Withdrawal of ‘politically motivated’ cases in a blanket manner: Judicial extravaganza!

The government’s blanket review of what they called politically motivated cases has given rise to many questions regarding the way in which the whole exercise has been undertaken. In all 2000 petitions were filed before the various review bodies set up in different parts of the country seeking withdrawal of cases. The fact that all the 174 cases recommended for withdrawal in first phase relate to the AL leaders. The cases of opposition political leaders are not included in the list recommended for the withdrawal. The process itself appears to be politically motivated and tainted.
The real criminals are all needed to be brought to justice. The withdrawal of cases by an executive order is opposed to rule of law and amounts to subverting the judicial process.
The withdrawal of so-called ‘politically motivated’ cases in a blanket manner was termed a judicial extravaganza by a political observer.
Meanwhile he Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) appeared to have suffered a major setback following the High Court verdict setting aside the conviction of Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir in a graft case.
The presidential ordinance issued during the caretaker government giving legal coverage to the ACC notices signed by the secretary in the absence of the chairman and members of the commission was not placed by the political government in the Jatiya Sangsad for ratification. The first list is reported to have contained the names of 50 corruption suspects.
The political expediency seems to have triumphed over the political conviction, according to observers.
Alamgir was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment by a specially constituted court in the Jatiya Sangsad area during the tenure of the caretaker Government. Alamgir is now a MP and a former minister. It was said, the ACC notice seeking statement of assets from Alamgir was defective as it was not duly signed by the commissioners. The secretary who signed the first list of corrupt suspects numbering about 50 did so without any lawful authority. Only the Chairman and the Commissioners were considered as the Commission. They are the signing authorities who can issue any notice to the corruption suspect. The Anti-Corruption Commission was not operative from February 7 to February 28, 2007 following resignation of Justice Sultan Hossain Khan, Dr Moniruzzaman Mia and Moniruddin Ahmed from the Anti-Corruption Commission.
The ACC was reconstituted on February 25, 2007 with Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury as its Chairman and Habibur Rahman and Monjur Mannan as its commissioners respectively. The notices served by the ACC on corruption suspects from Feb 7 to Feb 25, 2007 was given legal coverage by a presidential ordinance promulgated during the tenure of the caretaker Government.
As it was not placed in the Jatiya Sangsad for ratification the Presidential ordinance expired exposing the very legality of the ACC notices served on a section of corruption suspects. The ACC itself is not responsible for the debacle what it faced. The debacle followed as the political government which came to power in the wake of December 29 elections did not get endorsed by the JS the very clause of the ACC empowering the secretary to sign the notices served on the corruption suspects for the interim period (from Feb 7 to Feb 25).
The politicians who are likely to get benefit from the High Court Judgement are Nazmul Huda, Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, Mir Nasir, Mirza Abbas, Amanullah Aman, Mosaddek Ali Falu, Haris Chowdhury, Iqbal Hasan Tuku from BNP. The Awami League leaders who were included in the first list are Abul Hasnat Abdullah, Mohammad Nasim, Mofazzal Hossain Chowdhury Maya, Shamim Osman, Joynal Hazari, Dr Iqbal, Mirza Azam, Haji Selim, Salman F Rahman and Akteruzzaman Babu, Bashundhara Chairman Akbar Sobhan and Jamuna Group Chairman Nurul Islam Babul.
ACC lawyer Khurshed Alam Khan said, they will file an appeal to the Appellate Division as the HC verdict is poised to overturn the fate of many cases.

Courtesy of The New Nation