Justice Nozrul Islam Chowdhury, a retired High Court (HC) judge, has withdrawn from the defence team of war crimes convict and Jamaat leader Mir Quasem Ali, who has appealed against his death sentence in the Supreme Court (SC). “Two other senior lawyers will conduct the case proceedings in the apex court. I want to withdraw myself from this case,” Justice Chowdhury told a five-member Appellate Division bench headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, as it started the third day’s hearing into the appeal yesterday. The next day of hearing of the appeal is today. Later, Justice Chowdhury told reporters: “I was forced to withdraw myself from these case proceedings due to the tremendous hostile environment.”
Earlier, the former judge had faced flak from various quarters, including the Chief Justice, attorney general Mahbubey Alam and law minister Anisul Huq, for taking up the defence of a convicted war criminal. The attorney general had said the retired HC judge’s involvement in the war crimes case was unethical. “This is because Justice Chowdhury is still receiving state facilities by living in a government residence and using a car and gunman provided by the government,” he said.
Even the Chief Justice had pointed out that sitting and retired judges who enjoy state facilities should abide by a code of conduct. The law minister echoed this view at the Secretariat on February 11. Justice Chowdhury, however, maintained that he had done no wrong. “As a retired judge and a lawyer, I have the right to take part in the appeal hearing. My practising law is not against the Constitution and ethics,” he added. He further said, “I retired on December 12, 2015. Since then, I have been representing some cases in the apex court. I have also stood against the attorney general in several other cases (after retirement), but no one questioned my moral standing or legality then. I stood for Mir Quasem in accordance with the law and constitutional provisions.” Under Section 99 of Article 2A (1) of the Constitution, a retired HC judge can practise as a lawyer in the Appellate Division.
On his part, the attorney general welcomed Justice Chowdhury’s decision. Mahbubey Alam also clarified that there was no government pressure on the former judge to withdraw from the appeal hearing of Mir Quasem Ali. On other hand, a press release by Mir Quasem Ali’s wife Khandaker Ayesha Khatun alleged that Justice Chowdhury’s withdrawal from the case was due to state intervention. “Soon after he took part in the hearing of the appeal, attorney general Mahbubey Alam started personal attacks against him so that he would withdraw. The law minister also followed the attorney general in this regard,” the release said. “We apprehend getting justice following indecent state intervention in the appeal hearing,” it added.
Also, yesterday, Supreme Court lawyer Eunus Ali Akond filed a writ petition in the High Court, seeking restrictions on retired judges from practising law in the Appellate Division and a scrapping of the Constitution’s provision that permitted them to do so.
Akond said that the Constitution, drafted in 1972, had restricted retired HC judges from practising law in the apex court. But an amendment (Section 33 of the 15th amendment) in 1978 had permitted retired HC judges to practise. He pointed out that two retired HC judges—Justice Nozrul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Shahidul Islam—are practising in the SC although they are enjoying state facilities, which is against the Constitution of 1972.
“I will move the court for hearing the petition next week,” Akond said.