http://www.somewhereinblog.net/blog/Habibfprblog/29566199
http://www.amarblog.com/habib/posts/145408
From: Shahadat Hussaini <shahadathussaini@hotmail.com>
To: Bangladeshi American <bangladeshiamericans@googlegroups.com>; Khobor Yahoo <khabor@yahoogroups.com>; Alochona Groups <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:49 PM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Prof.Ghulam Azam's citizenship: Who granted it?
Prof.Ghulam Azam's citizenship: Who granted it?
Monday, 13 February 2012 01:05
Ghulam Azam's citizenship: Who granted it?It was none other than Justice Muhammed Habibur Rahman who issued the verdict in favour of restoring Ghulam Azam's citizenship.There remains a controversy as to who restored the citizenship of Ghulam Azam, now incarcerated, and awaiting trial for crimes against humanity. The present government and ruling party have always castigated the late President Ziaur Rahman and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia for this. It was during Ziaur Rahman's rule that Ghulam Azam returned to Bangladesh and during Khaleda Zia's rule that his citizenship was restored.While Awami League and its like-minded allies, as a political ploy, like to hold Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia responsible for restoring Ghulam Azam's citizenship, actually it was not they who were the ones to bring this about. History indicates that they were both against the restoration of his citizenship.It was the Supreme Court that restored Ghulam Azam's citizenship. Interestingly, it was none other than the well-respected and renowned former Chief Advisor of the caretaker government, Justice Muhammed Habibur Rahman, who passed that much discussed and debated verdict. In 1994 he was the senior most Judge of the Appellate Division after the Chief Justice. So if one studies the facts, actually neither Zia for Khaleda, not even BNP, can be held responsible for giving Ghulam Azam back his citizenship.Ghulam Azam was made the Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami in East Pakistan in 1969. He was in this post till 1971 and, politically, he was opposed to the Liberation War of Bangladesh. He and his party sided with the Pakistan authorities at the time. Before Bangladesh won victory on December 16, 1971, Ghulam Azam left the country on November 22 and went to Pakistan. Bangladesh was independent, but he did not return.On April 28, 1973, the citizenship of 38 pro-Pakistani political persons, including Ghulam Azam, was cancelled. Ghulam Azam then left Pakistan and went to stay in London.On July 11, 1978, during the rule of President Ziaur Rahman, Ghulam Azam came to Bangladesh as a Pakistani citizen. In the book Ekatturer Ghatak O Dalalra Ke Kothai (edited by Dr. Ahmad Sharif, Kazi Nuruzzaman and Shahriar Kabir), it is written, "...On January 18, 1976, a press note of the Home Ministry stated that if anyone wanted their citizenship restored, they should apply accordingly. Ghulam Azam immediately applied for citizenship from London. He applied again in 1977 and 1978. In 1978 he came to Bangladesh on a Pakistani passport. He was given a visa on "humanitarian grounds", to visit his ailing mother.He has been living in his Maghbazar house since then. Even after his visa expired, the government couldn't expel him from the country."After Zia died, Justice Sattar came to power. General Ershad pushed him aside to take over power. During the nine years of his rule, Ghulam Azam had applied for citizenship, but this was not granted.After Ershad was toppled in 1990, the Khaleda Zia-led BNP government came to power in 1991. At that time Jahanara Imam led a movement against Ghulam Azam and formed a People's Court to try him. When things got out of hand, Khaleda Zia's government arrested Ghulam Azam and sent him to jail. So he lived in the country from 1978 to 1994, a long 16 years, with neither visa nor citizenship.Ghulam Azam submitted a writ to the High Court, requesting for his citizenship to be restored. According to Dhaka Law Report (45 DLR 1993), this was Writ Petition No. 1316 of 1992. In the Prof. Ghulam Azam vs Government of Bangladesh and others, the applicant's lawyers were AR Yusuf, Kurban Ali, Abdur Razzak and Nawab Ali. On the government side there was Attorney General Advocate Aminul Haque and Deputy Attorney General Hassan Arif.The judges of this case were Justice Mohammed Ismail Uddin Sarkar, Justice Badrul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Anwarul Haque Chowdhury. In 1992 the High Court passed a verdict in favour of Ghulam Azam. Justice Mohammad Ismail Uddin Sarkar, who gave the dissenting judgment held as follows: "except some news items and one photograph showing that the Petitioner met General Tikka Khan or General Yahya Khan, there is nothing to directly implicate the petitioner in any of the atrocities alleged to have been perpetrated by the Pakistani Army or their associates- the Razakars, the Al Badars or the Al Shams. Except the Petitioner was hobnobbing with the Military Junta during the War of Liberation, we do not find any thing that the Petitioner was in any way directly involved in perpetuating the alleged atrocities during the war of independence."In 1993 the government lodged an appeal with the Appellate Division (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1993) against the High Court verdict in favour of Ghulam Azam. The judges in the Appellate Division were Justice Muhammed Habibur Rahman, Justice ATM Afzal, Justice Mustafa Kamal and Justice Latifur Rahman. The author judge was Justice Muhammed Habibur Rahman. After a long hearing, on June 22, 1994, the verdict of that writ restored Ghulam Azam's citizenship. Since then he has been residing here as a citizen of Bangladesh.During the hearing of this case, Attorney General Aminul Haque pointed out that Ghulam Azam was a Pakistani citizen and held a Pakistani passport. He said that Ghulam Azam had been a collaborator of the Pakistan Army in 1971 and had been involved in all sorts of crimes for which his Bangladeshi citizenship had been cancelled. That was why, he concluded, Ghulam Azam could not be given citizenship. In response, the judges point out that he was a citizen of this country by birth. His forefathers had been of this country. Even if he lived in another country and took that citizenship, that still would not affect his citizenship in Bangladesh. As for his passport, they said that a passport was a temporary document, nothing permanent.In the verdict restoring Ghulam Azam's citizenship, the honourable judge wrote, "...[excerpts] It must be stated here that the case made out by respondent No. 1 has not been controverted by specific denial by the Government-applicant. As a matter of fact no material could be brought on record by the appellant to show that the respondent really intended to leave his permanent residence and voluntarily acquired citizenship of Pakistan by any positive act and thereby he ceased to be a permanent resident of Bangladesh. The intention must be an intention to reside permanently or for an indefinite period, If a person goes to a country for employment, business, or to stay there for some other purposes, he will retain his permanent residence, i.e. his domicile of origin. The domicile of origin is thus a concept of law and clings to a man until he abandons it. But if it can be shown that the person has permanently settled down in a country and has established his permanent home and residence with his family and children, then of course, the matter will be different. By mere place of residence itself without any animus to acquire a permanent home or residence the permanent residence or domicile is never lost. For example, if the respondent would have purchased a house in Pakistan or estate coupled with long residence therein and non-retention of any home in his birth place it might be sufficient to prove the intention to acquire a new permanent home. It is on record that the respondent's wife and children are conti8nuously living in Bangladesh since before and after liberation of Bangladesh. Every person acquires his domicile of origin (permanent residence) at his birth, which continues until he has validly acquired domicile of choice. Thus even though a person leaves the country of his origin with intention of never returning to it, his domicile of origin in that country is never lost, until he has actually settled in another country with the intention of making that country his permanent home. In other words, the domicile of origin is not lost by mere temporary abandonment. Domicile of origin acquired subsists until it is replaced by a fresh domicile of choice. Hence residence in foreign country, going to imprisonment as a political refugee, or as invalid for change of climate or for service or diplomatic missions, studies and/or for business is not sufficient for acquisition of permanent residence. The permanent residence continues until a person had voluntarily relinquished and acquired a permanent residence in any country. [46 DLR (AD) 1994].Anyway, after this there was mud-slinging in the political arena over the issue of Ghulam Azam's citizenship. Awami League and allies blame Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia for this. The political blame game completely hid the legal angle of the matter. The judge who actually issued the verdict, Justice Muhammed Habibur Rahman, has never spoken on this head.The 89-year-old Ghulam Azam now awaits trial. Khaleda Zia and her party say they too want the trial of war criminals or crimes against humanity. However, they insist that this must not be tainted by any political motives. The trial process must be acceptable internationally.
__._,_.___
