Govt seeks list of people convicted in graft cases so far

The High Court on Monday fixed October 19 for the final hearing on the rule it issued earlier, asking the government to explain the legality of the state of emergency that was declared on January 11, 2007.
The High Court bench of Justice Mir Hasmat Ali and Justice Shamim Hasnain fixed the date, as the writ petitioners’ counsel, MI Farooqui, appealed for expeditious hearing of the case.
‘The issue is urgent as the government wants to hold the national elections under the state of emergency, the legality of which is to be decided by the High Court in the writ petition,’ Farooqui told the court. ‘The writ petition should be heard expeditiously.’
The High Court bench of Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Mashuque Hossain Ahmed on July 27 issued the rule after hearing a public interest litigation writ petition filed by Supreme Court lawyers M Saleem Ullah, Mohsen Rashid, Nahid Sultana Juthi and Abdul Mannan Khan on July 14.
In its ruling, the High Court had ordered the government to explain why the proclamation of the state of emergency, two emergency powers orders suspending fundamental rights, the Emergency Powers Ordinance and the Emergency Powers Rules would not be declared ultra vires of the Constitution.
The president proclaimed the state of emergency on January 11, 2007, stalling the elections to the ninth Jatiya Sangsad that were scheduled for January 22, 2007, and the present interim government came to power with military backing on January 12, 2007.
During the preliminary hearing before issuing the rule, the court had asked the petitioners’ chief counsel, MI Farooqui, to explain the constitutional provisions on the declaration of emergency.
The Constitution empowers the president to issue a proclamation of emergency. The power, however, is not absolute but conditional, Farooqui replied. ‘In order to declare emergency, the president must be objectively satisfied that “a grave emergency exists in which the security or economic life of Bangladesh is threatened by war or external aggression or internal disturbance”.’
‘But in the proclamation issued on January 11, 2007 declaring the emergency, no reasons were cited to establish the “objective satisfaction” of the president for the declaration of the emergency,’ the counsel had said.
Opposing the petition, deputy attorney-general Naima Haider had argued that the president had declared the emergency in accordance with the Constitution.
Referring to the arguments of the petitioners’ counsel, the court had asked the state attorney whether the emergency powers orders issued on January 11, 2007 had specified any specific fundamental rights to be suspended.
As Naima answered in the negative, the court said, ‘You cannot, according to the Constitution, suspend all the fundamental rights…There are some rights which cannot be suspended under any circumstances.’
The court had further said, ‘The suspension of fundamental rights without specifying them has made it difficult to examine whether you [government] have the power to make the ordinances you are making…The Supreme Court has the power to examine that.’
Naima also argued that the emergency was declared in the wake of political turmoil and there was a situation in those days which warranted a state of emergency.
Opposing her contention, Farooqui had argued there were democratic, political movements to uphold the people’s right to vote at that time. ‘A democratic, political movement cannot be considered an internal disturbance and a reason to invoke an emergency.’
The court had also said, ‘But the emergency continues for an indefinite period. There must be an end to it.’
‘But the spirit of the Constitution does not allow a state of emergency for an indefinite period,’ the court had observed.
The government’s plan to hold the national elections, the deadline for the elections and the process and timeframe for handing over power to the elected government must be transparent to the people, the court had said. ‘We want rule of law to be established and the Constitution and democracy to be sustained.’

---

Govt seeks list of people convicted
in graft cases so far
Staff Correspondent

The government has sought a list of persons who have so far been convicted by special courts in the cases lodged by the Anti-Corruption Commission, said its director-general (admin), Hanif Iqbal, on Monday.
He said the list has been sought by the home affairs ministry and the National Coordination Committee against Serious Crime and Corruption. The list is ready and will be sent to the government, he added.
Hanif later said that verdicts have been pronounced in 90 graft cases, involving more than 100 individuals.
Referring to the participation in elections by those convicted in trial courts, Hanif said the issue of candidacy of the convicts would be settled by someone outside the ACC. ‘Either the government or the Election Commission or the court will decide that.’
As per Section 11(5) of the Emergency Power Rules 2007, he said a person convicted by a trial court cannot participate in elections if the state of emergency exists.
He also cited Article 66(2) of the Constitution that says a person imprisoned for two years or more will be ineligible to participate in elections for five years after his/her punishment.
About the cases stayed by the High Court, Hanif said some cases have already been placed in the cause list for hearing, and measures are being taken to hold their hearings on a priority basis.
Referring to the three division benches stipulated by the Chief Justice to hear the ACC’s cases, he said the cases that have been stayed would be disposed of soon.
Hanif, in reply to a question, said no army officer working for the ACC has been deployed in any court.
Replying to a questioner, he said measures would be taken against the lawyers who would not protect the ACC’s interest.
He said the ACC today sent the applications of 38 individuals to the Truth and Accountability Commission for considering their clemency pleas, raising the total number of such petitioners to 128. Nine more applications are being processed, he added.
Hanif informed reporters that the ACC has approved the filing of a case against former MP Dhirendra Nath Saha for owning ill-gotten money and withholding information about it. He also said the ACC has approved the submission of charge-sheets in five graft cases filed by it.