A prosecution witness today told the International Crimes Tribunal‑1 that the government’s explanation for the July 2024 nationwide internet shutdown was “political,” contradicting claims made at the time that a data centre fire caused the disruption.

Emdadul Haque Mollah, director of Ultimex Communication Limited and former president of the Internet Service Providers Association, testified that no fire occurred at any data centre.

Instead, he said, the blaze broke out at the Disaster Management Building in Mohakhali on July 18, 2024.

Emdadul, testifying against Sajeeb Wazed Joy, son of ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina and her former ICT adviser; and former ICT state minister Zunaid Ahmed Palak, in a case over alleged crimes against humanity during the July 2024 mass uprising, explained that internet services faltered from 4:00pm before shutting down nationwide at 9:00pm on July 18, 2024.

To explain the technical chain, he said that ISPs are the final operator of service delivery, while upstream layers include International Internet Gateways (IIG), submarine cable companies, and International Terrestrial Cable (ITC) providers.

ISPs learned from International Internet Gateway operators that bandwidth supply from ITC providers had been halted, leading them to conclude that the shutdown was a government decision.

He added that while fibre optic cables were damaged in the Mohakhali fire, such damage could not have caused a nationwide outage, as 15-16 other data centres remained operational.

He also recalled Palak’s visit to the Disaster Management Building on July 23, where ISP leaders requested restoration of services. Palak assured them of resumption but publicly attributed the shutdown to a data centre fire, a claim Emdadul said was inaccurate.

Meanwhile, in International Crimes Tribunal‑2, the defence of Hasanul Haq Inu continued for a third day, rejecting allegations that he conspired to kill protesters during the July uprising.

Defence counsel argued that a telephone conversation between Inu and then prime minister Sheikh Hasina contained no orders to kill or repress protesters, but focused on calming the situation.

They also rejected claims that Inu incited violence in an interview with an Indian TV channel.

The counsel also rejected claims of Inu labelling protesters as “BNP or Shibir members”.

On another charge, the defence acknowledged Inu’s presence at a July 19, 2024 Gono Bhaban meeting, but argued that the subsequent nationwide curfew was a lawful measure to control unrest.