation War has thus been  conclusively established in this Tribunal’s own  jurisprudence.

6.8   Truth, in particular historical truth, cannot constitute  incitement. Under international    jurisprudence,  incitement requires a direct call to commit an imminent  unlawful act. The accused petitioner’s remarks lacked  both the intent and the direction necessary to meet  that standard. They were analytical and factual, not  exhortatory.

6.9   Section 3(2)(a) of the Act criminalises murder as a  crime against humanity; section 3(2)(g) criminalises  abetment, conspiracy, or incitement; and section  3(2)(h) covers complicity or failure to prevent. The  Prosecution has failed to show any actus reus linking  the accused to an actual offence, or any mens rea  demonstrating intent to commit or facilitate such acts.  None of the statutory elements are satisfied.

6.10 The Accused had no position of authority or control  over any enforcement agency or armed group at the  material time. His presence in a political alliance  meeting does not in law give rise to “command  responsibility” under section 4(3). The Prosecution  has not alleged, let alone proved, that he issued any  order or had any capacity to prevent or punish alleged  crimes.

6.11 The charge fails to meet the gravity threshold of an  international crime. Labelling a political organisation  “terrorist”    cannot   reasonably   be   compared   to  genocidal or dehumanising rhetoric seen in Rwanda or  Nazi Germany. The accused’s remarks were grounded  in well-documented fact, not prejudice or falsehood.  To equate them with incitement to mass atrocity  trivialises the very notion of crimes against humanity

6.12 The Accused a valiant freedom fighter and lifelong  advocate    of secular,    democratic   values,   has  consistently opposed Jamaat-e-Islami’s communal  ideology. The present charge appears to be a politically  motivated reprisal against him precisely because of his  historic stance against Jamaat and its collaborators in  1971.

6.13 Section 4(2) of the Act, liability requires that any  contribution to a crime be intentional and made with  the aim of furthering a criminal purpose. The  Prosecution has failed to provide any evidence of any  such intention. The Accused’s remarks merely sought  to highlight extremist infiltration and protect civic  peace, not to provoke violence. His remarks were  consistent with the political vision to uphold  secularism and resist communalism in all its forms. As  such, his statements served a legitimate public interest  in warning against forces historically linked to terror and intolerance.

6.14 The Defence asserts that the Prosecution has failed to  provide any testimonial or documentary evidence  establishing a causal, factual, or temporal nexus  between the Accused’s attendance at the meeting of  29   July 2024  and the   alleged crimes.   The  Prosecution’s repeated reference to the Accused’s  status as a “14-party alliance leader” is a flawed  attempt to impute liability through mere political  affiliation, which contradicts the fundamental principle  of individual criminal responsibility. Jurisprudence   consistently holds that a mere meeting is insufficient    to establish a nexus; as held in United States of    America v. Altstoetter et al. (Justice Case), the    Prosecution  must  establish    the   “conscious    participation”   of the accused    in   systematic,    government-organized criminal procedures, rather    than mere attendance at a consultative forum [3    L.R.T.W.C. 974, 981–982 (1951); cite: 1]. This high    threshold is further reinforced in Prosecutor v. Kordić,    which ruled that mere participation in a meeting does    not establish a nexus with intent or knowledge to    commit, endorse, or approve alleged crimes [Case no.    IT-95-14/2-T, Judgment, 26 February 2001, para    217; cite: 1]. Furthermore, international standards in    Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al. (Media Case)    emphasize that a political leader’s general awareness    of a violent political climate is insufficient to establish    knowledge of specific criminal acts committed by    subordinates [Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Judgment, 3    December 2003, para 976; cite: 1]. Under the    subjective requirements for liability identified in the    Lubanga Pre-Trial Chamber, and adopted under    Section 4(2) of the amended 1973 Act, the    Prosecution must prove that the Accused was    “mutually aware” and “mutually accepted” the    fulfillment of the alleged crime—a burden that remains    entirely unsatisfied as no witness has testified that the    Accused used this meeting to issue operational orders    or facilitate atrocities. Absent proof of a plan, policy,    or direct link between the meeting and specific deaths,    the charge rests on conjecture and must be dismissed   [Prosecutor v. Kvocka et al., Case no. IT-98-30/1-T,   Judgment, 2 November 2001, paras 199-201; cite: 1].   6.15 Thus Charge No. 6 under sections 3(2)(a), (g), (h) or   4(1)–(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,   1973 as proposed by the Prosecution fails in its   entirety and the Prosecution has failed to demonstrate   any act, intent, or consequence by any evidence   connecting the Accused to the alleged crimes. 198.

7. Charge No.7: Conspiracy and Agreement to commit Crimes Against Humanity

7.1   That in Charge No.7 the Accused has been charged in   the following terms:

“That you, Hasanul Haque Inu, on or about 04 August   2024 at about 16:29:07 hours, while maintaining   constant communication with Sheikh Hasina, the then   head of the 14-Party Alliance Government, did   conspire, plan and agree with her and others to   suppress the peaceful student and public movement   against discrimination by unlawful and violent   means.   As part of the said conspiracy, you approved and   supported the decision to impose a nationwide curfew,   label the protesters as militants and use lethal weapons   to shoot and kill unarmed civilians, thereby intending   to destroy and eliminate the movement.   By so doing, you committed the offence of conspiracy   and incitement to commit murder, persecution,    torture, and other inhumane acts as crimes against  humanity, within the meaning of Sections 3(2)(a), (g),  and (h) of the International  Crimes  (Tribunals)Act,1973, punishable under Sections  20(2) and 20A thereof.”   7.2   This charge is a replication of the earlier allegations  concerning the purported telephone calls of 20 July  2024, and suffers from identical legal and evidentiary  infirmities. The Prosecution has not disclosed how this  alleged recording was obtained, authenticated, or  preserved; nor has it provided any transcript that  meets the requirements of reliability or accuracy under  the Tribunal’s rules that govern evidence.

7.2 This charge is a replication of the earlier allegations concerning the purported telephone calls of 20 July 2024, and suffers from identical legal and evidentiary infirmities. The Prosecution has not disclosed how this alleged recording was obtained, authenticated, or preserved; nor has it provided any transcript that meets the requirements of reliability or accuracy under the Tribunal’s rules that govern evidence. 

7.3   The alleged conversation contains several exculpatory  portions which the Prosecution has ignored. The  accused is recorded as emphasising restraint and  proportionality, expressing concern over escalating  violence, and suggesting that arrested individuals be  released promptly. His remarks reflect the outlook of  a responsible statesman seeking balance, not of a  person encouraging unlawful violence. Truthful or  fact-based    descriptions,   such   as   characterising  extremist infiltration into the protest, do not constitute  incitement. Prosecution documents as well as public  domain materials confirm that the 2024 protest had  by then descended into violent attacks on police, state  property, and ordinary citizens. Acknowledging that reality cannot, by any legal standard, be equated with  advocacy of violence.

7.4   The Prosecution tried to put emphasis on the phrase  “……”, but the Prosecution ignored that it is not the  narrative of Sheikh Hasina, nor of Hasanul Huq Inu,  rather Sheikh Hasina was informed by international  organizations that attacks on State infrastructures and  life and property of people were being perpetrated by  militants.

7.5   The Prosecution has failed to establish any causal  nexus between this alleged conversation with Sheikh  Hasina and any act of offence. No incident has been  linked by date, location, or witness testimony to the  supposed conversation. Absent such nexus, there can  be no actus reus under section 3(2), nor any intent  under section 4(2).

7.6   The    accused-petitioner  had   no   command or  supervisory authority at the time of the alleged acts.  Section  4(3)   of   the   Act   confines   “superior  responsibility” to those exercising effective control  over subordinates, which the accused did not. As such,  the doctrine of command responsibility is wholly  inapplicable.

7.7   Section 4(2)(d) requires any contribution to a crime to  be intentional, and made with the purpose of  furthering a criminal plan or in the knowledge of such  a plan. No evidence has been brought by the  Prosecution that the accused shared any criminal intent or purpose with any alleged perpetrator. On the   contrary, the evidence indicates his consistent   advocacy  of    restraint and humanitarian   considerations.

7.8   Even taking the Prosecution’s claims at their highest,   the accused ordered, abetted, or encouraged any   unlawful act, or that any such act occurred as a   consequence of his alleged words. To equate analytical   discussion    or   political    characterisation    with   “conspiracy”, “planning” or “ordering crimes against   humanity” is a distortion of both fact and law.

8. Charge No.8: Murder as Crimes Against Humanity

8.1   That in Charge No.8 the Accused has been charged in   the following terms:

 “Count no.1(Victim: Md. Abdullah Al Mustaqin,   aged 16 years)  

 That on or about 05 August 2024, between 13:30   hours and 16:00 hours, during the period of the   student-public anti-discrimination and quota reform   movement (between 1 July 2024 and 5 August 2024),   in the vicinity of Haripur-bound road in front of   Aarong, within Kushtia Sadar Model Police Station   area, Kushtia District, you, being one of the influential   leaders of the then ruling 14-Party Alliance and the   President of Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD), in active   collaboration and conspiracy with Sheikh Hasina,   Obaidul Quader, Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, Md.   Mahbubul Alam Hanif and others and while   exercising superior and political authority, instigated,   ordered, abetted and facilitated the use of lethal force    by the local Awami League cadres and police against    unarmed protesters, thereby causing the death of Md.    Abdullah Al Mustaqin,    a   16-year-old    student    protester.    By your aforesaid acts and conduct, you have thereby    committed the offence of Murder as a Crime against    Humanity,punishable under sections 3(2)(a), (g),(h),    4(1),4(2),4(3) read with sections 20(2) and 20A of the    International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,1973.

Count no.2 (Victim: Md. Suruj Ali Babu, aged 41    years)

 That on the same date and time, 05 August 2024,    between 13:30 hours and 16:00 hours, at Burmese    Street, Kushtia Sadar,you,in the course of the same    plan and design to suppress the student-public    movement and pursuant to the direction and joint plan    of the ruling leadership, instigated, approved and    ordered the opening of indiscriminate fire upon    peaceful protesters. In consequence of your acts and    orders, Md. Suruj Ali Babu, an unarmed worker, was    shot and killed on Burmese Street.    By doing so, you committed the offence of Murder as a    Crime against Humanity, punishable under sections    3(2)(a),(g),(h),4(1),4(2),4(3)   read   with   sections    20(2) and 20A of the Act.

Count no.3 (Victim: Md. Ashraful Islam, aged 37    years)

That on the same day, 05 August 2024, at    approximately 13:30to 16:00 hours, at a location    approximately 50 yards north of Bok Chattar, within    Kushtia Sadar, acting under your instruction and in    execution of your plan to quell the movement through    lethal means, Awami League activists and law    enforcement    personnel  opened fire   upon the    demonstrators. As a result, Md. Ashraful Islam, an    unarmed protester, was shot and succumbed to death.    Thus, you have committed the offence of Murder as a    Crime against Humanity,  punishable under    sections3(2)(a),(g),(h),4(1), 4(2), 4(3) read with    sections 20(2) and 20A of the International Crimes    (Tribunals) Act,1973.

Count no.4 (Victim: Md. Bablu Farazi, aged 58    years)   

That on or about 05 August 2024, between 13:30 and    16:00hours,at Tula Patti Street, Kushtia, you, acting    in furtherance of the common design with Sheikh    Hasina and others, and in the capacity of a superior    political leader of the then ruling alliance, ordered,    abetted and facilitated the commission of acts of    violence against peaceful protesters, resulting in the    fatal shooting of Md. Bablu Farazi, a local    businessman.    By these acts, you have committed Murder as a Crime    against   Humanity,  punishable under sections    3(2)(a),(g),(h),4(1),4(2),4(3)read with sections 20(2)    and 20A of the Act

Count no.5 (Victim: Md. Yusuf Sheikh, aged 56    years)

That on the said date, 05 August 2024, between 13:30    and 16:00 hours, on the road opposite the Fire Service    Station, Kushtia, following your instructions and    under your political influence, the local Awami League    cadres, aided by the police, opened fire at unarmed    citizens and protesters. In consequence, Md. Yusuf    Sheikh, a service employee, was shot and killed.    By these acts and omissions, you have committed    Murder as a Crime against Humanity, punishable    under sections 3(2)(a),(g),(h),4(1),4(2),4(3) read    with sections 20(2) and 20A of the Act.

Count no.6 (Victim: Md. Usama, aged 18 years)

That on or about 05 August 2024, between 13:30 and    16:00hours, at Haripur-bound road in front of    Aarong, Kushtia, in continuation of your prior orders    and in pursuance of a joint criminal plan with Sheikh    Hasina and others, you aided, abetted, incited and    approved the use of lethal weapons against unarmed    student protesters, resulting in the death of Md.    Usama, an 18-year-old student.    That you, Hasanul Haque Inu, as one of the principal    leaders of the 14-Party Alliance and the President of    Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD),being in a position of    superior authority and command responsibility,    exercised effective control over party activists, allied    forces and the local administration in Kushtia district.

You are thereby individually criminally responsible  and also responsible on the basis of command and  superior responsibility under sections 4(2) and 4(3) of  the Act, for the commission of the aforesaid crimes,  which were part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population during the anti-  discrimination and quota reform movement of July-  August 2024.  Each count separately constitutes a distinct offence  punishable under  the   International   Crimes  (Tribunals) Act, 1973.  By your aforesaid acts and conduct, you have  committed the offence of Murder as a Crime against  Humanity, punishable under sections 3(2)(a),(g),(h),  4(1),4(2),4(3) read with sections 20(2)and 20A of the  International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.”

8.2   The allegations brought under Charge No.8 are  factually baseless, legally untenable, and internally  inconsistent. Regarding the alleged 6 (Six) deaths, 5  separate Ejahars were lodged with Kushtia Police  Station and 1 petition of complaint was filed with the  Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushtia separately  for each death [Exhibit-‘V’ (Series), ‘W’ (Series)’, ‘W  (Series)’, ‘Y (Series)’, ‘Z (Series)’ and ‘AA (Series)’  adduced by the Defence]. The Accused was not named  in any of the said 6 (Six) cases. Though the  investigation officer, who deposed before the Hon’ble Tribunal as P.W.10, claimed during his cross  examination that he visited Kushtia Police Station, but  when he was asked about the aforesaid cases, he  replied that he does not have any knowledge about  those cases.

8.3   The manner of occurrences as narrated in F.I.R.s and  petition of complaint are totally contradictory to the  charges. Out of the aforesaid 6 (Six) cases, 1 (one)  Ejahar (Kushtia Sadar Police Station Case No.12  dated 15.08.2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 314 of  2024) was lodged by P.W.1 namely Raisul [Exhibit-  V (Series) adduced by the Defence] and remaining 5  (Five) cases were lodged/filed by members of deceased victims, but none of the informants/complainant was  included in the list of witnesses of the instant case,  even though they were admittedly interrogated by the  Investigation Officer. Independent witnesses, though  available, were not brought. No witness of the alleged  places of occurrence was even interrogated as  admitted by the Investigation Officer during his cross  examination in relation to all the 6 (Six) counts of Charge No.8.

8.4   Admittedly, the Accused was not present in Kushtia  at the time of the alleged occurrences. No evidence—  documentary, oral, or digital—connects the accused to  the specific killings alleged. The charge relies entirely  on conjecture and the repetition of unverified  narratives.

8.5   The Prosecution has failed to produce any witness  statement, communication    record, or    directive  demonstrating that the accused issued, transmitted, or  endorsed any instruction to use lethal force. No causal  link has been established between any words or  actions of the accused and the tragic deaths referred  to in the charge, thereby failing to establish the actus  reus or mens rea required under section 3(2) of the  Act.

8.6   Admittedly the accused was at all material times the  President of the Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JaSod), a  distinct political party within the 14-Party Alliance  and there is no evidence that any member of JaSoD  perpetrated any crime under section 3(2) of the Act.  The Accused being leader of a distinct political party  had no control—formal or informal—over the district-  level structure or decision-making process of Awami League.

8.7   Admittedly the    Accused   did   not  hold   any  constitutional or administrative post or authority  between 1st July to 5th August, 2024. Thus, the  Prosecution’s own showing, the accused had no  command, control, or supervisory authority over any  of the persons allegedly involved in the incident.  Accordingly, the doctrine of “superior responsibility”  under section 4(3) of the Act— requiring effective  control and the ability to prevent or punish—has no  application.

8.8   The Prosecution has not brought any evidence  showing any plan, policy, or conspiracy to commit any  offence as required by section 4(2)(d) of the Act.

8.9   The absence of lawful authority, causal, connection,  and intention—combined with contradictions within  the    Prosecution’s   own    evidence—renders the  allegation wholly speculative. To attribute liability to  the accused on the basis of political association or  alliance membership would offend the principles of  legality (nullum crimen sine lege) and individual  criminal responsibility enshrined in section 4(1) of the  Act.

9. The Prosecution’s theory is unsupported by evidence, contradicted by its own record, and legally unsustainable for which the Accused is liable to be acquitted.

Unreliable and tutored prosecution witnesses  

10. The Prosecution examined total 10 (Ten) witnesses including the Investigation Officer who deposed as P.W.10.  Out of the remaining witnesses, P.W. 2 deposed a the  Special Investigation Officer who seized the alleged  conversations of the Accused with the then Prime Minister  Sheikh Hasina, P.W. 3, 5 and 9 deposed as official witnesses  who signed on the seizure list and P.W. 4 deposed as an  expert witness. Only P.W.1, 6, 7, and 8 were deposed as  public witnesses.

11. The P.W.1 namely Md. Raisul Haque during cross  examination admitted that the accused Hasanul Huq Inu at  the relevant time was not present at Kushtia District. The  P.W.1 also could not correctly state about the latest position  of Hasanul Huq Inu as a Member of Parliament from  Kushtia-2  constituency whereas in   2024   National  Parliament Election he was not elected as the Member of  Parliament which was also confirmed by the Investigation  Officer during his cross examination.

12. The P.W.1 stated in his deposition that he listened/watched the conversation between Hasanul Huq Inu and Sheikh  Hasina after 5th August and he also made similar statement  before   the    Investigation    Officer.   According   to   the  Investigation Officer, the investigation in Kushtia was  conducted from 16 June, 2025 to 21 June 2025 whereas  from Exhibit-‘U’ as produced from the side of the defence it  appears that the said conversation was made public by  journalist Zulkernain Saer for the very first time on 17th  August, 2025.

13. That the P.W.1 was the informant of Kushtia Sadar Police Station Case No. 12 dated 15th August, 2024 corresponding  to G.R. No. 314 of 2024 which was lodged 10 (Ten) days  after the alleged death of the victim Suruj Ali Babu and in  the said ‘Ejahar’ the P.W.1 stated that the victim Babu died  due to “chapati” blow and stab injury. But while deposing in  the Tribunal as P.W.1, he stated that the victim Suruj Ali  Babu was injured from bullet injury (গুলিলিদ্ধ) which clearly  contradicts his earlier statement.

14. The statement of the P.W.1 made in the examination chief, “জাসদ সভাপলি হাসানুি হক ইনু শেখ হালসনাকক শ ান ককির মাধ্যকম  আকদািনকারীকদর দমকনর জনয লিলভন্ন পরামে শ শদন, প্রক াজকন   আকদািনকারীকদর গুলি করা, শিালবিং করা, শেককান মূকিয আকদািন   দমন করার পরামে ও    শ উস্কালন শদন।” are totally absent in the said   conversation. During cross examination though a suggestion  was given that his such statement was not true, but he  denied. This statement not being found in the conversation  between Hasanul Huq Inu and Sheikh Hasina should be  treated as subsequent embellishment and tutored and as such  the evidence of P.W.1 should be kept out of consideration  being untrue and not supported by any material evidence.

15. That with regard to the evidence of P.W.6 it is submitted that this P.W. was admittedly examined by the Investigation  Officer on 17th June, 2025 and this P.W. in his examination  in chief stated in the Tribunal, “লিকাকির লদকক জানকি পালর শে,  ইনু, হালন , আিা এর পরামকে শ ছাত্রিীগ ও পুলিে লনলিচাকর   শ    গুলি ককর   আমাকদর ০৬ জন ভাইকক গুলি ককর হিযা ককর।” , by merely   implicating Chhatro League and police and his such  statement is a mere hearsay without any corroboration.  During cross examination he admitted that he studied up to  class VIII, hence he has no reason to join the quota  movement of students. However, during cross examination,  he stated that he heard about the conversation between  Hasanul Huq Inu and Sheikh Hasina through social media.  He also made similar statement regarding the said  conversation before the Investigation Officer. But if Exhibit-  ‘U’, as produced by the defence, is considered, he had no  scope to hear such conversation before he was examined by  the Investigation Officer as such his such claim of hearing   the   said conversation   should   be   discarded from  consideration.

16. The P.W.6 claimed that he suffered bullet injury on 04 August, 2024, but he did not produce any medical report in  support of such claim, nor did he show any sign of injury  before the Tribunal. On the other hand, with regard to the  injury suffered by the P.W.6, the Investigation Officer  during his cross examination replied, “আহি  রহাদ কুষ্টি াকি   আদদ্বীন হাসপািাকি এিিং আগা ইউসু  চক্ষু হাসপািাকি প্রাথলমক  লচলকৎসা গ্রহণ ককর, আলম ঐ দুই হাসপািাকি োই নাই। আলম ঐ দুই   হাসপািাকির কাগজপত্র পাই নাই। আহি  রহাদকক েখন জজজ্ঞাসািাদ   কলর িখন শস আমার সম্মুকখ শকান লপকিট উপস্থাপন ককর নাই।” as   such the claim of the P.W.6 regarding the injury suffered by  him is liable to be discarded from consideration.

17. That the P.W.6 stated during cross examination, “লমরর ষ্টটলভ,  আরষ্টটলভ, লনউজ ২৪ এর মাধ্যকম জানকি পালর। লমরর ষ্টটলভ এ আলম লনকজ   শুকনলছ, িািংিা লছি।” whereas the interview as made in   “Mirror Now” was absolutely in English which was also  played before the Hon’ble Tribunal by the Prosecution and  marked as Material Exhibit-IV. The P.W.6 further claimed  during cross examination, “আকদািনকারীকদর শিালবিং ককর, গুলি  ককর িা শেভাকি শহাক আকদািন দমন করকি হকি িিা হক লছি।  আরষ্টটলভকি একই কথা িিা হক লছি। সি চযাকনকি একই কথা িিা   হক লছি।”, but from the prosecution materials, particularly   the interview with “Mirror Now”, “RTV” and “News24”,  nothing like this statement can be found as volunteered by  the P.W.6 during cross examination.

18. That in view of the above anomalies and inconsistencies, the evidence of P.W.6 should be treated as tutored with regard  to the implication of the accused Hasanul Huq Inu.

19. The P.W.7, son of Babul Faraji did not at all implicate the accused Hasanul Huq Inu in his deposition, rather he  confirmed in his examination in chief that “সামাজজক শোগাকোগ  মাধ্যকম ও লমলি া এিিং পত্র পজত্রকা উপকরাক্ত আসামীকদর নাম জানকি   পালর।” as mentioned against Mahabubul Alam Hanif and   others without mentioning the name of the accused Hasanul  Huq Inue and accordingly he was declined to be cross  examined by the defence.

20. The P.W.8 in whole of his evidence neither implicated Hasanul Huq Inu, nor his party members in the incidents of  Kushtia. The P.W.8, however, stated, “শসাসযাি লমলি ার  মাধ্যকম আমরা একষ্টট লিপ শদখকি পাই শেখাকন আকদািন দমন করার  জনয স্বৈরাচার শেখ হালসনা শক হাসানুি হক ইনু লনকদশে লদকেন-গুলি   করকি হকি, শহলিকপ্টার শথকক শিামা মারকি হকি, শেভাকিই শহাক এই   আকদািনকারীকদর থামাকি হকি এিিং লিলভন্ন সম শটলিভেকন টককোকি   হাসানুি হক ইনু লেক্ষাথীকদর এই আকদািনকক সন্ত্রাসিাদী কােক্রম      শ   লহসাকি আখযাল ি ককরন।”. He made a similar statement before   the Investigation Officer. According to the Investigation  Officer, the statement of P.W.8 was recorded by him on 19th  June, 2025 whereas the conversation between the accused  Hasanul Huq Inu and Sheikh Hasina publicly came through  for the first time on 17th August, 2025 as evident from the  Exhibit-U which has been submitted by the defence through  the D.W.1 and the same clearly falsify the claim of the  P.W.8.

21. Regarding the occurrences in Kushtia on 05 August, 2024 the P.W.8 in his examination in chief stated, “০৫ আগস্ট  ২০২৪ ইিং িালরকখ সকাি শিিা সিাই মাকে শনকম ো । ঐলদন মকন হজেি  সমগ্র কুষ্টি া িালস রাস্তা শনকম একসকছ। হলরপুর ব্রীকজর সামকন ছ রাস্তার   শমাড় নামক স্থাকন শস সম কার একজন লনিাহী     শ মযাজজকেট লিজজলি লনক   আমাকদর ওপর া ার করা ।” But neither the said executive   magistrate, nor members of BGB deployed at the said place  of occurrence was produced before the Tribunal either as  accused or as witness. The P.W.8 in his examination in chief  further stated regarding the occurrences on 05th August,  2024, “ঐলদন লকছু অলি উৎসাহী লকছু পুলিে এিিং আও ামীিীকগর  কযািারকদর গুলিকি হাজার হাজার শিাক আহি হ ।” But the   Investigation Officer utterly failed to identify those over  enthusiastic police personnel as mentioned by the P.W.8 as  such it is evident even from the depositions of the P.W.8  that Hasanul Huq Inu did not have any involvement in the  occurrences that took place in Kushtia on 05 August, 2024.

22. The claims of the P.W.8 that from social media he heard that the accused Hasanul Huq Inu was directing Sheikh  Hasina or that Sheikh Hasina was directing Hasanul Huq  Inu are not at all supported by any evidence including the  audio clips of conversations purportedly held between  Hasanul Huq Inu and Sheikh Hasina on two dates, i.e. 20th  July, 2024 and 04th August, 2024, as such his evidence in  the Tribunal should be considered as tutored and subsequent  embellishment in order to implicate the accused Hasanul Huq  Inu in the instant occurrences.

23. The P.W.8 without mentioning the accused Hasanul Huq Inu in his entire deposition lastly prayed for his punishment  which proves that he was tutored to implicate the accused    Hasanul Huq Inu in the instant case.