Hasina counsel wants change of court

Trackback URL

Download PDF

Counsel for Awami League (AL) President Sheikh Hasina will move to have the Tk 2.99 crore extortion case against her transferred to another court as they fear they might not get justice at the present court.

In an application to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court yesterday, they sought adjournment of the proceedings for two weeks so they could petition the High Court (HC) for transfer.

Following submissions from both sides, Judge Azizul Huq accepted the application and adjourned the case proceedings till February 11.

The adjournment came a day after the court saw a heated argument over its integrity.

“I’m allowing the application. Come to the court on February 11 with a stay [on proceedings] from the High Court,” the judge told the defence.

The lawyers for the detained AL chief moved the adjournment plea shortly after the court had declined to expunge plaintiff Azam J Chowdhury’s testimony that, the defence claim, had been recorded illegally.

On Monday, the defence filed a petition for the deposition to be deleted. Otherwise, they said, fairness of the court would come into question and the petitioner would be deprived of justice.

Earlier the same day, the judge walked out of the courtroom following a row between the defence and prosecution over his decision to allow the plaintiff to reopen his deposition.

Yesterday, after the court sat at 9:37am, the lawyers began submission on the application for deletion.

Chief Public Prosecutor (CPP) ABM Sharfuddin Khan Mukul said the court has no right under any legal provision to expunge recorded evidence. So the petition is not maintainable, he argued.

The defence contended that the plaintiff’s deposition taken Monday should not be considered evidence as it was taken illegally. The court completed taking the testimony on January 30 and ordered cross-examination of the witness.

The lawyers said they wonder how come a deposition was rerecorded when the CPP already wound up examining Azam on January 30 and the court asked the defence to begin cross-examination.

Referring to the court documents on January 30 proceedings reading “to be continued”, they asked how an order given orally by a judge differed from the one in writing.

They repeatedly asked the judge to say whether he really had directed them to start cross-examining Azam. But Azizul Huq avoided a reply.

The defence lawyers also sought at least three days’ time to see if any other court in the past had given any order for deletion.

At one stage of the argument, Hasina told her lawyers, “There is no need to say anything here. You can already tell what would happen.”

In his ruling, Azizul said the evidence act does not provide for deletion of evidence and so he had decided to reject the application.

The defence termed the order partial. As they tried to protest the decision, the judge said, “Never challenge a court order in this manner. You might feel aggrieved at the order but you can always move to a higher court against it.”

At that point, Sahara Khatun, one of the lawyers representing Hasina, took the floor and said they had an application to submit.

Advocate Rezaur Rahman read out the application seeking two weeks’ time.

In the application, they said neutrality of the court had come into question again with this ruling. The judge’s views on February 4 incidents in courtroom are “partial”.

The court had found fault with the defence only while ignoring the public prosecutor’s unruly behaviour covered extensively by the press.

In this context, the applicants believe the court is not neutral and they will be deprived of justice.

Since the defendant plans to petition the HC to transfer the case to another court, the proceedings here should be adjourned to allow them time, the application read.

Leave a Reply