Bangladesh News

The High Court yesterday invited a legal debate over the amended Emergency Power Rules (EPR) that have revoked the right to bail of those being arrested during the current operation against crime and corruption.

A High Court division bench sought opinions of senior lawyers, suspending its orders on bail petitions moved on behalf of bigwigs, including politicians, held on charges of corruption and serious crimes.

On the night of March 21, the government issued a gazette notification to this effect under the Emergency Powers Ordinance 2007 with retrospective effect from February 13.

According to the amended law, an accused in such cases has been stripped of right to file a bail petition during the investigation or trial of a case.

Additionally, an accused cannot seek redress from any higher courts against any order given by any court or tribunal before or during the trial–until the delivery of the final verdict.

The HC bench, comprising Justice Nozrul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury, initiated the move when a number of petitions were placed before it for hearing by the counsel for the accused seeking bail and an attorney stood against.

Showing the EPR gazette, Deputy Attorney General Gholam Mohammad Chowdhury Alal told the court that it’s a no-go area for them under the state of emergency.

He pointed out that Sections 19 Gha and Uma of the EPR revoked the right of an accused “to appeal for bail and seek redress from any Court or tribunal or higher court”.

Interrupting the hearing, the division bench solicited veteran Supreme Court lawyers’ legal interpretations of the amended emergency rules.

Former Attorney General Barrister Rafique-ul Huq and Khondker Mahbubuddin Ahmed and two other senior lawyers responded.

They submitted that the High Court could take up the petitions seeking bail for hearing, as the amended emergency rules were “not intended to debar the Supreme Court that includes the High Court Division from exercising their jurisdiction”.

Because, they argued, the amended emergency rules have “differentiated between the court and the Supreme Court”.

They further contended that under the EPR, an accused has been restrained from seeking bail from the courts. In this context, courts mean the trial courts, they observed.

Besides, they said, the amended rules restrain those accused from seeking bail who face trial for specific serious crimes considered a threat to security of the state, the people and the economy.

The crimes they mentioned are related to illegal weapons, explosives, sabotage, hoarding, adulteration of food or medicine, forgery of currency or government stamps, black-marketing, smuggling and drugs, and so.

After hearing the opinions from the lawyers, the bench ceased from giving its observation on the critical legal matter in the prevailing situation.

The court set April 5 for order on the crucial dispute, involving the fate of a large number of big names in politics, business, bureaucracy and professions.