Testimony of AKM Moinul Haque

My name is AKM Moinul Hoque, and I am 58 years old. I am a journalist by profession. Currently, I am posted in Rangpur as a senior correspondent for NTV. My father’s name was the late xxxx, and my mother’s name was the late xxx. My address is xxx Rangpur. On July 16th, 2024, from before 2:00 PM, I was present in the area of gate number one of Rangpur’s Begum Rokeya University with my colleague, NTV Rangpur’s staff cameraman Asaduzzaman Arman, to perform my professional duties.

At approximately 2:00 PM, students involved in the quota-protest movement came in a procession from the Rangpur Press Club area toward the university’s gate number one. At this time, when the protesting students tried to hold a ‘PothShova’ (street meeting) in front of the gate, they were obstructed by police and supporters of the then-ruling party’s Chhatra League and Jubo League, who were already present. At this point, arguments, pushing, and shoving began. When the protesting students overcame the strong obstruction from the police and their supporters and tried to enter through the university’s gate number one, the police suddenly started a lathi-charge (hitting with batons). Due to this, the protesting students retreated to Park’s intersection (now known as Abu Sayeed Square). There, they regrouped nearby and started giving slogans. At that time, the police began firing tear gas shells, rubber bullets, and shotgun pellets, applying force to disperse the students. A terrible situation was created in the area around Park’s intersection.

NTV’s afternoon news starts at 2:00 PM. During this time, my colleague Asaduzzaman Arman and I kept sending live video from the scene to our office. Around 2:13 PM, I was instructed by the NTV Dhaka office to connect for a live broadcast. We presented the live video to the nation through the news and provided a continuous description of the events. During the NTV live broadcast, at approximately 2:17 PM, I saw a young man in a black t-shirt and pants come through a small gap in the highway divider in front of the university’s gate number one. He stood on the road very close to the police, raising his hands. We assumed he was part of the anti-discrimination student movement. With his hands stretched out and his chest puffed out, the young man was perhaps making an appeal to the police, as we did not see any aggressive posture in his body language. However, the police, who were already shooting from their position, targeted and shot the young man. The police were shooting from a very close distance. We broadcast this scene live on NTV. The bullet fired by the police hit the young man’s chest and stomach. We then saw the young man hunch over, take a few steps back across the divider gap, and stand for a moment before quickly sitting down on the road. He tried to stand up from the sitting position, but being unable to keep his balance, the wounded young man fell to the ground.

Then, a few fellow protesters picked him up and carried him toward Park’s intersection (now Shaheed Abu Sayeed Square). The scene of him being carried away was shown on NTV live for as long as it was visible to our camera. After 3:00 PM, we learned from my colleagues in Rangpur city and some protesting students that the young man who was shot was Abu Sayeed, a 12th-batch student of the English Department at Rangpur Begum Rokeya University. Around 3:30 PM, we learned that Abu Sayeed had died at Rangpur Medical College Hospital. The investigating officer collected the live recording from me on a pen drive. This is the pen drive containing the video footage of that live broadcast.

[It was displayed in the tribunal as Exhibit-I.]

The voice in the video footage is mine, and my description matches the footage shown. The investigating officer had interrogated me.

This is my testimony.

Cross-Examination has been declined by the Defense Counsel Md. Shahidul Islam (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 15-Amin Hossain, 25, 26, 27 and 28)

Cross-Examination has been declined by the State recruited Defense Counsel Mamun-Ur-Rashid (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 16-Pomel Barua, 17-22, 24)

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Md. Aminul Gazi (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shariful Islam):

The Investigating Officer (IO) visited gate no. 1 of Begum Rokeya University and took my written statement in February 2025. The Investigating Officer’s name was Ruhul Amin. The Prosecutor and personnel from the Investigation Agency of the International Crimes Tribunal were also with the Investigating Officer. I gave a written testimony to the Investigating Officer as a witness. The pen drive which contains Exhibit One is mine. I do not recall the exact date or time when I handed over the pen drive.

This pen drive was taken from me after a seizure list was prepared. I was not shown the seizure list today. I do not remember the date on which the Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI) collected a pen drive from me. I also gave another pen drive to the PBI. The original footage is preserved in the NTV archive. It was not a recording; it was a live broadcast. The NTV archive is located in Dhaka. We who work as field journalists do not have a fixed schedule. If we feel unsafe at night, we leave the scene only after receiving permission from the authorities.

Continued on 7 September 2025

On July 16, 2024, at approximately 10:00 AM, I started my work. Around 10:00 AM, my colleague, cameraman Asaduzzaman Arman, and I left the NTV Rangpur office to gather information. On July 16, 2024, at 11:00 AM, I gave a live report on the protest held by the students of Rangpur Medical College, although I was not present at the college myself. On that day, at 12:00 PM, I along with my cameraman, Asaduzzaman Arman, was present at the protest held by students in front of the Zilla School. We also went to the protest that moved from Rangpur Zilla School to the front of the Press Club. The distance from Rangpur Zilla School to the Press Club is approximately 1 kilometer. The road in front of the Zilla School was blocked for about 10 to 15 minutes.

The protesters stayed in front of the Press Club for about 10 to 12 minutes. The police intervened in front of the Captain’s World restaurant near the Rangpur District Police Lines. Police Lines School and College is located about 300 to 400 yards north of the Captain’s World restaurant, along the main road. On that day, students from almost all educational institutions in Rangpur participated in the movement. They were not wearing their institutional uniforms. It is possible that there were students in uniform among the protesters that day. I have watched this live footage multiple times before coming to the tribunal, since July 16, 2024. I have played and watched the video footage on the pen drive while giving it to multiple investigation agencies.

My colleague, the cameraman, recorded video footage in front of Rangpur Zilla School, Rangpur District Police Line, and Rangpur Press Club. The footage I provided to the investigating agency on a pen drive did not contain any of the aforementioned footage. It is not true that my colleague, the cameraman, and I did not record any footage in front of that place. After approximately 11:30 AM, the protesting students started walking from the Rangpur Press Club towards Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur. My colleague, the cameraman, and I followed the procession. I cannot say exactly how long it took to cover the 7-kilometer distance. However, it took an estimated 30 to 40 minutes. There is no scene of a traffic jam at Modern Mor (roundabout) in my 6-minute and 13-second live broadcast footage.

Beyond my narration, in the directly recorded live footage, another person can be heard saying, “Brother, Assalamualaikum, this is Arman speaking from Rangpur.” This voice could be that of my colleague, Arman. My figure was not visible in this 6-minute and 13-second video footage. This is because, in a risky situation during a live broadcast, the narrator cannot stand in front of the camera. It poses a security risk.

My colleague, the cameraman, and I joined the live broadcast from the north side, to the left of gate number one. We joined the live broadcast from a distance of approximately two, three, or four hands from gate number one. When we were broadcasting live, no other channel was broadcasting live. However, various channels were recording video, among them were Jamuna Television, Channel 24, and photojournalists from some other channels and newspapers. During the live broadcast, since everything was being shown, and we were in a risky situation, it was not possible to describe everything.

Chairman (Mr. Justice Nozrul Islam Chowdhury): So, are you saying that the footage shown in this video is incorrect?

Defense Counsel: No, your Lordship.

Chairman: Then leave it aside.

Defense Counsel: No, your Lordship. I have to ask this question, it’s a matter of my strategy. Because he actually didn’t see anything like Abu Sayed being shot. Otherwise, he would have definitely brought it up in front of the 180 million people, he would have mentioned it when he was live broadcasting.

Chairman: Leave this for now, because this entire video footage is being taken as evidence. It will remain as evidence.

Defense Counsel: Yes, it will definitely remain.

Chairman: Then leave it.

Defense Counsel: But if I can’t ask the question, then I’ll be in trouble during the later arguments. Because I am moving forward with a strategy, and I want to prove that he did not see Abu Sayed get shot. Please allow me to ask the question.

In front of gate no. 1 of Rangpur University, the police were already shooting. They fired at a young man wearing a black t-shirt and black pants, who was standing in the middle of the road with both hands outstretched. This statement is not in the narration, but the entire scene is in the video footage. It is not true that I did not see any of the events from my safe location while narrating. I do not want to comment on whether the date and time are visible as soon as the camera is turned on because we have reservations about speaking on technical matters. It is not true that the shootings I mentioned occurred at 2:44:32 PM, 2:44:36 PM, and 2:44:40 PM. The time of the shooting was 2:17 PM. It is not true that I gave my testimony emotionally, mixing some truth with falsehoods.

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Md. Salauddin (In favour of Present Accused no. 23 and 29):

I cannot say for sure whether there were any supporters of the Chhatra League, Jubo League, or Awami League in the video I broadcast.

It is not possible to identify them; that is a job for experts. It is not true that the Chhatra League, Jubo League, and the supporters of Awami League did not obstruct the protesters.

Footage of the altercation between the students and the police has been recorded. In my narration, I mentioned that the Chhatra League has called for a rally at 3:00 PM. There were no university employees in my live video.

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Sheikh Mustabhi Hassan (In favour of Present Accused no. 13-Rafiul Hasan Rasel):

By “Awami League supporters,” I am referring to the leaders and activists at various levels of the affiliated organizations of the Chhatri League, Jubo League and Awami League. Around 2:00 PM, the police conducted a baton charge. Besides the police, members of the Chhatra League, Jubo League, Awami League, and university officials and employees were also present there.

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman (In favour of Present Accused no. 8-Amir Hossain, 9-Sujan Chandra Roy)

(He first adopted the cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Md. Aminul Gani (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shariful Islam.) 

I can’t say how long the deceased, Abu Sayeed, was seen in the 6-minute 13-second footage of the live video from the protest because I haven’t counted. I can’t say how many times he was seen in the video because I haven’t counted. The live footage started at 2:13 PM and continued until 2:19 and a few seconds PM. At 2:13 PM, Abu Sayeed was in front of gate number one of Begum Rokeya University, and at 2:19 and a few seconds PM, his fellow protesters were carrying him towards the Park’s intersection, which is currently known as Abu Sayeed Square.

As a reporter, I cannot say from which place or area the deceased Abu Sayeed came to the front of gate number one of Begum Rokeya University. I cannot say how many people were in the live footage I sent. I also cannot say how many people in police uniform were in the video.

I have no training regarding tear gas shells, rubber bullets, and shotgun shells. I have spoken from professional experience. My experience with weapons is not formally acquired. In the video footage I submitted, we showed the direction of the tear gas shells, rubber bullets, and shotguns fired by the police. However, I cannot tell the trajectory of the bullets. There is no audio of conversations among the people in police uniforms in the live footage that I sent or that was broadcast by NTV.

I don’t remember how long before 2 PM on July 16, 2024, I was present in front of gate number one of Begum Rokeya University.

Application by the Defense Counsel, Azizur Rahman:
According to the International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973, Section 17 (c): present evidence at the trial in support of his defence, and to cross-examine any witness called by the prosecution. For that, your Lordship, a piece of evidence has just come into our hands, which is a video from Al Jazeera. It shows that six uniformed policemen surrounded Abu Sayed and were beating him. This is the pen drive that contains the video.

Tribunal: Okay, this is being taken as evidence, but there is no need to watch it now since it’s a long video. (Application granted) 

Defense Counsel: Yes, yes, of course.

During the live broadcast, when the protesting students tried to enter through gate number one, the gate was not closed.

It is not true that I gave false testimony.

Objection raised by the prosecution:  Your Lordship, our objection is that suggestions cannot be made during cross-examination. Suggestions can only be made on the substance or subject matter of the examination-in-chief.

(Objection Overruled)

In the video footage of my live broadcast, there is no scene of any student forcibly opening gate number one of Begum Rokeya University. The investigating officer did not take a written statement from me regarding the commentary I provided in my live video footage. I cannot say at what specific time after 3 o’clock I learned the full identity of the deceased, Abu Sayeed.

Q: “After 3:00 PM, we learned from my colleagues in Rangpur city and some protesting students that the young man who was shot was Abu Sayeed, a 12th-batch student of the English Department at Rangpur Begum Rokeya University,” you weren’t sure about this whole thing as you didn’t know his (Abu Sayeed’s) identity, right?

Objection by the prosecution: Your Honor, here the defense is trying to dispute the entire matter, but the entire matter is not in dispute here. The main issue here is the name and identity of Abu Sayed. That is what NTV’s senior correspondent came to know after 3 o’clock. But the defense counsel is trying to twist and show that this whole incident of being shot is in dispute. But the fact of being shot is not in dispute.

The main fact here was to know Abu Sayed’s name and identity. You can only talk about that. But you cannot talk about the whole matter, your Lordship.

(The objection was sustained. Then the defense proceeded with the suggestion.)

It is not true that all the facts of the Abu Sayeed case are not in Exhibit-1A.

Objection by the prosecution: The defense side is doing the same thing again. You cannot cross-examine on a cross-examination. Suggestions cannot be made. You have to confine yourself to the chief. There will be no reassertion.

Defense’s response: But everyone knows that it’s not possible to include everything, all the incidents, in a short video. So where is the problem in answering?

Prosecution’s response: Here you have to ask a specific question. The facts are very broad. The facts started from July 11, 2024, to July 30, 2024. You can’t just say things in an undefined way, as that will cause problems later. Because there is no scope for this question. There are many facts. You have to be specific.

Tribunal (Chairman): Mr. Mizanur Rahman, tell me, where will the problem or harm be for you?

Prosecution’s response: Your Lordship, the defense is trying to question all the incidents. The learned counsel is not specifying which incident is not in this video. Because he is saying that all the incidents are not here. What does ‘all incidents’ mean here? Because there is a series of incidents here. That needs to be understood.

Tribunal’s response: Mr. Azizur Rahman, look, you can ask the question, but you have to modify the question. You have to specify which incident you are referring to when you say ‘all facts’.

Defense Counsel: Okay, your Lordship. As you please, I will ask the question specifically. I am altering it.

It is not true that the video lacks the facts of the incident that occurred before Abu Sayeed stood up with his hands raised.

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Barrister Israt Jahan Oni (In favour of the Absconding Accused no. 2-Md. Monir, 3-7)

(He first adopted the Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Md. Aminul Gani (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shariful Islam)

The scene described in my deposition—of an argument and a scuffle starting between the protesting students and the police and supporters of Chhatra League, Jubo League, and Awami League in front of gate no. 1 of Begum Rokeya University—is not in my broadcasted live footage. This incident occurred before the live broadcast, and I do not recall if there is any footage of it. I saw this incident with my own eyes. At that time, as I did not know Abu Sayeed’s identity, I cannot recall whether he was present at that location. At that time, neither I nor my colleague, cameraman Arman, was harmed.

Objection by the Defence Counsel Azizur Rahman: Your Lordship, I have objection with this question as it might be suicidal for my clients.

Defense Counsel Ishrat Jahan: This question is important for asking the next question and significant for my clients your honor. Please let me ask the question.

(The objection was overruled)

We were located on the side where the police were. From my position, the police were approximately 20 to 30 feet away. I did not count how many police officers fired their weapons. I saw senior police officers, but due to the loud noise, I could not hear who was giving what orders to whom. From their uniforms, I could tell that there were multiple senior police officers present. I cannot say how many police officers were armed and how many were unarmed.

During my live broadcast, I saw the police firing, but I did not see Abu Sayeed get hit. When Abu Sayeed was shot, no students or crowd members were throwing brickbats from behind him. It is not true that after Abu Sayeed was shot, he was hit on the head by brickbats thrown from behind. The student crowd threw brickbats in self-defense. It is not true that I stood before the learned Tribunal and gave a fabricated testimony by mixing falsehood with truth.

Cross-Examination has been declined by the State recruited Defense Counsel Sujat Mia (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 1-Prof. Hasibur Rahman, 11-Hafizur Rahman, 12-Sarwar Hossain, 14 and 30)