They violated oath of office

Food Minister Qamrul Islam and Liberation War Affairs Minister AKM Mozammel Huq have violated their oath of office, the Supreme Court has observed in a verdict that had convicted the two ministers of contempt of court around six months back.

The apex court's observation in its full judgement, released yesterday, has stirred a fresh debate among legal experts whether the two ministers should resign immediately for violation of oath.

The same debate raged on after the SC fined the two ministers Tk 50,000 each in March for committing the contempt by making derogatory comments about Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha.

"They have acted in violation of law and are in breach of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution," said the SC in its full judgment in the contempt of court case against the two ministers. 

According to a constitutional provision, by taking oath, a minister enters his office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.

"The respondents [two ministers] have scandalised the Supreme Court in a highly motivated manner in order to influence the judgment of the court. This is gross criminal contempt and a violation of the provisions of the constitution," it asserted.

The contemnors deserve no sympathy other than the lenient view taken in awarding sentence, which has already been expressed in the short order passed by this court on March 27, it noted.

"We are in no doubt that the respondents have intentionally made the utterances as reported and have indeed expressly admitted their guilt."

In their exuberance, they have undermined the sanctity of the institution of the judiciary by questioning the justice delivery system, the apex court said.

In early March, Both Qamrul and Mozammel made headlines by coming down hard on the chief justice for two days in a row.

They criticised the CJ after the country's top judge expressed dissatisfaction over the “poor performance” of the prosecutors and investigators of the International Crimes Tribunal in dealing with the war crimes case against Mir Quasem Ali.

Qamrul demanded formation of a new bench, keeping the CJ out of it, for hearing Quasem's appeal afresh. Mozammel went on to say that the CJ should not deliver the verdict on the appeal.

When they made the comments, the verdict in Quasem's case was pending, and the SC on March 8 sentenced the Jamaat leader to death.

On March 27, an eight-member SC bench, headed by the chief justice, convicted the two ministers of contempt of court after refusing to accept their unconditional apologies. The two ministers were present at the court.

The court said it could not accept their apologies as their comments had maligned and undermined the office of the chief justice and interfered with the administration of justice. Also, their statements were highly derogatory and contemptuous.

The apex court ordered the ministers to pay the money to Islamia Eye Hospital and National Liver Foundation of Bangladesh within a week. They complied with the court's order, as in case of failure, they would have to serve seven days in jail.

This was the first time the SC sentenced two sitting ministers for contempt.

In the full judgment, the apex court said the utterances of the contemnors have clearly shown their wish to remove the CJ from the bench hearing the appeal in question.

Their further utterance that they must have their expected judgment shows their utter indifference to the SC's authority to act independently. It also shows their utter disregard for the rule of law, it observed.

The judgment said the constitution gives the SC the authority to deliver judgments in accordance with law, but the ministers wished to dictate what decision should be announced by the SC for it to be acceptable to them.

"The said utterances show an intention to divert the course of justice in a particular way, come what may, which is contrary to the mandate of the constitution, which requires that every citizen should enjoy the protection of the law and be treated in accordance with law."

Three judges in the eight-member bench, however, didn't agree with it that the two ministers have violated their oath of office. They came up with opinions differing from the majority view.

In their views, it was not an issue in the proceeding to adjudicate whether the ministers acted in breach of their oath of office or not.

All the judges were unanimous in the judgment that found the two ministers guilty of contempt of court. 

DEBATE OVER MINISTERS' FATE

Jurist Shahdeen Malik is of the opinion that the two ministers should resign following the release of the full judgement.

"They have been found to have violated their oath of office. So, they have no legal and moral reason whatsoever to continue in their posts," Malik told The Daily Star yesterday.

"I expect them to resign today," he said.

Khurshid Alam Khan, an SC lawyer and editor of Dhaka Law Reports, echoed Malik's view.

The two ministers cannot hold the office or make any decision or enjoy any facilities or benefit from the state after the SC judges signed the verdict, he told this newspaper.

“The Supreme Court judgment is binding on the government under article 111 of the constitution, and therefore, both the ministers should resign immediately without hesitation,” said Khurshid.

Malik said the two ministers' conviction and subsequent punishment for contempt of court have already disqualified them from holding the office of ministers.

In support of this, he referred to the Public Servants (Dismissal on conviction) Ordinance 1985.

According to section 3 (2) of the ordinance, a public servant loses job for committing offences punishable with death, transportation or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or with a fine exceeding Tk 10,000 or with both.

The ministers, who are also public servants, were punished with a monetary fine of Tk 50,000 each.

Earlier in 2004, Inspector General of Police Shahudul Haque lost his job after his conviction for contempt of court. He was punished with a fine of Tk 2,000.

At that time, a public servant would lose job if slapped with a fine exceeding Tk 1,000, which was raised to Tk 10,000 in 2009, in line with the ordinance.

Malik mentioned that Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had to step down after he was convicted of contempt of court.

Gilani committed the contempt by refusing to carry out an order of the Pakistan Supreme Court. For this, he was punished with a 30-second jail term.  

Jurist Shafique Ahmed, who was law minister of the previous Awami League-led government, said the constitution doesn't specifically say anything about the fate of a minister if he or she violates the oath of office.

BNP leader and former law minister Moudud Ahmed said it is not only a legal issue, but also a moral issue. “I think they should now voluntarily resign from their posts.”

Contacted, Attorney General Mahbubey Alam refused to make any comment on the issue, saying he was yet to go through the SC judgment.

Asked, the food minister said some of the judges gave observations, not directions, about their violation of oath.

“I made a criticism and I was convicted. The court verdict has already been executed. The violation of oath is not an issue now,” Qamrul claimed.

Asked, the Liberation War affairs minister said he was yet to read the full SC verdict.

"Once I go through the full verdict, I will consult my lawyers and then decide the next course of action," said Mozammel.