No bar to try Hasina for extortion under EPR
The Supreme Court yesterday paved the way for the government to proceed with the extortion case against former premier Sheikh Hasina that was brought under EPR, though the alleged offence was committed before declaring the state of emergency.
The apex court yesterday pronounced its judgment allowing the government appeal against a High Court verdict and clearing the government apprehension of getting embargo on proceedings of several graft cases brought under EPR after emergency was declared on January 11 last year.
However, counsels for Hasina who were aggrieved by the SC judgment told journalists now the government can bring even 50-year-old offences under Emergency Power Rules (EPR) after filing a case. They also termed the judgment the "blackest part of the legal history of Bangladesh".
Earlier on February 6, HC declared illegal the government move to bring the Tk 2.99 crore extortion case against Hasina under EPR and also quashed the case. The verdict made the government concerned about losing the advantage of bringing other such cases under EPR.
The HC verdict, which was termed by many a "landmark judgment", stalled proceedings of the extortion case filed by businessman Azam J Chowdhury after trial of the case began in the lower court this year.
Now there is no bar to resume the trial as the SC decision cancelled the HC verdict.
It could not be known immediately on what grounds the SC cancelled the HC judgment.
After the SC judgment Additional Attorney General Salahuddin Ahmad told journalists that HC's verdict following Hasina's writ was "wrong".
The Anti-Corruption Commission also stalled progress of many of its cases and refrained from putting EPR in many cases to see the result of the government appeal against the HC's sensational judgment.
State counsel Attorney General Fida M Kamal also expressed anxiety during the hearing of the leave to appeal on February 12 against the February 6 verdict saying the HC judgment has a far-reaching impact on several other cases.
He said 600 cases have been brought under EPR and many of these are under investigation and on trial, while judgments in many cases have also been delivered.
All these would be stalled if the Supreme Court doesn't stay the HC verdict, he had argued.
However, the SC allowed the government to file regular appeal against the HC verdict and on February 26 stayed the HC judgment and proceedings of the case against Hasina.
On completion of hearing on the government's regular appeal, yesterday was fixed for delivering the judgment, for which all section of people were waiting keenly.
The seven-member full bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Mohammad Ruhul Amin yesterday started proceedings at 9.35am.
As the government appeal against the HC verdict was on top of the list of the day's proceedings, the CJ delivered the judgment just saying, "appeal allowed".
After announcing the judgment the court also stayed nine other stay orders on nine different cases similar to Hasina's case.
The nine cases were against former BNP minister Mirza Abbasuddin Ahmed, former premier Khaleda Zia's sons Tarique Rahman and Arafat Rahman Koko, BNP ex-MPs Ruhul Kuddus Talukder Dulu, Nasiruddin Ahmed Pintu, Aman Ullah Aman and A Quddus Mandol.
The HC stayed proceedings of the nine cases following their separate petitions.
Though the government filed leave to appeals against the HC orders, those were pending in the SC for decision after judgment of the government appeal in Hasina's case as legal issues of the nine cases are similar to her case.
However the SC asked parties of the nine cases to dispose of the matters pending in the HC.
HASINA'S CASE AND REACTION
After delivering the judgment chief counsel for Hasina Barrister Rafique ul Huq in his instant reaction told journalists minimum rule of law and fundamental and constitutional rights of the people has been ruined.
"The fight we fought since the liberation all went in vain," he said.
"It is very sad for all who work for minimum protection of the people," said Barrister Rafique.
He also said, "It was back of my mind that the Appellate Division will wake up. But that hope was also shattered. I have never thought of such a slide."
Hasina's counsel also said this judgment is the "blackest law" in the judicial history of the country.
Barrister Shafique Ahmed, newly elected Supreme Court Bar Association president and one of Hasina's counsels, said in his reaction, "It has created a blackest part of the legal history."
Replying to a question regarding the remarks of eminent jurists and the SCBA president, Additional Attorney General Salahuddin Ahmad said, "They made the comments as Sheikh Hasina's lawyers. Perhaps they will realise after one or two years that it should not have been said."
SCBA President Barrister Shafique said the SC judgment is a "bad" precedence.
"It is against the jurisprudence," he observed.
He said lawyers are not ignorant. "Many of the lawyers in the Supreme Court are practising for decades, so it would not be wise to consider them ignorant."
"This judgment is against the rule of law. It cannot be a precedence of law," Shafique added.
He also said the judgment proves that trial proceedings are not being conducted in accordance of the law and the constitution.
He said after receiving the copy of the SC judgment they would apply to the SC for reviewing the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On June 13 last year, Eastcoast Trading Pvt Ltd Managing Director Azam J Chowdhury charged detained Hasina and her cousin and former minister Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim with extorting Tk 2.99 crore from him in exchange for awarding the contract of setting up the Siddhirganj Power Plant in Narayanganj.
On July 16, the home ministry directed the police to bring the case under EPR.
On July 24, investigation officer of the case Obaidul Haque indicted Hasina along with her sister Sheikh Rehana and cousin Sheikh Selim, but did not include the relevant sections of EPR.
Following Hasina's writ filed on July 29 last year, an HC bench of Justice Nayeem and Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury issued the rule on the caretaker government, asking it to reply why its approval for bringing the case under EPR should not be declared illegal.
After hearing on the rule, the HC bench of Justice Nayeem and Justice Shahidul Islam delivered judgment on February 6 saying "since in the rule the sanction [for bringing the case under EPR] has been challenged and we [the judges] have found that the sanction was given without lawful authority as the offence was committed by the accused prior to promulgation of the emergency, the rule is absolute."
The proceedings already taken and under process are without lawful authority and quashed, the HC said.
The government filed the leave to appeal with the SC within an hour of the delivery of the judgment, seeking stay on the HC judgment and a few days later the government filed a regular appeal.
Comments