The New Nation - Internet Edition

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court Thursday ruled that appellate Courts do not have the jurisdiction to grant bail to people convicted in Special Courts in corruption cases under the Emergency Power Rules, until such appeals are disposed of.

The significant judgment from the full seven-member court of the Appellate division presided over by his lordship the Chief Justice Md. Ruhul Amin followed appeals by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) against HC's bail order to corruption convicts Sigma Huda and Barrister Mir Helaluddin

In the judgment the humanitarian aspect was duly recognised by stating that bail may be allowed if convicts are certified critically ill by a duly constituted medical board or the awarded prison term is of less than three years and if appeal could not be heard in the stipulated 90 days for no fault of the appeallant.

The decision coming from the highest court can be taken as an affirmation of the fact that the judiciary is not isolated but an integral part of the statecraft. The country is under emergency. If emergency power rules do not stand in appellate Courts then the constitutional process of declaring emergency during a national crisis becomes meaningless. This cannot be a welcome development. As long as emergency has the constitutional legitimacy the objective of emergency must not be defeated.

It may be recalled that emergency had to be clamped when the government itself collapsed making it impossible for the constitutional process to continue. The politics of greed and corruption was mainly responsible for such dangerously anarchic situation in the country. The whole judiciary would have been under serious uncertainly.

In taking the decision the highest court has thus taken note of the ground realities. The courts also cannot function in isolation detached from constitutional obligations.

The system of administration that is now in place in the absence of an elected government can only be replaced by one to be in charge after the holding of a free, fair and credible election under the Constitution.

Imposition of emergency became unavoidable to save the constitutional process itself. The fight against corruption in high places also became imperative in the interest of restoring democratic accountability and good governance.

It is to be noted that the emergency rules not only prohibited bail, but also provided a time frame for speedy trial. While we welcome the Appellate Division’s unanimous judgment on bail, we emphasise that trial under emergency rules must be disposed of speedily as required by the emergency rules. We further emphasise that during emergency only those corruption cases should be taken up which serve the cause of emergency.

The highest court has also taken note of the need for bail of those convicted persons who are in dire need of it because of serious illness, when appeal remains pending before the appeal Courts.