& 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

Hasina verdict hearing starts amid high security

Staff Correspondent
Hearing on the government's leave to appeal petition against the High Court's landmark judgment that quashed a Tk 2.99 crore extortion case against former prime minister and Awami League (AL) chief Sheikh Hasina began yesterday in the Supreme Court (SC) amid stepped up security around the court.
After partial hearing, the six-member full bench of the Appellate Division of the SC headed by Chief Justice Mohammad Ruhul Amin adjourned it till this morning.
Additional security measures centring the hearing also created an unwanted situation in the court area, and this issue was brought to the notice of the SC by Hasina's counsels later.
A large number of police, armed police and BDR personnel were deployed at the entrances to the court and around it. And restriction was imposed on entry of people to the court premises, which was unusual.
Some lawyers, litigants and
journalists seeking to enter the court compound were harassed by law enforcers while checking their identities. Police also beat up some people and misbehaved with many others.
Lawyers had to enter the court showing their identity cards but journalists had to list their names at the entrance to the courtroom even after showing their identity cards.
Many uniformed and plainclothes officials from law enforcement agencies were also present in the court building. At least 12 platoons of police were deployed in the court area, sources mentioned.
When the hearing was adjourned, one of Hasina's counsels barrister Shafique Ahmed raised the issue of extra security and restriction on entry. He told the court that in the name of security, lawyers, their assistants and litigants were harassed.
In response, the court said the steps taken were intended to ensure FROM PAGE 1
into sight after crossing four gates, and people concerned including lawyers come to court with their identity cards hanging from their necks.
Earlier, when the hearingbegan, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Salahuddin Ahmad made his arguments for obtaining a stay on the HC judgment that also declared illegal bringing the extortion case against Hasina filed by businessman Azam J Chowdhury under the Emergency Power Rules (EPR).
In the jam-packed courtroom, the AAG said two major objectives of this government are to ensure justice regarding corruption, and to hold elections.
Corruption has taken place in the country year after year, and state of emergency has been declared to try people involved in corruption, he noted.
On the consequence of the HC judgment, Salahuddin said it would not be possible to bring corrupt people to justice if this judgment remains in effect.
He argued that an offence committed before the state of emergency can be brought under emergency power rules. Trial of this case is being held under the existing laws, and the only reason for bringing it under the EPR is to dispose it quickly, he added.
The AAG also said the govern-
ment approves bringing a case under the EPR considering public importance. There is a guideline in the law regarding this, and the extortion case against Hasina has been brought under the EPR considering its public importance.
He pointed out that there are anomalies between the HC rule issued following Hasina's writ petition and the HC judgment.
Hasina's chief counsel barrister Rafique-UI Huq told the court that her writ petition was filed challenging the legality of applying the EPR in the extortion case against her.
The state of emergency was declared to ensure socio-economic and state security, he said. And there is no scope to bring any offence committed before the emergency under the EPR.
The counsel said the government unnecessarily brought the extortion case against Hasina under the EPR.
Rafique argued that the constitution has empowered the president to declare state of emergency but he cannot promulgate any such law that would not be passed in parliament.
He noted that judges take oath to uphold and defend the constitution.
Rafique said government approval of bringing the extortion case under the EPR was given considering the status of Hasina, not public importance of the case.