Graft Suspects: They’ve right to move freely, go abroad
The High Court has observed that restricting or interfering with citizen's free movement because of "arbitrary or whimsical desires" of the government or state authorities is unconstitutional.
The HC bench of Justice M Enayetur Rahim and Justice Md Mostafizur Rahman made this observation in the 12-page full text of one of its verdicts, which was released yesterday.
Following a writ petition, the HC bench had delivered this verdict on March 16 saying that a specific law or rules need to be formulated soon regarding imposition of embargo on corruption suspects or accused leaving the country.
There are no specific laws or rules banning people against whom enquiries or investigations are running in connection with corruption allegations or cases from leaving the country, and they have the right to free movement according to the constitution, the court had said on March 16.
A citizen's liberty of movement involves his or her personal independence, which is universal, the HC said in the full-text verdict released yesterday.
If such a liberty has to be restricted, it has to be done within the prescribed rule or procedure of the relevant law, which means that no one should be condemned unheard before any action is taken against him or her, the HC bench said in the full text of the verdict.
"We have no hesitation in saying that controlling and restricting citizens' constitutional right to movement by any individual or authorities on whimsical desire is unconstitutional," read the verdict.
The HC bench came up with the judgment following the writ petition filed by one Ataur Rahman from Narsingdi challenging the Anti-Corruption Commission's (ACC's) action to restrain him from going abroad as a graft allegation against him was being inquired.
The HC declared the ACC's action illegal and allowed Ataur to go to Sweden where he lives with his family.
The ACC issued a notice on August 24, 2020, asking Ataur, known as Sweden Ataur, to submit his wealth statement to the commission.
After he submitted the statement, the anti-graft body started an inquiry into his wealth and on December 20 that year, issued a letter to immigration police to refrain Ataur from going to Sweden.
Ataur then filed the petition with the HC challenging the ACC's action.
In the full text of the verdict, the HC bench observed, "It is the reality that enquiry or investigation of corruption or money laundering cases is a matter of time, though there is a time limit under the relevant rules.
"Our judicial experience says the commission [Anti-Corruption Commission] or other investigation agency or authority cannot complete enquiry or investigation within the stipulated period.
"It is also a reality that many corruption suspects or accused are leaving the country at the enquiry or investigation stage and cannot later be put before the law and courts.
"Considering these realities, it has become indispensable to formulate necessary laws or rules in order to restrain or control the movement of people involved in enquiries or investigations related to corruption or money laundering cases…"
"Provisions of assigning reasons for restricting the suspects from leaving the county and scope for placing their [aggrieved persons] statements or objections have to be included in the law or rules.
"Imposing such embargo on a person for an indefinite period is an unconstitutional and antihuman measure and therefore, specifying a time limit to this effect will be justified," reads the verdict.
In the full text of the verdict, the HC bench also observed that the competent courts concerned will have the full jurisdiction to pass necessary orders on whether such people against whom inquiries or investigations are underway can go abroad until a law is enacted or rules are framed to this effect.
"The competent courts can permit the enquiry or investigation agencies to impose embargo on suspect persons from leaving the country and it [embargo] cannot be more than 60 days," the HC said in the verdict.
The ACC on March 21 filed the petition with the Appellate Division seeking stay on the HC verdict. The stay petition is pending with the apex court.
Comments