Senior lawyer TH Khan on Tuesday told the High Court that the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Treaty, signed by the Awami League government in 1997 to resolve the long-standing dispute, was a clear violation of the Constitution as former chief whip of the Parliament, Abul Hasnat Abdullah, had no authority to sign the treaty.
Article 145 (1) of the Constitution stipulates: 'All contracts and deeds made in exercise of the executive authority of the Republic shall be expressed to be made by the President, and shall be executed on behalf of the President by such person and in such manner as he may direct or authorise.'
Article 145 (1) of the Constitution stipulates: 'All contracts and deeds made in exercise of the executive authority of the Republic shall be expressed to be made by the President, and shall be executed on behalf of the President by such person and in such manner as he may direct or authorise.'
Referring to the constitutional provision, TH Khan told the High Court bench of Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed and Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury that the treaty was a 'one-man show' as Hasnat had signed the treaty at his own will, not on the President's direction.
TH Khan was making the argument as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the two writ petitions filed by a Supreme Court lawyer and a resident of the CHT, challenging the legality of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Treaty signed by the then Awami League government on 2 December, 1997.
He also questioned the legality of the word 'treaty'. He pointed out that a treaty can only be signed by two governments, 'but the CHT people were not a government'.
Quoting the High Court's verdict, which declared illegal the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution made through martial law regulations, Khan argued, 'The CHT Peace Treaty was illegal as it was not ratified by the Parliament.'
Quoting the High Court's verdict, which declared illegal the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution made through martial law regulations, Khan argued, 'The CHT Peace Treaty was illegal as it was not ratified by the Parliament.'
'The gazette notification on the treaty was not issued,' he added.
In reply to a query by the court, Khan said, 'The previous governments did not implement the treaty as it was contradictory to the Constitution.'
Replying to a question by the court on why the previous government had not scrapped the treaty as it violated the Constitution, Khan said, 'No government could deal with the matter as the CHT people were controlled by an Indian intelligence agency.'
In reply to a query by the court, Khan said, 'The previous governments did not implement the treaty as it was contradictory to the Constitution.'
Replying to a question by the court on why the previous government had not scrapped the treaty as it violated the Constitution, Khan said, 'No government could deal with the matter as the CHT people were controlled by an Indian intelligence agency.'
Quoting from Banglapedia, Bangladesh's first encyclopaedia, and the Pakistani Gazette (CHT division), Khan argued, 'Hilly people are not indigenous people because they have settled in our country after being evicted from Arakan in Myanmar and Assam in India, so their claim of being natives is not legal.'
'As Article 28 [discrimination on grounds of religion] and 29 [equality of opportunity in public service] of the Constitution are not applicable for the hilly people, the CHT Peace Treaty is ultra vires of the Constitution,' he further argued.
After the hearing, the court asked the petitioners' counsels, Moudud Ahmed and Abdur Razzaq, to reply to the government's and amicus curiae's arguments on March 23 when the hearing resumes.
After the hearing, the court asked the petitioners' counsels, Moudud Ahmed and Abdur Razzaq, to reply to the government's and amicus curiae's arguments on March 23 when the hearing resumes.
__._,_.___
