& 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

Freedom of expression and contempt of court

This is a serious constitutional matter and the nation's constitutional experts and its highest court should deal with it urgently. Or else the hawkish politicians in jurists' guise will be encouraged to perpetrate, in the name freedom of expression, whatever it takes to damage the institution of the judiciary and thereby weaken the faith of the public.

Mozammel H. Khan
THE much-awaited verdict against Salauddin Quader Chowdhury has been pronounced by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) and, as was widely expected, he has been awarded death penalty for committing crimes against humanity and genocide during the country's Liberation War in 19 71. The son of a former top ranking Muslim League leader, and a BNP lawmaker since 1991, he was found guilty on 9 of the 23 charges brought against him. The International Crimes Tribunal-1 awarded him death penalty on four charges - foremost of which was his involvement in two acts of genocide. Pronouncing the verdict, ICT-1 Chairman Justice A.T.M. Fazle Kabir said: "We are of the unanimous view that the accused deserves the highest punishment as provided under law for committing such gravest crimes that tremble the collective conscience of mankind."
Albeit, not for the purpose of comparison, it could be stated that his death penalty verdict could very well be qualified as the most popular one among all such verdicts pronounced so far. Except forthose who hate AL or the current PM, for some reason or the other, every Bangladeshi citizen, living at home or abroad, is jubilant about the verdict Social media was bustling with the news of his death penalty verdict. And I would like to believe that a bulk of the BNP supporters, except for the leaders who want to be in the good book of the party's supreme boss, would express their joy at the verdict in any secret ballot.
The convict, better known for his antics, vulgarism and unprecedented notoriety, has never expressed his remorse for his nationally-known crimes. Quite to the contrary, for instance, he termed The Daily Star as 'Delhi Star,' and in the language of DS reporters his "crooked smile always ran on his face. Legal procedure seemed nothing to him, so he violated the court decorum willfully and laughed at the judges and lawyers. He was confident of getting released with the change of government, and he threatened to bring the prosecutors to book." On January 1, 2013, he threatened the state counsels, saying if he got out of jail they would know the consequences of their actions. “Let me get out of jail. You will see."
Incidentally, identical views were expressed by at least one BNP lawyer in a hurriedly called press conference in the Supreme Court following the verdict. The party chairperson's adviser, Khandker Mahbub Hossain, went outside the standard party line of 'maintaining international standards' and said that if voted to power "BNP would try those involved in the war crimes trials. The verdict against Salauddin is politically motivated and farcical." This is the most categorical statement from a BNP leader about BNP's stance, not about the fate of the accused or the convicts, but 'those involved in the war crimes trials' itself.
Khandker Mahbub, who incidentally was a prosecution lawyer of ICT in 1973, is now a defense lawyer and also wears two other hats: an adviser to BNP chairperson, which, in fact, comes secondary to his position as the vice chairman of the country's Bar Council, especially in matters pertain-
ing to the laws of the land. His statement goes far beyond his right to freedom of expression as a citizen of a democratic Republic. In fact, it is not only contempt of court and of the International Crimes Act, but is also tantamount to direct threat to the presiding judges of the ICT, the prosecutors, the witnesses, the leaders of the incumbent government and indirect intimidation of millions of justice-hungry citizens who hold memories of our 3 million martyrs and the values and virtues of our glorious War of Liberation dear to their hearts and whose hunger for justice has brought these auspicious moments to reality after a wait of 42 long years.
The BNP leader and Bar Council chief, aside from challenging the long-felt aspirations of millions, has stepped into no-no territory. The ICT, through its power of suo motu should be dealing with the comments, which by all standards are contemptuous of the highest order, to say the least.The Bangladesh Constitution in Article 108 states: "The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power, subject to law, to make an order for the investigation of or punishment for any contempt of itself." The constitution guaranteed the freedom of press in Article 19 subject to any reasonable restrictions as noted in Article 39 (2) that includes, among others, "contempt of court."
In their judgment on contempt of court against Arundhati Roy, the famous Indian writer, two justices of the Indian Supreme Court said that they had no option but to convict her because she had committed the offence of criminal contempt of the Court by "scandalising its authority with malafide intentions" and, further, had not shown "any repentance or remorse." Instead, they said, she had persistently and consistently tried to justify her action which, prima facie, was contemptuous of the Court.
In the words of the legendary former Canadian chief justice Brain Dickson: "Any act of expression calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority, is a contempt of court.” In a contempt ruling against Edmonton Sun, Justice M.A. Binder of Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in 2000 observed: "Freedom of expression and of the press will yield to safeguard the integrity of the course of justice."
The categorical statement of contempt by the Bar Council chief has aroused grave reactions among the members of Bangladeshi community in the social media as well. This is a serious constitutional matter and the nation's constitutional experts and its highest court should deal with it urgently. Or else the hawkish politicians in jurists' guise will be encouraged to perpetrate, in the name freedom of expression, whatever it takes to damage the institution of the judiciary and thereby weaken the faith of the public. If such an attempt is not prevented, disastrous consequences are likely to follow, resulting in a break in the nation's arduous journey towards establishing rule of law, the expected norm of any civilised society.
The writer is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh.