International Crimes Tribunal-1 on Sunday directed the concerned police station to ensure security of SM Sayem, a prosecution witness in the crimes against humanity case against former law minister Anisul Huq and Salman F Rahman, adviser to former ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina.
The directive followed a hearing after Sayem expressed deep concern over his personal safety, citing intimidation, verbal abuse, crude bomb attacks, and threats received via phone calls from abroad.
Sayem, a master’s student in Department of Marketing at Dhaka University who served as a coordinator of Anti-Discrimination Student Movement in Mirpur during the July Mass Uprising, testified on 3 November as the 13th prosecution witness against accused Anisul Huq and Salman F Rahman.
Defence lawyers cross-examined him on Sunday. Following the cross-examination, Sayem raised his sense of insecurity before the tribunal.
Residing in Mirpur-2, he alleged that an individual verbally abused him using obscene language in front of his home, while unidentified men on motorcycles positioned themselves outside his residence.
He further informed the court that two crude bombs (cocktails) were thrown targeting him in front of National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, with one landing directly in front of him and the other about 10 feet away, before the miscreants escaped on a motorcycle.
Sayem also alleged that individuals were going in front of his residence to make inquiries about him, and that he was receiving abusive phone calls from overseas.
Seeking security from the International Crimes Tribunal, his request was subsequently supported by a written application filed by the prosecution to guarantee his protection.
During the proceedings, the tribunal observed that relying solely on the government is insufficient and that everyone holds a responsibility. It mentioned that it is the collective duty of all to restrain those who violate the law.
Responding to the witness’s allegations, Mansurul Haque Chowdhury, defence lawyer, argued that his clients remain in prison and pointed out that Sayem had been giving testimony for days without raising any complaints, bringing up the insecurity issue only after his cross-examination concluded.
Following the submission of the prosecution’s written petition, the tribunal issued orders to the concerned police station to ensure Sayem’s safety.
