The larger bench of Justices M Enayetur Rahim, M Moazzam Husain and Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque set the new date after Jamaat’s lawyer Barrister Abdur Razzaq pleaded for time.
The bench was formed on Sunday to hear the writ seeking termination of Jamaat’s registration.
Barrister Tania Amir represented the petitioners on Monday.
On Sunday, after an initial hearing on the writ, the special bench of Justices M Moazzam Husain and Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque said it was sending the case for hearing to a larger bench after observing that it needed more detailed consideration of constitutional and legal issues.
Chief Justice Md Muzammel Hossain formed the larger bench on Sunday afternoon attaching Justice M Enayetur Rahim to the special bench.
The High Court, in a rule on Jan 27, 2009, had asked the authorities to explain why the registration of the party would not be a violation of the existing laws in response to the writ petition filed by Bangladesh Tarikat Federation Secretary General Syed Rezaul Haque Chandpuri, Zaker Party Secretary General Munsi Abdul Latif, Sammilita Islami Jote President Ziaul Haque and 22 others.
The petition questioned Jamaat’s registration as a political outfit alleging violation of the legal authority and provisions of the Representation of the People Order, under which a party needs to be registered.
The High Court bench of Justices Mohammad Abdul Hye and ABM Khairul Haque had sought responses from Jamaat chief Motiur Rahman Nizami, Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed and the Election Commission Secretary within six weeks.
Later, the rule was shifted to the bench headed by Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury. Amidst the hearing, jurisdiction of the bench was changed.
Barrister Tania Amir told bdnews24.com: “We received no answers from the defendants since 2009… However during the hearing, Khandaker Mahbub Hossain and Barrister Abdur Razzaq had responded for Jamaat.”
The petition argued that Jamaat could not be enlisted due to four reasons.
Firstly, they do not believe that people were the source of all powers thereby refuting the absolute authority of the chosen representatives for making laws; secondly, through activities and beliefs, ‘Jamaat was a communal party’ though no law under Representation of the People Order, allows a communal party to register; thirdly, no women or non-Muslim could be part of the Jamaat hierarchy, although the law states that political parties should be free from discrimination; and fourthly, Jamaat has branches globally and they themselves are formed from a foreign (India) branch. The law prohibits any political outfit with foreign branch to register.
“The Jamaat's Indonesia chief has been convicted for a bomb explosion , they (Jamaat) are involved in terrorism also in Pakistan,” Tania Amir said.
Petitioners brought the matter up again in light of the recent demands seeking a ban on Jamaat.
“Jamaat may not be banned in line with this writ petition, but a verdict will take it one step ahead… We are highlighting the fact that Jamaat have no right to register… Maybe Jamaat is also to be held responsible for other crimes,” Amir said.
The lawyer maintained actions should be taken against Jamaat for crimes against humanity during the Liberation War under the International Crimes Tribunals Act. Steps could also be taken under the Anti-terrorism Act, 2009, she said.
“These are not to be seen as either or… Actions should be taken under both.”
The government had amended ICT laws recently allowing scope to try an organisation for war crimes.
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন