--- In dahuk@yahoogroups.com, "dilkhola" <dilkhola@...> wrote:
Dear All,
Some of the menatlly ill Awami-League and Indian boot-lickers
in the net, like Anu Engineer, Shamim Chowdhury (Who is in
Indian Embassy payroll in Washington DC) is creating "Ashare-
Golpo" like the above heading in the past few weeks, to save
Awami League thugs Torab Ali-Nanok-Azom-Taposh-Sahara and
above all their netri Sk. Hayena from the implication of
Pilkhana massacre.
Please read below to find the chronological event surrounding
Barrister Razzaque and how the neo-BAKSAL is going against all
the civililty as well as the domestic and international law and
showing thier old and ugly face of 1972-1975 BAKSAL period.
http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#07
(Friday, April 03, 2009)
Sideshows fail to mislead investigators
Sadeq Khan
James F. Moriarty, the U.S. Ambassador in Bangladesh sent a letter to Ms. Sahara Khatun, Minister of Home Affairs of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, on March 22, 2009. The letter read as follows: "Honourable Minister, I am writing to register my concerns regarding recent reports of restrictions being placed on the freedom of movement of individuals seeking to travel outside Bangladesh.
Specifically, in recent days I have been informed that Bangladesh Nationalist Party Standing Committee Member and Former Minister Shamsul Islam was prohibited from travelling to Thailand, where he was planning to receive medical treatment. Similarly, Bangladesh Jamaat Isiami Assistant Secretary General Barrister Abdur Razzaque was prohibited from travelling to Malaysia where his wife was planning to receive medical treatment. In both cases, the travellers were prohibited from departing at the airport by immigration officials.
While I respect the prerogative of the Government of Bangladesh to restrict the movement of individuals under certain circumstances, I am concerned about the lack of transparency in these cases. As far as I am aware, in neither case has the Government of Bangladesh provided the individuals in question with details regarding the basis for the denial of their right to travel in one case, the traveller has obtained a High Court order directing the Government to allow him to travel. ..... It would appear that these two cases constitute violations of freedom of movement and as such would be included in our next report on human rights practices in Bangladesh. I would appreciate any additional information which you could provide in these cases."
Copies of the letter were also officially forwarded to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.
War Crime Trial
The contents of the letter was made available to the press. The response of the Home Minister is not known, but the Law Minister, Barrister Shafique Ahmed held a press briefing the same day, March 22. He told newsmen: "The trial of the war criminals has not been started, but the preparatory process has begun and that is why the government has barred some persons, suspected of war crimes, from leaving the country."
Asked about the justification of denying the constitutional right of leaving and re-entering Bangladesh (Article 36) to eminent persons like Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojahid, Shamsul Islam and Barrister Abdur Razzaq, the Law Minister explained that under law, the government had the authority to impose reasonable restrictions in public interest, and quipped: "Why should anyone be barred from leaving country if there is no reason?"
Asked about the names of persons, suspected of war crimes, on whom the bar on travel has been imposed, Barrister Shafique said the number of persons and their names could not be made public right now.
Earlier January 30, Home Minister Sahara Khatun told reporters, "All relevant information about the war criminals has already been sent to the relevant places, and the authorities concerned have been ordered to guard all points so that the war criminals cannot flee the country."
Challenge to restriction
Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojahid (Secretary General of Jamaate Islami Party) and Shamsul Islam (Policy-making leader of Bangladesh Nationalist Party, both former ministers, did not take the trouble of challenging the restriction, the cause of which was not or could not be explained to them by the immigration officials executing the restriction. Barrister Abdur Razzaq (Assistant Secretary General of Jamaate Islami) never held any public office of the state. He decided to challenge the restriction. Demanding to know the cause of refusal by the airport immigration officer to stamp his passport for departure when he held valid ticket and documents, he was told on two occasions (March 1 and March 7) by the officer-in-charge (Immigration), Special Branch at the airport that there were "instructions from the top administration" not to let him leave, although there was "no written order." On March 8, Barrister Razzaq moved the High Court under Article 102 of the Constitution. The High Court issued show cause notices upon the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Director General, Immigration and Passports, the Inspector-General of Police, the Officer-in-Charge Zia International Airport, and the Officer-in-Charge (Immigration), Special Branch, Bangladesh Police, and passed an ad interim order dated March 8, the same day directing all of them to allow Barrister Razzaq to leave Bangladesh for Malaysia. By another order dated March 12 the High Court also directed the respondents to allow Mr Razzaq to visit Singapore as well to accompany his wife for medical treatment.
Court order flouted
On March 19, Mr and Mrs Razzaq went to the airport to catch the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 197 leaving at 0140 hours for Kuala Lampur. They were supposed to fly to Singapore thereafter. In spite of the Court's order, the Immigration Officer, on the instruction of the Officer-in-Charge (Immigration), Special Branch, Bangladesh Police at the Zia International Airport, refused to stamp his passport. Mr Razzaq showed them official copies of the two orders passed by the High Court on March 8 and 12. Ms Eliza Sharmin, the Officer-in-Charge (Immigration) said that she had received the Court's order but was unable to let him go because of an "instruction" from her higher authority. Barrister Razzaq warned that it would be contempt of Court. The Officer-in-Charge said: "I know that. But I have no other alternative." Barrister Razzaq wanted to speak to the Inspector-General of Police but was not allowed to do so. The Officer-in-Charge consistently - but very politely - requested Mr Razzaq to call off his journey although she said Mrs Razzaq (who had an appointment in a Singapore hospital at 2 pm Singapore time on March 19), was free to board the plane. Mr. and Mrs Razzaq proceeded to the Boarding Gate without their passports stamped but with Court order to allow departure. At the Boarding Gate, a Malaysian Airlines staffer was about to let them in when the Officer-in-Charge appeared there and said to the Malaysian Airlines staff "you cannot let a passenger get into the aircraft without completing the necessary immigration formalities. Mr. Razzaq's passport has not been stamped; therefore Malaysian Airlines cannot carry him lawfully." On such physical intervention, Barrister Razzaq called off his journey. Mrs Razzaq also refused to go without her husband.
Contempt notice
The same afternoon, March 19, Barrister Razzaq filed a contempt petition before the High Court against the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Officer-in-Charge (Immigration), Special Branch, Bangladesh Police, Zia international Airport. At the Court's request the Attorney General appeared before the Court.
But before the contempt petition came up for hearing on March 23, the Government jumped the queue by another malfeasance. On 21.3.2009, Government filed a criminal case against both Barrister and Mrs. Razzaq by lodging an ante-dated FIR (the FIR was dated 19.3.2009) with the Airport Police Station (Airport PS Case No. 88) implicating them in a case of assault, criminal intimidation and obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties. It is unbelievable that Barrister Razzaq or his sick wife were guilty of aggressive conduct. Barrister Razzaq, after he was called to the Bar at the Lincoln's Inn in 1980, had obtained assistantship under Sir Michael Hovers Q.C., Attorney General of the British Government, and thereafter under Lord Rawlinson Q.C., Solicitor General of the British Government. Returning to Bangladesh, he was enrolled Advocate of the High Court Division in 1988 and of the Appellate Division in 1993, obtaining the status of Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court in 2002. His carrier record is evidence of his sobriety, cool headedness and mild manners, apart from the professional dignity he carried from his five years of highly valued practice in the U.K.
Trumped-up charge
On 22.3.2009, Mr. and Mrs. Razzaq obtained anticipatory bail in connection with the criminal case filed by the Police. On the same day, Mr. and Mrs. Razzaq filed a Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 2022 of 2009) challenging the legality of the proceedings arising out of Airport PS Case No. 88 dated 19.3.2009. On 23.3.2009, a Division Bench of the High Court Division was pleased to issue Rule and stay all proceedings arising out of the Airport PS Case dated 19.3.2009.
On 22.3.2009, Mr. Razzaq also filed another Contempt Petition (Contempt Petition No. 59 of 2009) against the person who lodged the FIR alleging that the FIR was lodged only to intimidate him which amounts to obstructing the course of justice. At the same time, he filed an application in Contempt Petition No. 56 of 2009 praying for a direction upon Ms. Eliza Sharmin, the officer-in-charge, Immigration (Special Branch) to disclose, on affidavit, the identity and address of the person(s) who instructed her to prevent Mr. Razzaq from leaving the country in violation of the orders of the High Court Division. On 22.3.2009, Mr. Razzaq also filed an application to restrain the authorities from taking any action and/or issuing instruction/directions to prevent him from leaving Bangladesh.
The application and the Contempt Petition were to come up for hearing before the High Court Division on 5/4/2009. All these matters came out in newspapers.
British Lord's protest
Barrister Razzaq, who had won several public interest litigations against adverse arguments by senior heavyweights (such as ETV irregular licensing case, the injunction on pipeline export of gas and oil, the annulment of Public Safety Act, 2000, etc.) had well-wishers overseas as well. On March 21, Lord Eric Avebury, the Human Rights Champion of the British House of Lords had also written to the Bangladesh High Commissioner in the U.K. as follows: Dear High Commissioner, I attach an article from February 20's Daily Star, about prominent members of the Jmaat-e-Islami being stopped from leaving the country, and a separate note about the case of Mr Abdur Razzaq, who obtained a court order but was still unable to travel abroad.
As you know, the right to leave one's own country is guaranteed by Article 12(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, subject only to restrictions provided by law or are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. The High Court order shows that there is no law permitting the government to stop people travelling out of the country, though some of the persons mentioned may be subject to bail conditions.
Would you please let me know what are the reasons for stopping each of these persons from travelling, and where it is not a matter of bail conditions, how this action by the government can be reconciled with their obligations under the ICCPR?"
That letter was also on the Foreign Office desk when the F.I.R. was cooked up to be lodged against Mr. & Mrs. Razzaq.
Peelkhana massacre implicated
On March 25, Law Minister Shafique Ahmed back-tracked from any responsibility about acts of prevention of free citizens from leaving the country without any written government order, assigning any reason or without any legal process. He said the matter of departure of any citizen for travel abroad does not fall under the jurisdiction of his ministry; the law ministry does not have any list of persons prevented from travelling abroad. It is for the relevant authority of the government to explain.
The government, however, went on to muddy water on the issue. On March 28, a notice was served on Barrister Razzaq by CID Assistant Police Superintendent Abdul Kahhar Akhand, who is also the Investigating Officer of the Peelkhana massacre case, asking the former to come to the CID headquarters on March 30 to answer some questions to help investigations. Fearing it to be a trap to legalise the illegal bar on his intended travel abroad (out of political vendetta of the ruling party?), Barrister Razzaq filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the CID notice with the vacation bench of the High Court. The Court accepted the writ petition for regular hearing when the High Court opens on April 5. The Court also granted the petitioner anticipatory bail up to that date, and directed the CID not to harass or arrest the petitioner or seize his passport, and to question the petitioner with due care about his dignity on any matter relating to the Peelkhana massacre case.
Questioning by CID
In the event, Barrister Razzaq was questioned at the CID headquarters on March 30 strictly abiding by the Court's directive (there was no further attempt to bypass judicial censure). CID officials told newsmen after three and a half hour-long interrogation of the lawyer-politician: "Many people were interrogated for the sake of investigation. Many others, including politicians, will be questioned, if needed."
After his long questioning by the CID, Barrister Razzaq told newsmen the investigators only asked him about his whereabouts during the February 25-26 mutiny, about his education, family and overseas trips, and examined his passport. The CID officials also took his contact address and telephone numbers.
Barrister Razzaq said he had requested the CID officials not to harass anyone on political ground, and carry out a proper investigation to bring the criminals to justice.
Why and who in the government did (possibly a presumptuous underling indulged by informal delegation of higher authority) commit contempt of court order in the first place and proceed to institute a frivolous case? Some take the patent view that the wheel of executive authority was derailed by the penchant of absolute power falsely deduced from the awareness of overwhelming ruling party majority in parliament. The institution of the criminal case was but a poor damage-control measure in facing the resulting contempt proceedings. This is the thinking of Barrister Ajmahul Hossain QC who is moving the writ petitions for Barrister Razzaq.
Indian media spins
But others take a different, indeed more sinister view, taking into account broad hints being repeatedly dropped by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina that evil forces "wanted to foil the December 29 poll verdict and push the country towards a civil war by creating anarchy," by Peelkhana carnage. When such hints are read in conjunction with persistent propaganda in the Indian media, quoting official sources of Indian Intelligence who claim high perfection in electronic intelligence-gathering, that the mutiny has been funded and instigated by Jamaate Islami and masterminded by the BNP leaders Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury (Indian TV network CNN-IBN, 26 February), the matter assumes sinister proportion indeed in its undisguised attempt to misdirect the course of investigation. The propaganda campaign in Indian media has continued over a month culminating in a weighty newspaper editorial which authoritatively claimed that the 25 February massacre was executed jointly by a small band of mutineers "with direct links with Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Jamat-e-Islami who had been smuggled into Peelkhana in a grey SUV that morning and a select group of young BDR recruits, inducted during the last years of
Khaleda-Jamat rule. .......
The BNP-Jamat masterminds so successfully camouflaged their political agenda by highlighting the genuine grievances of the jawans against their officers that initially ordinary people and even the media overwhelmingly supported the mutineers' just cause. Processions were even taken out in old Dhaka hailing the mutiny as Sipahi janata bhai bhai to garner popular support." (Manash Ghosh, The Statesman, Calcutta).
Manipulating investigation
The fact remains, the processions were brought out by Torab Ali, the local Awami League leader, who has now been definitely implicated in case no 65 (kha) 09 of Lalbagh thana in connection with the BDR mutiny. The media spins are thus proving counter productive.
Incidentally, the government inexplicably filed an appeal against the High Court order not to harass or arrest Barrister Razzaq or seized his passport until the regular hearing of his writ petition on April 5. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal. All told, the government (or granting it the benefit of doubt, some influential people within the administration) appear desperate to manipulate rather than allow fair investigations.
--- In dahuk@yahoogroups.com, "M.belayet hossain" <belayet_faith@> wrote:
>
>
>
> Clarification
>
>
> Jamaat-e-Islami's Assistant Secretary General Abdur Razzaq, in a clarification to a news report titled "'Conversation' with Mutineers, Razzaq quizzed' published yesterday in The Daily Star, said that the report saying that the CID quizzed him regarding conversations he had with BDR personnel during the mutiny was totally untrue.
> In the clarification, Razzaq said the CID investigators at the headquarters did not ask him any questions regarding any alleged 'telephone conversation' but asked whether he has a mobile phone and asked for its number.
> Razzaq also said that he never had any conversations with any mutineers on February 25-26 or any other days before or after.
> The CID officials summoned the Jamaat leader on March the CID headquarters on March 30 in connection with the BDR mutiny.
>
>
>
>
> The Daily Star, 1 April 2009
>
--- End forwarded message ---
------------------------------------
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/