HC declares void 7th amendment of constitution
Dhaka, Aug 26 (UNB) - The High Court on Thursday declared void and unconstitutional the seventh amendment of the Constitution that legitimized usurpation of state power by Gen (retd) HM Ershad and his acts.
An HC division bench comprising Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Justice Sheikh M Zakir Hossain delivered the judgment upon a writ petition that challenged the validity of the impugned 7th Amendment (Act 1 of 1986).
The Act includes the proclamation of martial law issued on March 24, 1982, its regulations, orders and instructions until commencement of the 7th Amendment on November 10, 1986.
Twenty-eight years ago, on March 24 in 1982, army chief Lt Gen HM Ershad, now MP and Jatiya Party president, usurped state power from the elected BNP government led by Justice Abdus Satter on the pretext of “bickering for power among the members of the ruling party ignoring the duty to the state jeopardizing national security and sovereignty.”
Siddique Ahmed, a roadside vendor, filed the writ petition and sought for a direction upon the government to arrange re-trial of the murder case in which he was convicted and sentenced to life term imprisonment by martial law court at Chittagong Cantonment in 1986.
Lifer Siddique was supposed to face trial at the conventional district and sessions judge court in Chittagong, but the case was transferred to the military court by a military regulation.
Emerging from the court, Barrister Hassan MS Azim, the principal counsel for Siddique, told reporters that the High Court judgment on 7th amendment is almost identical to the historic High Court verdict of August 29, 2005 on the fifth amendment that had declared illegal the proclamation of martial law and the rules of Khandker Mushtaque Ahmed, Abu Sadaat Mohammad Sayem, and Maj General Ziaur Rahman.
Barrister Azim said that the High Court, however, noted that although all government activities between March 24, 1982 and November 10, 1986 had been declared illegal, many of these illegal acts were done in the public interest. From this perspective, Barrister Azim said the court condoned some of these actions that could have been done in line with the constitution.
When asked about the fate of his client’s conviction, he said the High Court did not prescribe any specific remedy.
He, however, said the matter would be resolved in accordance with the existing law as the martial law regulation in which the tribunal was set up has been declared void.
Barrister Azim was assisted by advocates Mirza Al Mahmud and Kamal Hosaain Miaji while Additional Attorney General MK Rahman appeared for the government in the case.
An HC division bench comprising Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Justice Sheikh M Zakir Hossain delivered the judgment upon a writ petition that challenged the validity of the impugned 7th Amendment (Act 1 of 1986).
The Act includes the proclamation of martial law issued on March 24, 1982, its regulations, orders and instructions until commencement of the 7th Amendment on November 10, 1986.
Twenty-eight years ago, on March 24 in 1982, army chief Lt Gen HM Ershad, now MP and Jatiya Party president, usurped state power from the elected BNP government led by Justice Abdus Satter on the pretext of “bickering for power among the members of the ruling party ignoring the duty to the state jeopardizing national security and sovereignty.”
Siddique Ahmed, a roadside vendor, filed the writ petition and sought for a direction upon the government to arrange re-trial of the murder case in which he was convicted and sentenced to life term imprisonment by martial law court at Chittagong Cantonment in 1986.
Lifer Siddique was supposed to face trial at the conventional district and sessions judge court in Chittagong, but the case was transferred to the military court by a military regulation.
Emerging from the court, Barrister Hassan MS Azim, the principal counsel for Siddique, told reporters that the High Court judgment on 7th amendment is almost identical to the historic High Court verdict of August 29, 2005 on the fifth amendment that had declared illegal the proclamation of martial law and the rules of Khandker Mushtaque Ahmed, Abu Sadaat Mohammad Sayem, and Maj General Ziaur Rahman.
Barrister Azim said that the High Court, however, noted that although all government activities between March 24, 1982 and November 10, 1986 had been declared illegal, many of these illegal acts were done in the public interest. From this perspective, Barrister Azim said the court condoned some of these actions that could have been done in line with the constitution.
When asked about the fate of his client’s conviction, he said the High Court did not prescribe any specific remedy.
He, however, said the matter would be resolved in accordance with the existing law as the martial law regulation in which the tribunal was set up has been declared void.
Barrister Azim was assisted by advocates Mirza Al Mahmud and Kamal Hosaain Miaji while Additional Attorney General MK Rahman appeared for the government in the case.
Comments
No Comments on this News
