HC stays trial in extortion case against Hasina

---

Minutes after the trial court held back for three days the hearing of extortion charge against detained ex-premier Sheikh Hasina, the High Court (HC) Sunday stayed the case proceedings until the HC disposes of its rule, reports UNB.
When the makeshift Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court, relocated onto the Parliament premises, resumed Sunday after a five-day adjournment, Judge M Azizul Haque re-fixed December 9 for the charge hearings following a medical report, submitted by the jail authority.
According to the report, Hasina is down with fever and headache along with eye-pain. "She is unfit to appear before the court," reads the report.
Also came soon an order from the HC division altogether staying the trial proceedings of the Tk 30-million extortion case, filed by Azam J Chowdhury, managing director of East Coast Trading Private Ltd.
The HC also issued rule upon the government to explain why the impugned government notification directing the Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge to hold its sitting for trial of Hasina's case at a makeshift court should not be declared to have been made "without lawful authority."
"The stay will continue until the rule is resolved," said the order, issued by an HC Division Bench, comprising Justice ABM Khairul Haque and Justice Abdul Awal.
The rule came on a writ petition, filed by Hasina, as the defence side put up a two-pronged legal battle against her arrest and trial in the current interim period.
In exercise of its power under section 9(2) of the CrPC, the Caretaker Government on November 26 published a gazette notification, directing the Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge to sit at the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban Ministers' hostel to try Sheikh Hasina, her younger sister Sheikh Rehana and cousin Sheikh Selim in the extortion case.
The Awami League President, in her writ petition challenging the legality of the government action, submitted that, after the changed circumstances following the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive control in compliance with the Masdar Hossain judgment, the Executive has no more such authority.
"Even the sessions court cannot assume jurisdiction in law to try the specific case in a place other than usual place of holding court, without sanction of the law and approval by the Supreme Court," Hasina contended.
She further submitted that section 9(2) of the CrPC could not be invoked for shifting a sessions' division to a place other than the usual place of sitting for the purposes of trial of one specific case. "It does not empower the government to transfer the sessions court from one place to another for one particular case at their sweet will, as has been done against me," she said in the writ.
It has empowered the government to direct by a general or special order in the official gazette at what place or places the court of sessions shall hold its sittings, but until such order is made, the court of sessions shall hold their sittings heretofore.
Hasina alleged that the government acted with a "malafide and ulterior motive to create a coercive courtroom environment, and is not conducive to a free, fair and impartial trial, which is the requirement of law and the petitioner."
Following the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive, Hasina argued, the government "of its own motion cannot act in matters pertaining to the Judiciary, save-and-except by the Supreme Court."
"The action of the government to try a particular case is a colourable exercise of power, and a direct interference in the administration of justice, and, therefore, the action of the government is not tenable in law, and liable to be declared to have been made illegally," the former prime minister further submitted.
Barrister Rafique-ul Huq, assisted by Barrister Shafique Ahmed, appeared for Hasina.