Bangladesh’s top court has found two ministers guilty of contempt of court and fined them Tk 50,000 each.
Published : 28 Mar 2016, 04:16 AM
Food Minister Qamrul Islam and Liberation War Affairs Minister AKM Mozammel Huq have seven days to deposit the fines at Ispahani Islamia Eye Institute and Hospital, and the Liver Foundation of Bangladesh.
They risk spending seven days in jail should they not pay up.
An eight-strong bench of Appellate Division of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha rejected the two ministers’ petitions offering unreserved apology and seeking mercy for their comments on war criminal Mir Quasem Ali’s appeal hearing.
The duo have declined to speak about the order on their comments. No-one from the government has given any reaction.
The BNP has demanded resignation of the two convicted ministers.
Lawyers have given mixed reactions when asked whether the two have lost the right to continue as ministers.
Some said there is no such law in the Constitution, while some others said they have lost that right for having ‘violated the oath to office’.
Quamrul had demanded hearing of Mir Quasem’s appeal against his death sentence by a new bench, excluding Chief Justice Sinha, in a roundtable of Ekatturer Ghatak-Dalal Nirmul Committee in Dhaka on Mar 5.
Justice Sinha’s displeasure at the work of the International Crimes Tribunal’s investigators and prosecutors in the war crimes cases, including Mir Quasem’s one, had been seen by Islam as a 'broad hint' that the war criminal’s death penalty might not be upheld.
Mozammel had also criticised the chief justice at the same programme.
The full bench of the Appellate Division then issued a contempt rule against them. The order on the rule has now been delivered.
Before reading out the order, Chief Justice Sinha said everything was considered carefully. No proceeding was drawn ‘deliberately’ against all those whose names came up in the Daily Janakantha report.
The only reason for this was that the court did not essentially want to commit excesses over contempt, he said.
Contempt proceeding was drawn only against two ministers “to give a message to the entire nation, to inform those seeking justice that how much stern we can be if someone repeats it,” he added.
During the last hearing on Mar 20 after the ministers had sought mercy, Chief Justice Sinha said their remarks were audacious and contemptuous.
He had also asked their lawyers what the result of violating the oath to preserve the Constitution should be.
Speaking to the media after the verdict, Attorney General Mahbubey Alam enlarged on it.
“The message that the Appellate Division wanted to give was that, under no circumstances can the judiciary’s dignity be undermined.”
Alam said this is not the first time any minister has been punished for contempt of court in Bangladesh.
Habibullah Khan, a minister in military strongman HM Ershad’s Cabinet, was handed a similar punishment, he said.
The judgment
Chief Justice Sinha read out the summary judgment.
In the order, he said the minister’s comments, even after holding constitutional posts and taking the oath to safeguard the Constitution, were audacious and apparently intentional.
The order rejected their petitions seeking unconditional mercy and held them guilty of gross contempt.
It also said the judges took a lenient view towards the case since the ministers had pleaded for unconditional mercy in the beginning.
Ministers in the dock
The ministers made themselves available before the court at 8:45am.
Barrister Rafique-Ul Huq and Advocate Abdul Baset Majumder defended them at the hearing. Lawyers Yusuf Hossain Humayun, SM Abul Hossain, and Syed Sumon Mahbub were also with them.
Attorney General Mahbubey Alam, and Additional Attorneys General Murad Reza and Md Momtazuddin Fakir argued the case for the State.
The day’s proceedings started when chief justice and the other members took their seat at 9:30am.
The others in the bench were Justice Md Abdul Wahhab Miah, Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana, Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, Justice Md Imman Ali, Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, Justice Mirza Hussain Haider, and Justice Md Nizamul Huq.
When the case’s turn came, the two ministers and their two lawyers stood on the dais. The court asked them to sit.
Food Minister Qamrul’s lawyer Baset Majumder said a new petition seeking unconditional mercy was filed on Sunday.
He said his client apologised and promised that he would not make such remarks about the judiciary in future.
After the attorney general read out a Daily Janakantha report on the ministers’ comments, Chief Justice Sinha, addressing Qamrul’s lawyer, said they should have known that Janakantha Executive Editor Swadesh Roy is a convict, they are controversial people. How could the ministers go to a meeting with them?
He said they have to understand why the prosecutors are being talked about in verdicts time and again. After independence, three of the attorneys general worked with honesty and dignity. Aminul Haque and Mahmudul Islam. Even Mahbubey Alam has been smeared.
Mozammel’s lawyer Barrister Rafique said his client had also sought mercy.
The judges returned at 10:20am after a break to deliver the order.
Lawyer Baset Majumder told the full court that they wanted to withdraw the mercy petition and contest the order in the event of a guilty finding.
The chief justice replied, “Then please wait for five more minutes. We are taking a break and will deliver the order after that.”
Majumder then apologised and took back the comments.
The court then proceeded to pronounce the verdict.
Ministership questioned
Former law minister Shafique Ahmed said there is no constitutional provision that may force Qamrul and Mozammel to discontinue with the Cabinet job.
According to him, Sections 58 and 66 describe reasons to lose membership in Cabinet and Parliament.
The punishment of the two ministers for contempt of court does not touch these two sections, he said.
Section 58 empowers the prime minister to ask a minister to resign.
Section 66 describes the qualifications and disqualifications when it comes to election to Parliament.
The Section 66 says:
(2) A person shall be disqualified for election as, or for being, a member of Parliament who
–
(d) has been, on conviction for a criminal offence involving moral turpitude, sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release;
Asked whether the ministers can still hold their offices after being convicted, Attorney General Alam declined to comment and said as far as he knows, the Constitution does not address the matter with clarity.
“It’s an ethical issue,” he said, adding that it was up to the Cabinet to decide on the matter.
But Supreme Court Bar Association’s outgoing President Khandaker Mahbub Hossain said the ministers should resign on ‘ethical grounds’ as they have been convicted for ‘breaching the oath which is a part of the Constitution’.
“If they do not resign, the prime minister should take action against them to save the image of the country and the judiciary,” he added.
Barister Rafique and Majumder declined comment.
Asked about the matter, Agriculture Minister Matia Chowdhury also said she will not make comments about court.