Govt asked to explain restrictions on bail
Monday, 16 June 2008
The High Court Sunday issued rule asking the government to explain why certain provisions of the Emergency Power Ordinance (EPO) and the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) 2007, including curbing High Court jurisdiction on bail, "should not be declared illegal and unconstitutional", reports UNB.
The High Court rule came following a public-interest litigation (PIL) writ petition filed by former adviser of caretaker government and Ain o Salish Kendra executive director Sultana Kamal, editor of the daily New Age Nurul Kabir and Dhaka University teacher Sheikh Hafizur Rahman Curzon.
On June 5, the petitioners filed the PIL writ challenging the legality of some impugned EPO and EPR provisions that deny people's constitutional and fundamental rights, including obtaining bail in cases filed under provisions and rules of the emergency laws.
A Division bench comprising Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Farid Ahmed issued the rule.
"The rule is made returnable in four weeks," says the court order.
The petitioners identified the impugned provisions like sections 3(3)(Kha) and 3(4) of the EPO and rules 11(3), 19(Gha), 19(Uma) of the EPR.
The sections of the EPO provide death penalty and life-term imprisonment with fines for violating those and also any other rules with retrospective effect.
As per rule 11(3) of the EPR, if any court convicts a person of committing corruption, no other court can entertain bail to the convict or stay the conviction until an appeal is resolved.
The two other rules strip an accused of right to seek bail or any kind of redress with the court or tribunal during the investigation or inquiry into the offence.
The emergency-time laws have been made through ordinances to arm the caretaker government to clamp down on corruption suspects, which landed country's former rulers and other high-profile persons in jail under a countrywide purge.
Barrister M Amir-Ul Islam appeared for the PIL petitioners while Additional Attorney-General Mansur Habid for the government.
The High Court rule came following a public-interest litigation (PIL) writ petition filed by former adviser of caretaker government and Ain o Salish Kendra executive director Sultana Kamal, editor of the daily New Age Nurul Kabir and Dhaka University teacher Sheikh Hafizur Rahman Curzon.
On June 5, the petitioners filed the PIL writ challenging the legality of some impugned EPO and EPR provisions that deny people's constitutional and fundamental rights, including obtaining bail in cases filed under provisions and rules of the emergency laws.
A Division bench comprising Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Farid Ahmed issued the rule.
"The rule is made returnable in four weeks," says the court order.
The petitioners identified the impugned provisions like sections 3(3)(Kha) and 3(4) of the EPO and rules 11(3), 19(Gha), 19(Uma) of the EPR.
The sections of the EPO provide death penalty and life-term imprisonment with fines for violating those and also any other rules with retrospective effect.
As per rule 11(3) of the EPR, if any court convicts a person of committing corruption, no other court can entertain bail to the convict or stay the conviction until an appeal is resolved.
The two other rules strip an accused of right to seek bail or any kind of redress with the court or tribunal during the investigation or inquiry into the offence.
The emergency-time laws have been made through ordinances to arm the caretaker government to clamp down on corruption suspects, which landed country's former rulers and other high-profile persons in jail under a countrywide purge.
Barrister M Amir-Ul Islam appeared for the PIL petitioners while Additional Attorney-General Mansur Habid for the government.