& 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

State trashes mutiny claim

Ashutosh Sarkar
The chief state counsel in Bangabandhu murder case yesterday told the Supreme Court the August 15 bloodbath vvas never a mutiny; rather it was a long- planned massacre.
Anisul Huq, the lawyer representing the government, also rejected the defence's complaining about delay in filing the first information report (FIR) 21 years after Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family were killed in 1975.
He said there were specific legal reasons for the delay.
Anisul observed the flying of cannon balls has stopped, but conspiracy to derail the trial is still on.
"The stories unfolding of neglect, discrimination and lawlessness long after the guns had fallen silent are nothing but part of machinations intended to hamper the legal recourse."
He was making submissions before a five-member Appellate Division bench hearing for the 22nd day five convicts' appeals against the High Court verdict in the historic case.
The state counsel brushed aside the defence s claim that the August 15 carnage was the result of an army mutiny and so the case has to be tried at a military court.
Anisul said there was nothing wrong with a civil court trying the case.
Charges are never of mutiny; they are of coldblooded murders.
"Even if we agree, not concede, for the sake of argument that there was a mutiny, no wrong has been done by having the accused tried by the civil court. For murders were committed along with mutiny,’ he said.
He said mutiny is exclusively triable by court martial. But in the event of murder. the Army Act 1952 provides concurrent jurisdiction to both military and civil courts.
Anisul said the state has complied with provisions of both the army act and civil code in pursuing trial of this case.
On March 24, 1997, a notice was sent to the then army chief with regard to the trial. The judge advocate general division under Dhaka cantonment on April 2 that year stated in a notice that there was no bar to trying the retired army officers under the civil law.
The state counsel said the prosecution has not only explained but also presented cogent evidence as to why there was delay in lodging the FIR.
An indemnity ordinance was promulgated after the killings of August 15 so the perpetrators were shielded from prosecution.
Besides, he said, fear of reprisals must have discouraged people from filing an FIR as the accused persons were influential and powerful.
Anisul said Khandaker Abdur Rashid, one of the convicts, contested the farcical election of February 15, 1996, and was elected to be the leader of the opposition.
Rashid and Syed Farooq Rahman, another death convict, floated a political party styled Freedom Party. Farooq contested the presidential election in 1980, he said.
Bazlul Huda, who too has been condemned to death for killing Bangabandhu and family, was the secretary of Freedom Party.
On coming to the power, Ziaur Rahman rewarded the accused with postings at Bangladesh missions abroad.
The successive governments prevented the lodging of the FIR, Anisul added.