International Crimes Tribunal 1 in its judgement on Tuesday sentencing BNP lawmaker Salauddin Quader Chowdhury to death said that the accused was the sitting lawmaker but his attitude towards the judiciary was disrespectful. The tribunal made the observation in a judgement chapter titled ‘The demeanour of accused Salauddin Quader Chowdhury as D.W. 1.’The tribunal said that it was one of the duties of a trial court to observe the demeanour of a witness during the trial because fact finding is based on the credibility of evidence adduced by a witness and such observation of the trial court carried much weight in the estimation of the apex court.
The accused Salaudin as defence witness 1 gave his deposition in the tribunal to prove an plea of an alibi, the tribunal said.
It said that during the trial, the tribunal observed many things but it mentioned a few traits of Salauddin which appeared to the tribunal to be unusual and unbecoming.
‘In the early stage of the trial, the accused wilfully used to violate the decorum of the courtroom by shouting and thus by the order dated January 10, 2012, he was warned for his unruly behaviour,’ the judgement said.
‘After closing day’s proceeding while judges leave the courtroom as a practice, all the people present in the courtroom use to stand to pay respect to the court but the accused remained sitting on his chair. He seldom used to stand at the time of the exit of the judges,’ it said.
‘The tribunal has been set up by the government appointing judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and knowing the fact well, he used to address the judges of the tribunal as “Chairman Shaheb” or “Member Shaheb”,’ it said.
It said that Salauddin was an elected public representative but his art of deliberation, action and conduct as shown in the courtroom were not in conformity with the rightness, decency and convention of good behaviour.
‘Everybody should keep in mind, especially the accused, as a lawmaker should not forget the popular dictum “Be you ever so high, the law is higher than you”,’ the judgement said.
The judgement said that the observations would in no way affect the merit of the defence case.
-With New Age input
