Still waiting for justice

The wait for justice in Rana Plaza collapse is not going to be over anytime soon, as the trial for the killing of more than 1,000 people four years ago has not begun yet.

Another case filed for the violation of building codes in the construction of the nine-storey plaza has been facing a similar fate.

On July 18 last year, charges were framed against 41 people, including Rana Plaza owner Sohel Rana, in the murder case.

At least 1,136 people, mostly garment workers, were killed and more than 2,500 injured in the building collapse on April 24, 2013, which sparked worldwide criticism of the standards of labour and human rights in Bangladesh.

In June 2015, investigation officer Bijoy Krishna Kar submitted two charge sheets -- one for murder and the other for building code violation.

Of the accused, Rana, his parents -- Abdul Khaleque and Morjina Begum -- and 34 others were charged with causing the victims' death while four others were accused of sheltering Rana and helping him flee.

Three government officials were also indicted in the murder case relating to the worst-ever industrial disaster of the country. The government, however, had not given permission for including them in the charge sheet.

The trial was supposed to begin on September 18 last year.

But the trial was yet to begin as the trial proceedings of seven accused were stayed earlier by the High Court following writs challenging the legality of the order for framing charges against them in the murder case.

Additional Public Prosecutor Anwarul Kabir Babul told The Daily Star that the trial proceeding was only stayed for seven accused, but the whole proceedings remained halted.

Prime accused Rana, Jamsedur Rahman and four others are in jail while seven are absconding. Twenty-seven others including Rana's parents are on bail.

In the case filed over “violation of building codes” in the construction of Rana Plaza, a Dhaka court on June 14 last year, framed charges against Rana and 17 others.

But the trial could not proceed as several revisions challenging the order for framing charges were pending with two sessions courts.