Writ petition filed against Iajuddin

Trackback URL

Download PDF

A writ petition was filed in the High Court (HC) yesterday to issue a rule to the President and Chief Adviser (CA) of the caretaker government Iajuddin Ahmed to show cause under what authority he is holding the office of the CA.

Adnan Anwar, a businessman and nephew of late president Ziaur Rahman, filed the writ stating that President Iajuddin did not comply with all the provisions of the constitution before assuming the office of the CA.

The respondents are the chief adviser, the president, and secretaries of Law and Establishment ministries.

“President Iajuddin without exhausting the mandatory provisions of the article 58 C (3) (4) and (5) of the constitution has assumed the functions of Chief Adviser violating the oath of office which he took to protect and defend,” the petition reads.

“And therefore he is required to show under what authority he is holding the office without appointing or firm offers to appoint other person/persons mentioned in the said article and as such his appointment is without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.”

The petitioner also asked the HC bench to verify “… whether the Chief Adviser is legally holding the office as it is apparent that his appointment as the Chief Adviser has violated not only the constitutional provisions but also his neutrality having been elected by a political party whose shadow looms large on his horizon.”

Explaining the political turmoil centring the appointment of CA and the constitutional provisions on appointing CA, the petitioner said the President did not follow all the provisions before assuming the office.

“… Under the provisions of constitution the President ought to have approached the chief justice who retired before Justice KM Hasan and if he was unavailable then the constitution provided that he was to approach the other former retired chief justice who retired immediately before Justice KM Hasan.

Article 58 C (4) provides that the retired judges of the Appellate Division were to be considered for the job if any of the retired chief justices is not available provided that he is not disqualified by reason of age.

“There is nothing on record to show that he made any approach to them and that they declined to take up the job,” reads the petition.

Moreover, “the president did not bother to have any meaningful dialogue or constructive consultation with all major parties to find a qualified person to be the Chief Adviser and in an unusual haste he appointed himself to the Chief Adviser under tight security,” it reads.

“The President, without following the mandatory provisions of the constitution, in choosing the person to lead the country in a crucial period has violated the constitution which he has taken oath to uphold, defend and protect,” reads the petition.

The petition was filed as public interest litigation.

Counsel for the petitioner barrister Masood R Sobhan at a press briefing at his office yesterday evening said he would place an application to the chief justice asking him to arrange an immediate hearing since the court activities are not functioning due to the blockade programme.

Petitioner Adnan, once a Young Labour Party activist in Britain, said he has no political motive for filing the writ and he is not involved with any party in the land.

“I just like to have a constitutional interpretation of the matter,” he said, “Since a section opined for the President taking the office of the Chief Adviser was just, while another opposed it.”

Leave a Reply