The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act is "restrictive" and "inconsistent with fair trial principles," Amir Hossain, state-appointed defence counsel for deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina and ex-home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, yesterday told the International Crimes Tribunal-1.

"The ICT Act has serious limitations -- there is no option to apply the Evidence Act and the CrPC in this law. It's like asking someone to swim after throwing him or her into the river, tying hands and legs," he said while rebutting the prosecution's formal charges in a case filed against Hasina, Kamal, and former IGP Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, now an approver.

Tribunal member Justice Md Shofiul Alam Mahmood termed the remark serious and asked Amir to specify false or flawed evidence. Amir responded, "If the tribunal accepts all prosecution claims as proven truth, I have nothing to add. My statements may also not be proven truth."

Justice Shofiul then pressed, "Where is the contradiction between the Rome Statute and the ICT Act? Show a clause where they conflict."

Amir replied, "Law evolves with time and necessity. The Rome Statute is not absolute truth, nor is it divine scripture."

At this point, Tribunal Chairman Justice Golam Mortuza Mozumder asked, "You mean the Evidence Act and CrPC should have applied?" Amir agreed. "The ICT Act imposes many bindings. We have to conduct the case through numerous obstacles, putting the defence in an embarrassing and painful situation," he said.

Speaking to journalists later, Amir added, "This law -- whether enacted during Sheikh Hasina's tenure or continued by the current government --has clear limitations. Trials under such a law remain questionable, as they deprive the accused of fundamental legal rights."

Amir denied prosecution claims of targeted killings during the July uprising, saying only one leading protester, Abu Sayed, was killed despite allegations of 1,500 deaths. "If Hasina wanted targeted killings, she could have done more using state forces," he argued. The tribunal chairman countered that "target" does not mean all must die -- strategy matters.

The defence also challenged the claim of "widespread" attacks, noting that witnesses came from fewer than 20 of the 52 districts where the prosecution claimed atrocities took place, and that there was mostly only one witness from each of those districts.

"Uncorroborated testimony from a single witness cannot prove widespread crimes," Amir said.

The tribunal, however, observed that even killings in Dhaka alone could constitute "widespread".

Amir said Hasina's reference to "descendants of Razakars" targeted individual descendants, not all, and that her attempt to reform the quota system was blocked by agitators "as part of a larger design." He argued the government had no role in a High Court writ on restoring the quota system in public service.

The tribunal chairman said the court's inaction, followed by the sudden disposal of the writ within a day or two, indicated a calculated plan and clear government influence over the judiciary.

Defending Hasina's 15-year rule, Amir said the prosecution ignored major achievements like the Padma Bridge, metro rail, Karnaphuli tunnel, and elevated expressway. "These transformed Bangladesh into a middle-income country."

Justice Shofiul responded, "In the name of development, you justify enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, and torture?" Amir replied, "Every government makes mistakes; no administration is above error."

He also defended Hasina's abolition of the caretaker government system, saying it originated from Hasina's own political movement. "The system was later corrupted when a BNP-led government extended the retirement age of judges to retain one favourable to them as chief adviser," he said. "In that context, the caretaker government was scrapped, following a High Court verdict."

On corruption, he said, "Begumpara is not only for Awami League, BNP, Jatiya Party leaders, and bureaucrats are also there."

Amir argued that Rakkhi Bahini was initially created to curb crimes, though some members later misused power. Amir also rejected prosecution claims that the 1973 election was a farce.