A senior editor with Prothom Alo has apologised over his articles during the hearing of contempt of court charges against him.
Published : 11 Mar 2014, 07:08 PM
Verdict on contempt rule Thursday
Mizanur’s explanation contempt of court: Judges
‘Mizanur is a habitual offender’
‘Mizanur tried to catch cantonment’s eye’
The Bengali daily’s Editor Matiur Rahman has also regretted in High Court about the publication of the articles taking full responsibility.
The bench of Justices Naima Haider and Zafar Ahmed set Thursday for the verdict after hearing statements of the two journalists and arguments of prosecution and defence lawyers on Tuesday.
Matiur Rahman told the court, “It seems to me from the way you (the presiding judge) are saying that I can express my regrets to you.”
But the daily's Joint Editor Mizanur Rahman Khan apologised in court.
At the final stages of the hearing, Khan said, “It is not my intention to deal a blow to this institution. Still, if I had done so, I offer my apology.”
The bench had on Mar 2 summoned Khan following two articles published in the newspaper.
It also issued two contempt rules against Khan and one against the editor. They were also asked to submit their explanations as affidavits.
Mizanur Rahman Khan was present during four days of hearing starting from Thursday.
Defence counsel Shahdeen Malik started the hearing on Tuesday morning.
His client Matiur Rahman was soon called to the box and asked whether he edited and published the ‘most circulated newspaper’ in the country.
Rahman said ‘yes’ and was promptly asked if he had read both the articles published in the newspaper. He admitted reading them both. Then he was asked if he felt the articles had led to contempt of court.
Matiur Rahman replied: “For fifteen years, we have strongly pitched for freedom of judiciary because we believe in it. It was never our purpose to undermine the judiciary.”
But then he clarified: “But we publish a 24 to 32-page newspaper every day and it goes through a complex process. It is not possible to go through every single news item or article. We can make mistakes but we would never do something with deliberate and malicious intent.”
The editor was then asked whether he was aware of any code of conduct for journalists.
His replied: “We have a code of conduct which we observe. This is an important profession and it could be used by some to damage someone. That is why we have a Press Council. We have always advocated a stronger Press Council. If we are upset with any news coverage, we go to the Press Council and don’t come to the court.”
Matiur Rahman was asked about why some leading newspapers in the world used disclaimers saying the contributor was solely responsible for opinions expressed in articles.
Pat came the reply: “As editor, I am responsible for what appears in my paper. These articles have been carried by Prothom Alo, how can I disown responsibility!”
The judge remarked: “The articles have referred to a particular bench. It is not important whether I or my brother judge is upset, but it is a fact that the remarks impact on the whole judiciary. You (Rahman) seem to have applied for anticipatory bail.”
Rahman admitted he had taken it twice. “Getting a bail has got difficult. Many a time the sessions judge refuses bail. We are apprehensive going to a lower court. That is why people come to the High Court straightaway.”
The judge then turned to the articles by Mizanur Rahman Khan.
“Why has he (Khan) singled out this bench for criticism! Is it because there is a woman judge in it! Does this reflect some kind of gender bias?”
Matiur Rahman was quick to deflect the charge.
“Don’t shame us by saying that. We have done much for women’s emancipation.”
The judge commented: “The articles have let it be known to all from Teknaf to Tetulia that this bench is keen to grant bail.
“Even some yaba (drugs) merchants from Teknaf may turn to this bench for bail. We have become known, so thank you for the articles. Even friends have called up to say they were not aware I have become a judge. I will surely write all that in my memoirs,” the judge continued.
Rahman said: “We have a good publishing house, Prathama, and we publish many important writers. We would be happy to publish your memoirs.”
That sent those in court into fits of laughter, including Mizanur Rahman Khan.
The judge turned to Khan and said: “He is laughing at last!”
At this point, Rahman consulted his lawyer Shahdeen Malik.
Then drawing the court’s attention, he said: “From what you say, it seems I should have no hesitation in expressing my regrets to you (over the articles).Those who seek bail have a right to get bail. It was not our purpose to undermine the judiciary.”
The judge thanked Matiur Rahman for his appearance and reminded him that the court did not seek to ‘harass’ him.
As Shahdeen Malik resumed his defence, lawyer Joynul Abdin pointed out it was not clear whether he was seeking to furnish an apology or contest the charges against his clients.
Malik said his client was still undecided.
The judge appeared surprised. “We issued the rule on March 2. How can he be undecided even now! Why don’t you ask him!”
Shahdeen Malik sought permission to allow Mizanur Rahman Khan to have his say. Khan promptly echoed his editor’s line.
“I am grateful because I have been allowed to speak. I agree with my editor that mistakes can happen.”
“I have covered the legal beat since 1989. Many lawyers appreciate my articles, which have sought to pitch for judicial reforms. I have no other intention. But it may be that I have gone wrong with my choice of words.”
Khan continued: “It was never my purpose to undermine or show disrespect to this great institution. But if that is what has happened, I offer my sincere apology.”
Malik resumed with the hearing after Khan’s apology. At the time, the court enquired again whether Khan would still maintain what he had written.
Rokanuddin Mahmud told the court, “The matter has taken a different turn. We don’t want that. Please finish and leave this for verdict.”
Ahsanul Karim at the time said, “The matter has grown bitter… it’s too much.”
Mahmud said, “We want only one thing. A guideline will have to be made to decide who can do journalism.”
Then the judge said, “We cannot decide the criteria for joining journalism. But there must be a guideline.”
Mahmud said, “No, not that. But they (journalists) have to understand this and those who work as court correspondent should know this.”
The court agreed.
Karim then said, “Journalists are also looking for a guideline for them. Today’s newspapers have the news.”
The judges then set the date for delivering verdict and left the courtroom
Shahdeen Malik during hearing
Joining the hearing, defence counsel Malik said there was no law in Bangladesh on the contempt of court which was why there was no provision for punishment for such offence.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 2013 has been annulled. This act was promulgated by annulling the previous one, he added.
“So, this law won’t be reinstated until the Parliament revives it.”
Then the judge mentioned a verdict of the higher court. “An act which has been annulled or declared illegal cannot declare another act annulled. We understand this from that verdict.”
The hearing then went on with arguments over the matter.