& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Plan to bar corrupt politicians from polls uncertain

Zayadul Ahsan and Shakiiawat Liton
The caretaker government's plan to debar the detained "corrupt" political bigwigs from contesting the next parliamentary elections might not work if they are not tried under the Emergency Power Rules (EPR).
According to a provision of the EPR, any person, convicted of corruption by a trial court, will be disqualified from contesting any election until adjudication of their appeal against the verdict.
But, if the trials of these detained political leaders are done under the existing laws instead of
the EPR, the convicted persons will be able to contest polls until the Supreme Court (SC) gives the final order upholding the trial court's conviction, which usually takes a longtime.
Soon after launching the crackdown on the corrupt political leaders, the government amended the EPR on February 13, inserting the provision to prevent them from contesting all kinds of polls.
But following the opinion of the amicus curiae, uncertainty now looms large over the fate of the cases filed against these political leaders, including former prime ministers Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina.
Appointed by the HC, which is disposing a writ petition challenging the government decision to bring Hasina's case under the EPR, the amicus curiae vehemently opposed the trial of Hasina under the EPR as the alleged offence was committed before the promulgation of the Emergency Power Ordinance.
Legal experts said if the SC declares bringing the extortion case against Hasina under the EPR illegal in line with the opinion of the amicus curiae and orders trial under the ordinary law, then all other similar cases will also have to be tried under the ordinary law. Law Adviser AF Hassan Ariff also said the fate of other corruption cases under the EPR hinges on the HC verdict on Sheikh Kasina's writ petition.
Talking to The Daily Star yesterday Justice Ghulam Rabbani said it is a simple rule of law that a criminal offence or the procedure to try the offence has no retrospective effect. "I wonder why this basic simple procedural law was forgotten by the persons in the authority who are supposed to have basic knowledge." said the former judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
According to Article 66 of the constitution, a person shall be disqualified for election as or for being a member of parliament who has been, on conviction for a criminal offence involving moral turpitude, sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release.
Jatiya Party chief HM Ershad contested the polls and became an MP by appealing against a trial court verdict that convicted him on charge of corruption. Ershad's membership to the seventh parliament fell vacant when the SC finally rejected his
appeal against the trial court verdict.
Legal experts also said once the detained politicians are tried under the ordinary laws, they have to be allowed to seek bail.
Separate cases were filed against the detained politicians under the EPR that blocked their right to seeking bail.
A few detainees have already been convicted under the EPR for offences committed before the promulgation of the EPR.
Referring to the constitutional provision, six legal experts appointed as the amicus curiae in the hearing of the extortion case against Kasina submitted their opinion to the HC on Wednesday, saying the trial of a crime committed before the promulgation of the Emergency Power Ordinance cannot be held under the ambit of the EPR.
Article 35 of the constitution says no person shall be convicted of any offences except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than, or different from that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.