Hasina counsel wants change of court

The counsel for Awami League (AL) President Sheikh Hasina will move to have the Tk 2.99 crore extortion case against her transferred to another court as they fear they might not get justice at the present one.
In an application to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court yesterday, they sought adjournment of the proceedings for two weeks so they could petition the High Court (HC) for transfer.
Following submissions from the prosecution and defence, Judge Azizul Huq adjourned the case proceedings till February 11.
The adjournment came a day after the court saw a heated argument over its integrity.
“I'm accepting the application,” the judge said, asking the defence to come on February 11 with a stay [on proceedings] from the High Court.
The lawyers for the detained AL chief moved the adjournment plea shortly after the court in a ruling had refused to expunge plaintiff Azam J Chowdhury's testimony that, the defence claimed, was recorded illegally.
In the application, they said the judge's refusal has called into question the court's neutrality. Besides, his views on Monday's incidents in the courtroom are "biased".
The court seems more inclined to find fault with the defence while ignoring the public prosecutor's behaviour covered extensively by the press.
In this context, the defendants believe the court is not neutral and they will be deprived of justice.
Since the defence plans to petition the HC to shift the case to another court, the proceedings here should be adjourned to allow them time, the application read.
Earlier on Monday, the former prime minister's counsel filed a petition for Azam's deposition to be deleted. Otherwise, they said, fairness of the court would be open to question and the petitioner deprived of justice.
The same day, the judge walked out of the courtroom following a row between the defence and prosecution over his decision to allow the plaintiff to reopen his deposition.
Yesterday, after the court sat at 9:37am, the lawyers began submission on the application for deletion.
Chief Public Prosecutor (CPP) ABM Sharfuddin Khan Mukul said the court has no right under any legal provision to expunge recorded evidence. So the petition is not grantable, he argued.
The defence contended that the plaintiff's deposition taken Monday should not be considered evidence as it was taken illegally. The court completed taking the testimony on January 30 and ordered cross-examination of the witness.
The lawyers said they wonder how come a deposition was rerecorded when the CPP already wound up examining Azam on January 30 and the court asked the defence to begin cross-examination.
The court cannot permit re-examination before the cross-examination is completed.
Referring to the records of January 30 proceedings reading “to be continued”, they asked how an order given orally by a judge differed from the one in writing.
They repeatedly tried to have the judge say if he had directed them to start cross-examining Azam. But Azizul avoided a reply.
When the court wanted to know if they could show any legal precedent in favour of deletion, the defence sought at least three days' time.
At one stage of the argument, Hasina told her lawyers, "You don't need to say anything here. You can already tell what's going to happen.”
The judge took a short break before announcing his ruling on the matter. He said the evidence act does not provide for deletion of evidence and so he had decided to reject the application.
The defence termed the order partial. As they tried to protest the decision, the judge said, “Never challenge a court order in this manner. You might feel aggrieved at the order but you can always move to a higher court against it."
At that point, Sahara Khatun, one of the lawyers representing Hasina, said they had an application to submit.
Advocate Rezaur Rahman read out the application seeking two weeks' time.