Emergency challenged
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
Four Supreme Court lawyers challenged the validity of proclaiming state of emergency coupled with the promulgation of two ordinances and the High Court Monday started hearing on their writ petition, reports UNB.
The President, on January 11, 2007, proclaimed the state of emergency under article 141A (1) of the Constitution to his satisfaction that a 'grave emergency existed in which the security and economic life of Bangladesh were threatened by internal disturbances'.
Thereafter, the Emergency Powers Ordinance and Emergency Powers Rules were promulgated by the head of state to enforce the state of emergency, which came hot on the heels of a political crisis over election issues at the end of the BNP-led four-party alliance rule.
Fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution were suspended following the proclamation of emergency over 18 months back.
Advocates M Saleem Ullah, Mohsin Rashid, Nahid Sultana and Abdul Mannan Khan filed the writ on Sunday before an HC division bench comprising Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury and Mashuque Hosain Ahmed--at a time when mainline political parties are vocal in their plea for lifting the emergency.
The petitioners sought rule asking the caretaker government to explain why the proclamation of emergency followed by Emergency Powers Ordinance and Emergency Powers Rules and their operation "should not be declared illegal, ultra vires and repugnant to the Constitution".
Moving the petition, MI Farooqui, the counsel for the petitioners, submitted that President Professor Dr Iajuddin Ahmed proclaimed the state of emergency throughout the country "with melafide intention and for collateral purpose".
He further submitted that the act of proclamation of emergency and subsequent two ordinances - the Emergency Powers Ordinance 2007 and the Emergency Powers Rules 2007--were "manifestly without jurisdiction as the President acted in violation of article 58B (3) of the Constitution". The advocates further contended that "the imposition of the emergency on the President's plea that a grave emergency existed in which the security and economic life of Bangladesh were threatened by internal disturbances was an act of malice in law".
They said the actions of the President "should be justice-able objectively under the judicial review", they argued. The hearing remains inconclusive and will resume today (Tuesday).
The President, on January 11, 2007, proclaimed the state of emergency under article 141A (1) of the Constitution to his satisfaction that a 'grave emergency existed in which the security and economic life of Bangladesh were threatened by internal disturbances'.
Thereafter, the Emergency Powers Ordinance and Emergency Powers Rules were promulgated by the head of state to enforce the state of emergency, which came hot on the heels of a political crisis over election issues at the end of the BNP-led four-party alliance rule.
Fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution were suspended following the proclamation of emergency over 18 months back.
Advocates M Saleem Ullah, Mohsin Rashid, Nahid Sultana and Abdul Mannan Khan filed the writ on Sunday before an HC division bench comprising Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury and Mashuque Hosain Ahmed--at a time when mainline political parties are vocal in their plea for lifting the emergency.
The petitioners sought rule asking the caretaker government to explain why the proclamation of emergency followed by Emergency Powers Ordinance and Emergency Powers Rules and their operation "should not be declared illegal, ultra vires and repugnant to the Constitution".
Moving the petition, MI Farooqui, the counsel for the petitioners, submitted that President Professor Dr Iajuddin Ahmed proclaimed the state of emergency throughout the country "with melafide intention and for collateral purpose".
He further submitted that the act of proclamation of emergency and subsequent two ordinances - the Emergency Powers Ordinance 2007 and the Emergency Powers Rules 2007--were "manifestly without jurisdiction as the President acted in violation of article 58B (3) of the Constitution". The advocates further contended that "the imposition of the emergency on the President's plea that a grave emergency existed in which the security and economic life of Bangladesh were threatened by internal disturbances was an act of malice in law".
They said the actions of the President "should be justice-able objectively under the judicial review", they argued. The hearing remains inconclusive and will resume today (Tuesday).