The New Nation - Internet Edition

Staff Reporter

The extortion case filed by businessman Azam J Chowdhury against former prime minister and Awami League president Sheikh Hasina cannot be included in the Emergency Powers Rule as the incident mentioned in the case happened before declaring the EPR, said four amicus curiaes while delivering their expert opinion in the High Court yesterday.

They also opined that there was no legal barrier to grant bail to Sheikh Hasina in the case.

The four amicus curiaes were Advocate Abdur Rouf Chowdhury, Advocate Mansurul Huq Chowdhury, Barrister Mahbubur Rahman and Barrister Rafiqul Islam Miah.

Giving their opinions at the High Court division bench, comprising Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman and Justice Shahidul Islam, the four amicus curiaes said the trial of any crime committed during the state of emergency would be included in the EPR. No incident happening before could be included in the EPR, they said.

The trial of the case must be held according to the laws which were in force when the crime was committed, they said.

Challenging the inclusion of the case filed by businessman Azam J Chowdhury in the EPR, Sheikh Hasina filed a writ petition to the High Court last year. Later, the High Court granted bail to Hasina and issued a rule on the government asking why the inclusion of the extortion case in the EPR would not be declared illegal and unlawful. The government later appeal against the High Court verdict to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court judgement and ordered to resolve the writ petition through regular hearings. The regular hearing of the writ began last week. On January 28, the High Court appointed seven lawyers as amicus curies to assist resolving the writ petition filed by Hasina. Of them, Advocate Mahmudul Islam expressed his inability to become the amicus curie. Among the six amicus curies, four gave their expert opinions to the High Court division bench yesterday. The rest two amicus curies are likely to give their opinions today.

Advocate Abdur Rouf Chowdhury gave a four-page written opinion to the HC bench.

He told the court that the state of emergency was declared in the country on January 11, 2007, while the incident mentioned in the FIR of the case happened earlier. "That is why the case cannot be included in the EPR. It will violate the constitutional rights of the accused," he said.

Explaining the Articles 7, 27, 29, 31 and 35 of the Constitution, Chowdhury said if the case is included in the EPR it would curtail the authority of the highest court of the country. "But the High Court had functioned even when the martial law was declared in the past. So, it will not be right to allow curbing the authority of the highest court of the country during the state of emergency," he said.

The amicus curie said when the case was sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs, necessary documents were not examined before its inclusion in the Emergency Power Rules. The Home Ministry is not a post office box and it is also not desirable that whatever is sent there will be posted.

Former justice Mansurul Huq Chowdhury said any incident that happened before January 11, 2007 could not be included in the EPR in any way. Only the incidents that happen during the state of emergency can be included in the EPR. Even, nothing can be done using the state of emergency which does not match with the country's Constitution.

Explaining several sections of the Emergency Powers Rules 2007, Barrister Mahmudul Islam said the President declares the State of Emergency for a brief period. So, the trial of any incident happening before the declaration of the State of Emergency cannot not be included in the EPR.

He said the cases which are to be included in the EPR and which not are clearly mentioned in the Constitution of Bangladesh and the EPR. So, the trial must take place according to the previous laws.