Gazi Tamim, the prosecutor, said that today’s first testimony will be given by the witness to Abu Sayed’s death, Rina Murmu.

Witness Testimony of Rina Murmu

My name is Rina Murmu. My father’s name is XXX, and my mother’s name is XXX. I am 29 years old. I am a Christian by faith and belong to the Santal indigenous community. I live in the village of Bondhupara, under the Porosa Police Station in the Naogaon district.

I completed my master’s degree in economics from Begum Rokeya University last year, in 2024.

On July 1, 2024, a nationwide student movement began in support of a justified demand for quota reform. As part of this, a movement also started in Rangpur, which was peaceful from July 1 to July 14.

On July 14, our main program was to submit a memorandum to the Deputy Commissioner. We organized a procession from the university’s Gate No. 1 and went to Modern intersection. There, we read the memorandum aloud to the students. When we tried to proceed to the Deputy Commissioner’s office, the police blocked us. We were later able to hand over the memorandum directly to the Deputy Commissioner.

There was no committee for this movement. I was involved from the very beginning. The program for July 14 ended that day.

However, that evening, the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina held a press conference and referred to the protesters as “grandchildren of collaborators [with the Pakistani army in 1971]”. Students across the country erupted in protest. We also organized a protest by taking out a procession from the girls’ dormitory at night and holding a rally at the university’s Gate No. 1.

But when we arrived at the university’s Gate No. 1, we saw that the Chhatra League had organized a counter-program there. Led by Begum Rokeya University Chhatra League president Pemol Borua, along with Shamim, Babu, and others, the Chhatra League was positioned outside the campus. They were armed with machetes, sticks, rods, and other homemade weapons. Because of their presence, we were unable to hold our rally.

(Justice Mohitul Hoque asks if they attacked on the protesters and she replied affirmatively)

When a procession from Sardapara came, the Chhatra League attacked, so the rally did not take place and some students were injured.

On July 16, we planned protest programs at two locations: the university’s Gate No. 1 and Lalbagh.

Around 10 a.m., students from various educational institutions gathered in front of the Zilla School and marched to the press club, where I joined them. We went to the Char Tola intersection in a procession. On the way, the police blocked us again. Students from Begum Rokeya University and Carmichael College were also with us. That morning, Shahid Abu Sayeed was present at the university’s Gate No. 1. University administration officials were also there at the time.

We decided to enter the university and hold a procession. When we tried to enter the university, an argument broke out. Suddenly, the police began a baton charge on the protesting students. The procession included Abu Sayeed, Arman, Imran, Sabina Akhter, Raisul, and 5-6 thousand other students. We were scattered by the police attack.

I was standing across from the university. At that time, police and Chhatra League members were hitting Abu Sayeed with sticks. He stood a little in front of the road divider with his arms outstretched. Then, two police officers from the university’s Gate No. 1 shot him. He fell to the ground.

I later learned that the names of the two police officers were Amir Ali and Sujon Chandra. After that, Ayan and a few others came and took Abu Sayeed towards Park intersection.

I saw the entire incident clearly from the tea shop where I was standing. Later, at approximately 3:30 p.m., I learned that Abu Sayeed had died.

I hold the then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the university administration, the two police officers who fired the shots, the responsible officials of the Rangpur Metropolitan Police, and the Chhatra League responsible for this murder.

It is true that the investigating officer has interrogated me. This is my testimony.

Before starting the cross examination the defense lawyer Md. Amir Hossain tries to point out contradictions between what the witness said to the investigating officer and what she has stated today in front of the tribunal. However Mizanul Islam from prosecution rebuts bringing a judgement given in the case of Quader Mollah and states that, that decision does not allow contradiction between statements in the form of evidence.

Cross-Examination by the defense lawyer, Md. Amir Hossain

Q: You mentioned that the former Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, had previously abolished the quota system. Is it true that the High Court later overturned her order and reinstated it? And if so, do you know if the government appealed that decision?

A: Yes, a quota reform had occurred previously, and the former Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, had accepted the demand and abolished the quota system. I know that an individual later filed a writ petition against this decision in the High Court, and the court overturned the Prime Minister’s order, reinstating the quota. However, I do not know if the government appealed the High Court’s ruling to the Appellate Division.

Q: The then-Head of Government was in agreement with your demands, wasn’t she?

A: The then-Head of Government did not agree with my demands. Yes, the then-Prime Minister offered to discuss the movement, but she made this offer only when she couldn’t control the movement.

Q: Did you tell the investigating officer that you were in the front row of the movement?

A: I don’t remember if I told the investigating officer that I was in the front row of the movement.

Q: It is true that the former Prime Minister only referred to the grandchildren of Razakars as Razakars, not all protesters?

A: To my knowledge, none of the people who participated in the movement had grandfathers who were Razakars. It is not true that the former Prime Minister only referred to the grandchildren of Razakars as Razakars. It is also not true that she said those words to all the protesters.

Q: Regarding your statement that Chhatra League members were armed with machetes and sticks, was this presented to the honorable tribunal?

A: What I said about the Chhatra League having machetes and sticks was not presented to the honorable tribunal.

Q: You testified that you saw the incident from a tea stall. How far away was this tea stall from the shooting?

A: I testified that I saw the incident from a tea stall. The distance from that tea stall to where Abu Sayeed was shot was approximately 24-25 cubits [about 12-15 yards]. Four to five other people had taken shelter in that same tea stall. Later, I don’t recall the names of those who came to lift Abu Sayeed.

Q: Is it true that one of the shooters was not Amir Ali?

A: It is not true that one of the people who shot was not Amir Ali.

(Here when the defense counsel was asking the witness about the accused of this case, the chairman, Md. Golam Mortuza asked her if she knew who are the accused of this case and she could only name Sheikh Hasina and Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, failing to mention the 3rd accused)

Q: Is it true that Sheikh Hasina is not responsible for this incident?

A: It is not true that Sheikh Hasina is not responsible for this incident.