A dissenting view on Supreme Court Verdict on 5th Amendment

Nations Supreme court just dismissed two leave-to-appeal petitions against the high court verdict declaring certain portions of fifth amendment  illegal. While supporting views are available in powerful media, no clear analysis is available to discuss the potential negative side of the verdict. As this verdict deals with constitution and extremely political nature of the verdict, it is very important to discuss the pros as well as cons of the verdict and potential implication of such verdict as a precedence for future  judicial actions. When judiciary decides to take on such a contentious political matter, it is expected that they would subject the verdict to public scrutiny rather than using ‘contempt of court’ protection. In the following post, published in “In The Middle of Nowhere”, tacitaerno dissects the supreme court’s rejection to allow an appeal process and analyzes justice Khairul Haq’s original verdict.

***********************************

Supreme Court Decides the fate of the Fifth Amendment

In 2005, a High Court bench led by Justice Khairul Huq declared the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh illegal. The full judgment is available at Unheard Voice. It is a fascinating read. Justice Khairul Huq’s portion is slightly longer than Justice A. T. M. Fazle Kabir’s. Page 336-337 contains the reasons that the Fifth Amendment was found to be invalid.

This case is worth thinking about, because it does not deal with legal technicality, or arcane judicial procedure. This case is about the design, the blueprint if you will, of the State of Bangladesh. It is also about whether we, the people of Bangladesh, tell our government what to do, or whether they turn around and tell us what to do. Who gets the last word, the people or the government?

The Constitution of Bangladesh is the supreme law of Bangladesh. The First Parliament of independent Bangladesh, as elected representatives of a sovereign people, approved it. This constitution is a written contract between us, the people of Bangladesh, and the government, whom we allow the exercise of state power on our behalf. This contract is binding upon all organs of this government: the parliament, the president, the Supreme Court and all lower courts, the military, the police, and our local representatives, all must abide by it….

Read More in In The Middle of Nowhere…

Fifth Amendment Verdict

The appeal against declaring constitution’s fifth amendment illegal is quashed.

For readers benefit, here is the full verdict by HC on the Fifth amendment

A post that appeared in UV last month is posted again below:

There is a lot of noise about the court case re: 5th Amendment.   Senior politicians from both parties, various legal experts, non-legal experts in TV talk shows, and other sundry pundits who write columns (and blogs) have been expressing their opinions freely.  Some people (including the Law Minister) are saying the court’s verdict means: we are on our way to the 1972 constitution, secularism will return, religion-based politics will become illegal, and oh, Zia’s government was illegal.  Others are saying this verdict means: Bismillah will be erased from the constitution and Islam will be gone from the country, we will have a constitutional crisis, and/or we will return to Bakshal-style fascism. 
Read more…

Phantom menace, or a new hope?

There is a lot of noise about the court case re: 5th Amendment.   Senior politicians from both parties, various legal experts, non-legal experts in TV talk shows, and other sundry pundits who write columns (and blogs) have been expressing their opinions freely.  Some people (including the Law Minister) are saying the court’s verdict means: we are on our way to the 1972 constitution, secularism will return, religion-based politics will become illegal, and oh, Zia’s government was illegal.  Others are saying this verdict means: Bismillah will be erased from the constitution and Islam will be gone from the country, we will have a constitutional crisis, and/or we will return to Bakshal-style fascism. 

As with many other things, I think our media is doing an atrocious job of reporting the facts.  In fact, the reporting is so hazy that a fellow blogger with an astute political antenna said to me that he couldn’t make much sense of it at all. 

I don’t have any more expertise in constitutional law than my friend, and so it may well be like a blind leading another.  Over the fold is what I think the verdict means: military coups are illegal, but fears of Bakshal returning or claims that religion-based politics will be automatically banned are ill-founded. 

We shall very much appreciate anyone with background in consitutional law clarifying the situation for us.

(For some inexplicable reason, the ending of this post got lost in the cyberspace yesterday.  My apologies.  A new ending is now written.  JR, 7.05am BDT, 9 Jan)

Read more…

A Judge and two Ministers

A new Chief Justice has just sworn in. Justice Tofazzal Hossain took oath yesterday but will be at the helm of nations Judiciary for a relatively short term. Future will decide how well he served his role as nations chief judge. However, his promotion clearly breaches a promise made to the nation by this government. Criticizing previous BNP government for manipulation and politicization of judiciary, the current ruling party made a promise to the nation to stop any further manipulation and politicization of judiciary.

As we continue to see the glorious role being played by the high court judges in upholding human rights and rule of law, we also see the ever growing urge in ruling party to see a subservient judiciary.

Justice Tofazzal Hossain has been made chief Justice superseding Justice Fazlul Karim. The time honored tradition of promoting judges according to seniority has again been breached. Definitely the government has a standard which one has to fulfill before one is promoted to higher ranks.

Recent comments made by the full and half ministers for Law about a sitting judge reminds us of the standard government leadership expects.

Read more…

Nurul Islam: 7 “sensational cases”

Home Minister announces “sensational cases” cases for re-investigation.
1. BDR-Pilkhana
2. Nurul Islam
3. Khulna Kadiani Mosque (October 2009)
4. Bomb attack & killings at Narayanganj Awami League office (2 cases, January 2001)
5. Bomb attack at Sheikh Helal’s meeting at Mollarhat
6. Bomb attack on Salna upazila health complex quarters
7. Bombing at the shrine of Hazrat Shah Jalal (RA)
Nurul Islam
“The meeting accepted the death of Ganotantri Party leader Nurul Islam in fire at his house in the capital as a sensational case. Sahara said the meeting decided to reinvestigate six of the sensational cases.”

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=116957

BDR-Pilkhana is not re-investigation, but rather ongoing. The remaining 6 are re-investigation.
Read more…

How do you stop crossfire?

On 17 November, the High Court asked the government and Rapid Action Battalion to explain, within 48 hours, the shooting and killing of two brothers in Madaripur, asking why the deaths should not be ruled extra-judicial (details).  Responding to this, the Home Minister said, ‘We are not carrying out any crossfire right now. No such incident took place since our government assumed office’ (details).   

We note that the 48 hours expired on the 19th, the day when ‘rule of law’ supposedly returned because the Appellate Court upheld death penalties for the convicts of the 15 Aug massacre.  We hope that Bangladesh started its journey towards the rule of law with the verdict (it was not a closure), but a state that summarily executes its citizens is not one where there is rule of law.  Shada Kalo is kind enough to not call the Home Minister a liar.   We believe Awami League is in violation of its election pledge.

This blog, and our parent organization Drishtipat, is unequivocally opposed to extra judicial killing (whether called crossfire, gun fight, or something else).   However, there is a legitimate debate to be had over how we can stop them.  Over the fold is a conversation among some UV bloggers.  We would be interested in your opinion.

Read more…

BDR: Amnesty Report

asa130062009en01 copy
Amnesty International urged the government of Bangladesh to ensure that:
* those suspected of committing crimes must be brought to justice under internationally recognized fair trial standards which include the right to family visits and access to lawyers; Read more…

Bangladesh 2009: Judiciary approved, state conducted abuse

Ex state minister for Home affairs and expelled BNP leader Lutfuzzaman Babar has been taken into remand under a directive of Supreme Court chamber judge Mozammel Hossain. Earlier a two judge high court bench directed the government to interrogate Mr Babar in Dhaka Central Jail where Mr Babar is in custody now. This supreme court verdict, indirectly, marks a demarcation line between interrogation and remand. The Attorney General asked for something more than simple interrogation and the appellate divn chamber judge M Mozammel Hossain used his constitutional power to allow the state to do ’something more’ on Mr Babar. Even Attorney General Mahbubey Alam stated that “…the investigators are empowered to decide the place and mode of the interrogation,..”.

It is an open secret that remand means torture. Every single person who have been through remand in recent past have termed their remand time as living in hell. A senior BNP leader today described remand as killing someone, by stripping him of his self esteem, hope and physical well being. Senior national leaders including current PM, deputy leader of the house, leader of the opposition, senior ministers, parliamentary standing committee chiefs have said, on numerous occasions and on record, that remand equals torture. Even he highcourt, in a verdict several years ago,  says that any confession extracted in remand, unless it explicity follows some guidelines laid down by the Court, is unacceptable.

We used to see a lot of remands during the immediate past military regime. People from both sides of political dichotomy in Bangladesh were tortured in the name of remand. And during that time, on many occasions, high court came to reprieve by blocking remand petitions. Many current ruling party leader benefited from such directives of high court. And that time the military government arm twisted Appellate division to overturn many of the high court blocked remand petitions. It is very unfortunate that a democratically elected government run by a party which claims to carry a liberal ideology will resort to the tactics of a cruel military regime. Do the actions of two people, Justice M Muzammel Hossain and Attorney general Mahbubey Alam, can be seen as paving the way for the state to torture a person? 

This report in a mainstream vernacular newspaper describes the circumstances that led to the unprecedented verdict of the supreme court. It must be taken into heart that a supreme court judge and an attorney general are not merely individuals. They represent institutions. They represent the state and the constitution. Personal political bias, grudge and political calculations must not guide these sort of institutions to resort to unconstitutional activities like torture.

Previously we have consistently highlighted on this issue. One might wonder why are we highlighting the case of a VIP when there are thousands other who languish like this in remand. But it is precisely high profile case like this, because of its exposure, that exposes the cracks in our system.

Torture does not bring any good for anybody. Torture can not be a tool of a civilized society. Torture can only take the nation back into the dark middle ages. No matter how bad you think the person is, no one deserves to be tortured. It must be rejected in principle. The cycle of revenge must stop.

যখন হাত বাড়িয়ে দেয়াটা অনেক জরুরি

By Udisa Emon

যাহা বলিব সত্য বলিব, মিথ্যা বলিয়া কাহাকেও বিভ্রান্ত করিব না।

১. রামকৃষ্ণ মাঝি- ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের ইতিহাস বিভাগের শিক্ষার্থী ছিলেন। বাপ-দাদার মুখে যে সোনার বাঙলার গল্প শুনেছিলেন সেটা পূরণ করতে পড়া ছেড়ে গ্রামে ফিরে যান। উদ্দেশ্য কৃষকদের সাথে কাঁধে কাঁধ লাগিয়ে কাজে নামবেন, দেশ গড়ার কাজ। সংগঠন খুললেন। নাম দিয়েন নয়া বাঙলা। সিডরের তোড়ে যখন সব ভেসে-উড়ে গেলো তখন আবারো সবাই মিলে উঠে দাঁড়ানোর কাজ শুরু করলেন। একটা ট্রাকটর কিনলেন ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের বন্ধুদের সাথে মিলিয়ে যেটা কিনা কৃষকদের কমমূল্যে ভাড়া দেয়া হবে।
২. আনিস রায়হান- খুলনা প্রকৌশল বিশ্ববিধ্যালয়ের শিক্ষার্থী ছিলেন। ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের বন্যার্ত সহযোগিতা কেন্দ্রে এসে কাজ করেছেন কয়েকবার। দেশের মানুষের কথা ভাবেন। পাল্টে দিতে চার এই ভোগবাদী সমাজের চিত্র। যেখানে সবাই এক কাতারে দাঁড়িয়ে ভাবতে শিখবেন এমন দেশের স্বপ্নে বিভোর থাকেন। গড়ে তোলেন সংগঠন লাল পদক্ষেপ’।

দুজনের স্বপ্ন এক দেখে কৃষকদের মাঝে কাজের জন্য রামকৃষ্ণের সাথে মিলিত হন। দুজনে একসাথে কাজ করার সিদ্ধান্তে এল দুটি পৃথক সংগঠন লাল পদক্ষেপ’ আর ‘নয়া বাংলা’ এক হয়ে সংগঠনের নাম হয় নয়া বাংলার লাল পদক্ষেপ।
৩. মনিকা হালদার-মোড়েল গঞ্জের ব্র্যাক স্কুলের দিদিমনি। দেশের মানুষকে শিক্ষকত করে তুলতে, অধিকার সচেতন করে তুলতে চেয়েছেন। রামকৃষ্ণের সাথে যোগাযোগ ঘটায় সব কাজে একসাথে চলার সিদ্ধান্তে আসেন। কিন্তু সমাজ মানবে কেনো। মনিকার স্বামী অনেক আগেই তাকে আর তার ১২বছরের মেয়েকে ছেড়ে ভারতে পাড়ি জমিয়েছে। সেহেতু এমন নারীকে সমাজ ছাড় দিবে কেনো? সেই মানুষগুলোকে একদিন সাথে টানতে পারবেন এই স্বপ্ন দেখে এগিয়ে নিতে থাকেন কাজ।
Read more…

Righting the wrong – the right way

One of the major headlines from today’s newspaper is the news that govt has asked to withdraw its appeal of against the HC verdict that termed the 5th Amendment to the constitution illegal.  What is the 5th amendment you may ask?  When a constitution of a country is suspended in a country  (illegally because legally there is not way to suspend constitution), a new set of laws and rules need to be promulgated to run the country.  In other words these are known as Martial Law.  The country was under such martial law from 1975 till 1979 and again from 1982 till 1986.  Later on to maintain a process of conituity,  the parliament had to pass a law to ratify the term that ran under the martial law regime so that none of its actions could be challenged.    5th Amendment is basically one such amendment that validated the actions of the martial law governments under Khandker Mushtaq and President Ziaur Rahman.  Daily Star has the details on the how case came into being.

The outcome of this case is not purely academic.  It means all the rules, verdicts under the martial law courts from the 70s can now be challenged under the regular court of law.  The court also specifically said that anybody who usurps power through unconstitutional means can be tried under sedition charge which is punishable by death.

This would mean you can also file fresh cases questioning the validity of the martial law regime headed by President Ershad.    A few weeks ago somewhat quietly without the any media coverage, the sedition case against Gen. Ershad filed by Hasanul Haq Inu was dropped from court proceedings.  No questions asked by the media.  Will there be a separate proactive initiative in terms of righting the wrongs from the marial law days of the eighties?

Read more…