qamrul, mozammel�s comments on judiciary

Ministers violate constitution: SC

The Appellate Division yesterday said  that Food minister Md Qamrul Islam and of Liberation War Affairs minister AKM Mozammel Huq violated the Constitution by interfering  with dispensation of justice and committed contempt of court by passing derogatory remarks on the Chief Justice on a sub judice matter.
A seven-member bench of the Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice SK Sinha, came up with the observations during the hearing of a contempt of court rule issued by it earlier against the two ministers for their contemptuous comments about the judiciary.
“Both the ministers violated the Constitution by  flouting the verdict of the Appellate Division though Article 111 of the Constitution made it mandatory for all the citizens to follow the apex court verdicts,” the CJ said during the hearing .
“They (ministers) have not only undermined the chief justice but also trampled the entire judiciary. Slandering and interference with the judicial administration is contemptuous and a criminal offence. The punishment for such offences is same to that of a robber,” the SC observed.
‘Have not they breached the Oath?’ the Appellate Division asked lawyers of the ministers at one stage of the hearing.
Earlier in the morning, Qamrul and Mozammel offered unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for their ‘highly contemptuous comments’ about the judiciary and the chief justice.
They also promised that they would refrain from making any contemptuous comments about the judiciary in the future.
Later, the court adjourned the hearing till March 27 and asked the duo to appear before it in person on the day.
During the hearing, the apex court rejected Qamrul’s explanation and partially accepted Mozammel’s explanation.
Both the ministers entered the courtroom along with their lawyers, barrister Rafique Ul Huq and advocate Abdul Baset Majumder, at 8.44am.  The proceedings began at 9.09am.
Barrister Rafique Ul Huq moved on behalf

of liberation war affairs minister while advocate Abdul Baset Majumder for the food minister.
The cabinet members had to stand in the courtroom for about five minutes and they were allowed to sit down after their counsels pleaded to the court.
On request of court, advocate Abdul Baset Majumder read out the para 5 of his client’s explanation, in which food minister said that being a freedom fighter he delivered the speech out of emotion.  He also sought unconditional apology for these comments and pledged that he would not make any such comment in the future, Majumder added. Then the Chief Justice said, “When I was on a Nepal tour, I heard about the highly contemptuous comments made by the two ministers, then I talked with law minister about their ‘audacious comments’ and requested the law minister to inform the prime minister about the matter. I told the law minister to ask them (food and liberation war affairs minister) to offer apology though a press conference. Otherwise, the consequence would be serious for these comments.” The chief justice also said he had come to know that the prime minister expressed grave concern over their comments. At one stage of the hearing, the apex court asked Qamrul Islam to submit a fresh explanation at the next hearing as it felt that the one he gave was not good enough.
Syed Mamun Mahbub, one of Qamrul Islam's lawyers, later told reporters that the court had rejected Qamrul’s explanation and accepted Liberation War affairs minister AKM Mozammel Haque explanation partially.
The court also asked Qamrul and Mozammel Haque to appear before it in person with their explanation at the next hearing.
A seven-member bench of the Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice SK Sinha, fixed the fresh date in the presence of the two ministers, who had appeared before the court around 9am as directed. Their lawyers, barrister Rafique Ul Huq and advocate Abdul Baset Majumder, accompanied them.
The cabinet members had to stand in the courtroom for about five minutes after the proceedings began around 9.15am. They were allowed to sit down after their counsels pleaded to the court. On March 14, Qamrul and Mozammel Haque had offered unconditional apology to the court for their remarks. On March 8, the full bench of the SC's Appellate Division had asked the duo to explain by March 14 why “they should not be prosecuted” for the “highly contemptuous comments” against the judiciary. The top court gave the suo motu order before delivering the verdict on the appeal of war criminal and Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mir Quasem Ali. On February 23, during a hearing on Quasem’s appeal, the Chief Justice had expressed dissatisfaction over the performance of the prosecution and the investigation agency. In response, Qamrul remarked at a public function that the Chief Justice “was speaking the tune of the BNP-Jamaat and their lobbyists”. Mozammel Haque also commented that SK Sinha “should not deliver the verdict in Quasem’s appeal” and “should think whether he should continue as the Chief Justice”.

 

 

qamrul, mozammel�s comments on judiciary

Ministers violate constitution: SC

The Appellate Division yesterday said that Food minister Md Qamrul Islam and of Liberation War Affairs minister AKM Mozammel Huq violated the Constitution by interfering with dispensation of justice and committed contempt of court by passing derogatory remarks on the Chief Justice on a sub judice matter. A seven-member bench of the Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice SK Sinha, came up with the observations during the hearing of a contempt of court rule issued by it earlier against the two ministers for their contemptuous comments about the judiciary. Both the ministers violated the Constitution by flouting the verdict of the Appellate Division though Article 111 of the Constitution made it mandatory for all the citizens to follow the apex court verdicts, the CJ said during the hearing . They (ministers) have not only undermined the chief justice but also trampled the entire judiciary. Slandering and interference with the judicial administration is contemptuous and a criminal offence. The punishment for such offences is same to that of a robber, the SC observed. Have not they breached the Oath? the Appellate Division asked lawyers of the ministers at one stage of the hearing. Earlier in the morning, Qamrul and Mozammel offered unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for their highly contemptuous comments about the judiciary and the chief justice. They also promised that they would refrain from making any contemptuous comments about the judiciary in the future. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till March 27 and asked the duo to appear before it in person on the day. During the hearing, the apex court rejected Qamruls explanation and partially accepted Mozammels explanation. Both the ministers entered the courtroom along with their lawyers, barrister Rafique Ul Huq and advocate Abdul Baset Majumder, at 8.44am. The proceedings began at 9.09am. Barrister Rafique Ul Huq moved on behalf of liberation war affairs minister while advocate Abdul Baset Majumder for the food minister. The cabinet members had to stand in the courtroom for about five minutes and they were allowed to sit down after their counsels pleaded to the court. On request of court, advocate Abdul Baset Majumder read out the para 5 of his clients explanation, in which food minister said that being a freedom fighter he delivered the speech out of emotion. He also sought unconditional apology for these comments and pledged that he would not make any such comment in the future, Majumder added. Then the Chief Justice said, When I was on a Nepal tour, I heard about the highly contemptuous comments made by the two ministers, then I talked with law minister about their audacious comments and requested the law minister to inform the prime minister about the matter. I told the law minister to ask them (food and liberation war affairs minister) to offer apology though a press conference. Otherwise, the consequence would be serious for these comments. The chief justice also said he had come to know that the prime minister expressed grave concern over their comments. At one stage of the hearing, the apex court asked Qamrul Islam to submit a fresh explanation at the next hearing as it felt that the one he gave was not good enough. Syed Mamun Mahbub, one of Qamrul Islams lawyers, later told reporters that the court had rejected Qamruls explanation and accepted Liberation War affairs minister AKM Mozammel Haque explanation partially. The court also asked Qamrul and Mozammel Haque to appear before it in person with their explanation at the next hearing. A seven-member bench of the Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice SK Sinha, fixed the fresh date in the presence of the two ministers, who had appeared before the court around 9am as directed. Their lawyers, barrister Rafique Ul Huq and advocate Abdul Baset Majumder, accompanied them. The cabinet members had to stand in the courtroom for about five minutes after the proceedings began around 9.15am. They were allowed to sit down after their counsels pleaded to the court. On March 14, Qamrul and Mozammel Haque had offered unconditional apology to the court for their remarks. On March 8, the full bench of the SCs Appellate Division had asked the duo to explain by March 14 why they should not be prosecuted for the highly contemptuous comments against the judiciary. The top court gave the suo motu order before delivering the verdict on the appeal of war criminal and Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mir Quasem Ali. On February 23, during a hearing on Quasems appeal, the Chief Justice had expressed dissatisfaction over the performance of the prosecution and the investigation agency. In response, Qamrul remarked at a public function that the Chief Justice was speaking the tune of the BNP-Jamaat and their lobbyists. Mozammel Haque also commented that SK Sinha should not deliver the verdict in Quasems appeal and should think whether he should continue as the Chief Justice.