Dhaka, Aug 26 (bdnews24.com)—Even though autocrat H M Ershad had committed a crime by suspending the constitution, military strongman Ziaur Rahman's crime was far greater in magnitude, the High Court has observed.
The court in its verdict issued on Thursday said Zia had not only suspended the constitution but he also brought basic changes to its cardinal principles.
The High Court made the observation while comparing the two military regimes in its ruling declaring the Seventh Amendment illegal on Thursday.
The bench of justices A H M Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Sheikh Mohammad Zakir Hossain in the ruling declared Ershad's military regime illegal.
The Seventh Amendment to the constitution was passed in the parliament formed in 1986 which legitamised the takeover of power by Ershad along with the martial law orders made between 1982 and 1986.
Earlier on Aug 29, 2005, the High Court issued a ruling that had declared the Fifth Amendment illegal. It also had declared illegal the regimes of Khondker Moshtaq Ahmed, Abu Sa'adat Mohammad Sayem and Zia between Aug 15, 1975 and 1979.
Regarding Zia, the verdict stated he had appointed a pro-Pakistan person (Shah Azizur Rahman) prime minister and rehabilitated a number of persons of the same belief as the killers of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and made the foundation for religion-based politics.
The court stated Ershad also illegally ruled the country just like Khondker Moshtaq Ahmed, Abu Sa'adat Mohammad Sayem and Ziaur Rahman and so, none of them can be pardoned. Ershad cannot get away from the consequences for what he had done.
The verdict also said, Ershad took over the power from justice Abdus Sattar, the successor to Zia, and suspended the constitution. Mostaq and Zia, however, went on to change the constitution.
The court also said some renegade army officers killed Sheikh Mujib on Aug 15, 1975 with support from foreign powers. Moshtaq came to power even though he was not speaker or vice president and Zia took over from him.
Zia had blocked the way to try the killers of Mujib by issuing the Indemnity Act. He removed the basic principles of the constitution which were included in light of the perspective of the liberation war.
It also said, Zia, using martial law, had illegally penalised a number of freedom fighters including Col Abu Taher in military courts and tribunals.
On Apr 5, the High Court asked the government to explain why the Seventh Amendment which legalised the takeover of power by Ershad along with the martial law instructions made between 1982 and 1986 was not illegal.
The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Siddique Ahmed, a resident of Chittagong, who was convicted of murder during Ershad's martial law period.
It, however, spared those decisions that were taken in public interest but declared the Fifth Amendment illegal.
Additionally, the court had commented in that verdict, all the changes in the administration from Aug 15, 1975 till the parliament elections on 1991 were not made according to the constitution.
The BNP-led coalition government had appealed for a stay order on the verdict. However, the ruling Awami League-led government withdrew the appeal.
On Feb 2, the Appellate Division dismissed an appeal challenging the High Court verdict.
bdnews24.com/pc/gna/im/bd/2204h
