Court accepts charge against Khaleda

ORPHANAGE TRUST FUND CASE
Court accepts charge against Khaleda
A Dhaka court on Monday accepted the charge sheet against the Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson, Khaleda Zia, her eldest son Tarique Rahman and four others in the Zia Orphanage Trust fund embezzlement case.
Dhaka metropolitan senior special judge ANM Bashir Ullah accepted the charge sheet rejecting pleas of Khaleda’s counsels that the charge sheet was not acceptable as it was submitted only to harass her on political consideration.
The court posted for October 25 the hearing in framing charges in the case and issued warrants for arrest of Khaleda’s nephew Mominur Rahman and former principal secretary Kamal Uddin Siddiqui as they did not appear in court.
The court passed the order after Khaleda, also the leader of the opposition in parliament and former prime minister, appeared in it amid tight security coupled with a huge gathering of her supporters on the court premises and in surrounding areas.
Two others accused — former BNP lawmaker Qazi Saleemul Huq and his associate Sharfuddin Ahmed — also appeared in court while the court decided to continue with the trial proceedings in the absence of Tarique as he is now in London for his treatment after being released on bail.
On August 12 and 30, Khaleda did not appear in court on security grounds and the court on August 30 ordered the government to ensure security for her appearance in it on Monday.
The government accordingly heightened security measures on the court premises before Khaleda’s appearance in court.
Khaleda appeared in court amid tight security at around 1:30pm and the hearing in the acceptability of the charge sheet began five minutes later.
Pleading for Khaleda, her counsel Khandaker Delwar Hossain, also the BNP’s secretary general, said the court should not accept the charge sheet as it was submitted only on political consideration.
A similar case was filed against the Awami League president, Sheikh Hasina, now the prime minister, in connection with the Bangabandhu Memorial Trust and the government had already recommended withdrawal of the case, Delwar said. ‘Similarly, the Zia Orphanage Trust fund embezzlement case should also be withdrawn as it was filed out of political motivation to harass the BNP chief.’
Khaleda’s another counsel Abdur Razaque Khan argued the charge sheet was not acceptable as the investigation officer made undue delay in its submission.
According to the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules 2007, the charge sheet in a case needs to be submitted in 60 days while the charge sheet in the trust fund embezzlement case was submitted 392 days after the filing of the case, he said.
He also argued the filing of the case was illegal as it was filed under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2004 while the alleged offences were committed between 1991 and 1996.
Special prosecutor in the case Mosharraf Hossan Kajol argued the filing of the case and the submission of the charge sheet were done in accordance with the law.
This is the first case, after the assumption of office by the Awami League-led alliance on January 6, in which any high-profile politician had to appear in court having charges pressed against him or her.
Charges have been pressed and hearing in the charges has been initiated at a time when the government is withdrawing in bunches the cases filed against political leaders and activists in the past, apparently with the intent of political harassment.
The government has so far recommended withdrawal of 455 cases against politicians — all but one of whom belong to the Awami League.
Anti-Corruption Commission assistant director Harun ur Rashid, also the investigation officer of the case, submitted the charge sheet to the Dhaka chief metropolitan magistrate’s court on August 5. Harun filed the case on July 3, 2008.
The charge sheet said the accused, with the connivance of each other, had misappropriated Tk 2.1 crore from the Zia Orphanage Trust fund by opening fixed deposit receipts in their names between June 1991 and February 2007.
Charges were pressed against the five under Section 409 of the Penal Code for criminal breach of trust by a public servant, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for abuse of power, and Section 109 of the Penal Code for abetment of offences.

Courtesy of NewAgebd