‘Mizanur tried to catch cantonment’s eye’

A top lawyer has said a Prothom Alo journalist tried to draw the attention of the cantonment during a hearing on contempt of court charges against him.

Staff Correspondentbdnews24.com
Published : 6 March 2014, 04:57 PM
Updated : 6 March 2014, 06:20 PM

Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud observed during Thursday’s proceedings that Mizanur Rahman Khan, the journalist in question, twisted information in a write-up of his to erode public confidence in the judiciary. “The court is being demeaned here,” he added.

Prothom Alo and its associate Daily Star are accused by many civil society representatives and ruling politicians of pulling strings behind the scenes for thrusting the 2007-8 military-backed caretaker government into power.

Hearings on the contempt charges began in the day after the Bengali daily’s Joint Editor wrote two opinion editorials on Mar 2.

The senior counsel referenced a few judgments to plead for punishment for Khan.

The journalist was summoned to court after the High Court issued a suo moto rule asking why he should not face the court’s contempt for his two articles.

The journalist in his articles claimed Bangladesh’s separation of the judiciary from the executive wing of the state had fallen on its face before going on to question the workings leading to anticipatory bail being granted.

Besides Barrister Mahmud, veteran lawyer Barrister Rafique Ul Haque also asked for penalty for contempt after Mizanur Rahman Khan came to court on Thursday.

He appeared before the bench by Justices Naima Haider and Zafar Ahmed at 10:25am, roughly a quarter of an hour before the judges took their seat.

The judges put Mizanur in the dock while they heard some other pleas.

Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud began delivering his arguments on the contempt charges moments after 11am.

“I know this man personally,” said the lawyer. “We are very well acquainted. But the court’s supremacy is being questioned here.”

“He has written a piece in every paragraph of which he has attacked the court.”

“Nowadays we see that the magistrate’s court is sending accused individuals to jail. So the people are now turning to the Supreme Court.

“He has asked how could one anticipatory bail be granted every minute? Would he have been happy if one person was sent to jail every minute?”

“He is trying to say that bail isn’t granted on merit, but on something else.”

Continued Barrister Mahmud, “His writing presumes that the court was not granting bail for justice. There are some other reasons.”

Regarding the naming of a specific bench in Khan’s writing, the lawyer said, “Mentioning the names of two judges (in the articles) is a personal attack. He questioned their honesty.”

Roughly translated in English, Mizanur Rahman Khan wrote, “Granting of blanket bail was not an isolated incident. But the question was why lawyers go to one specific bench for bails when five other benches with similar powers can provide the same result? Who can answer this question?”

The senior Supreme Court told the court, “I could have explained the matter to him if he (Khan) had come to me. The lawyers who come to this court, he also could have asked them why they come here.

“He doesn’t even understand from who he will get the answer to his imaginary question. This fictional query has questioned the integrity and honesty of the court.”

“Khan wrote, ‘411 pleas for anticipatory bail were made before that court on January 29. Bails for 251 were granted. At least 300 accused secure anticipatory bail in here’.”

Rokanuddin said, “He wrote that 251 out of 411 pleas were granted. But he did not mention that 160 appeals were rejected. He hid information at this point.”

“Then again, he wrote that these people are accused of different crimes. Some may have been dangerous criminals. That means he did not cross-check.”

“A journalist will provide information, but won’t say anything based on guesses. He has violated professional ethics by doing this.”

Barrister Mahmud further observed, “There is no regulatory agency for journalism in Bangladesh. Lawyers have Bar Council, Doctors have Medical Council, but journalists don’t have anything like this.”

“That’s why many think they are beyond the law. They can use freedom of press for accusing and harassing anyone.”

Regarding Khan’s articles published in Prothom Alo, he further said, “This is distortion of facts. This has insulted the court. This was done to make people lose their trust in the judiciary.”

He brought up the case of Amar Desh acting Editor Mahmudur Rahman to say, “If Mahmudur Rahman was jailed for six months for contempt of court, Mizanur Rahman should be given six years of imprisonment.”

“He (Khan) said that bail is a symbol of individual freedom. But ganajamin (blanket bail) is an incurable disease. What did he mean by blanket bail? Does this allow 100 people to submit bail pleas in one form?”

“I think he is addressing cantonment. Why would he say these things otherwise? It cannot be that with press freedom you will humiliate someone.

Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud made his deliberations until 1pm.

Ajmalul Haq QC, Barrister Rafique-Ul Haque, and former Supreme Court Bar Association chief Joynul Abdin joined the hearing after the recess at 2pm.

The court let journalist Khan sit at the podium on Khan’s lawyer Shahdeen Malik’s plea.

Ajmalul Hossain QC posed three questions for Khan to answer.

He asked what sort of investigation did the journalist do before writing such articles? Who did he consult for writing the articles without mentioning the source? Was he aware of legal procedures and if so, how did he learn about them?

Barrister Haque brought a copy of Prothom Alo’s Thursday edition to the court’s attention. The report dealt with statements of BFUJ and DUJ (two platforms of journalists) on the court’s rule.

The court had earlier asked how could such statements be published on sub-judice matters?

Mizanur Rahman Khan had written that granting bail was in fact a police matter. However, in Bangladesh, he had written, the High Court and Supreme Court have the hands full with bail.

When the senior lawyer drew the court’s attention to the matter, one of the judges asked what Mizanur meant when he said that orders for bail depended on police’s decision?

Why is court needed, after all if bails were police matters? asked the judge.

Barrister Haque immediately added, “…he (Mizanur Rahman Khan) knows everything, he has the background. He has been writing [such stuff] since 1/11.”

The lawyers, present at the hearing, erupted in laughter at his remark.

The judge asked what Mizanur meant by the term ‘ganajamin’ (blanket bail) in his write-ups.

Barrister Rafique said: “Wherefrom will he get blanket bail? He got it from Ganajagaran.”

About Khan seeing a secret enquiry report of a court, the senior lawyer said: “He may have seen it. I know he is a very powerful man. He is concerned about the future of the country.”

The writer mentioned in his article that he had gone through the probe report in 2009.

During the hearing in the morning, Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud said: “It (probe report) is a secret matter. How could he see it?”

Later, Barrister Haque said: “Mizanur Rahman committed contempt of court.”

He sought punishment, even if it was symbolic.

Mizanur Rahman Khan had questioned 718 bail petitions put on the cause list of a court in a single day.

On the point, lawyer Joynul Abdin said: “A person went to a weekly village market and began to worry where so many people will sleep and where they will get so many pillows.”

“It’s usual for so many ad-interim bail petitions to feature on cause-list,” he added.

The judge said: “(Khan) got surprised to see 718 cases on the cause-list of bench number 20. But that day 951 cases were on the list of another bench. He was not astonished to see that.”

After Joynul, Rokanuddin again joined the hearing.