The Supreme Court (SC) today upheld a High Court order that disqualified seven candidates, mostly from BNP, from contesting in the general election slated for December 30.
Chamber Judge of Appellate Division Justice Md Nuruzzaman passed “no order” on separatewrit petitions filed by the candidates seeking stay on the HC order.
The six BNP candidates are: Fazlur Rahmanfor Rajshahi-1, Faridul Kabir Talukder for Jamalpur-4, Abdul Majid for Jhenidah-2, Abu Sayeed Chand for Rajshahi-6,Nadim Mustafafor Rajshahi-5 and Khandaker Abu Ashfaq for Dhaka-1.
The other candidate is Mahmud Hasan Suman (independent) for Myemensingh-1.
Following separate writ petitions,the HC recently stayed the Election Commission’s decision that allowed them to contest the election.
Writ petitioner’s lawyer advocate Shah ManjurulHaq told reporters that the candidates cannot run the polls following today’s order.
The Supreme Court (SC) today upheld a High Court order that disqualified seven candidates, mostly from BNP, from contesting in the general election slated for December 30.
Chamber Judge of Appellate Division Justice Md Nuruzzaman passed “no order” on separatewrit petitions filed by the candidates seeking stay on the HC order.
The six BNP candidates are: Fazlur Rahmanfor Rajshahi-1, Faridul Kabir Talukder for Jamalpur-4, Abdul Majid for Jhenidah-2, Abu Sayeed Chand for Rajshahi-6,Nadim Mustafafor Rajshahi-5 and Khandaker Abu Ashfaq for Dhaka-1.
The other candidate is Mahmud Hasan Suman (independent) for Myemensingh-1.
Following separate writ petitions,the HC recently stayed the Election Commission’s decision that allowed them to contest the election.
Writ petitioner’s lawyer advocate Shah ManjurulHaq told reporters that the candidates cannot run the polls following today’s order.
Related News
Body:
Alleging mass discrimination to push it out of election, major political opposition Jatiya Oikyafront says it is now depending on the vote of the people.
“It's too apparent, the arrangement is complete to oust Oikyafront from the election,” Dr Kamal Hossain, key leader of the alliance, said in a press statement.
He alleged that the government had made “the arrangement” by pulling strings of the administration, judiciary, law enforcers, goons and the Election Commission.
“At this point, the people's vote is our hope. Voters never made a mistake in the past and they never will,” Kamal said.
He hoped that people would unite and overcome all challenges to appear for voting at the centres during the election on Sunday.
Meanwhile, expressing concern over Kamal's safety, the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) yesterday offered to provide security for him.
Kamal, also the convener of Jatiya Oikyafront, however said he will seek police security only if he feels the need for it.
Some DMP mid rank officials went to Kamal's chamber in Dhaka's Motijheel to discuss “security issues” around 12:10pm yesterday.
Prior to the meeting, several police teams took position in front of the chamber.
The meeting took place a day after a Jatiya Oikyafront delegation, led by Kamal, walked out of a meeting with Chief Election Commissioner KM Nurul Huda following a heated exchange over the role of police during electioneering.
After meeting with the DMP, Kamal told reporters that the police officials said they would take security measures for him at both his house and chamber if needed.
“They even said they would provide transport security,” Kamal said.
Even though the DMP Commissioner Asaduzzaman Mia was supposed to meet Kamal, he could not go due to some other commitment and sent his apologies, he added.
Deputy Commissioner of Motijheel Division Anwar Hossain claimed that Kamal has expressed satisfaction over the security measures taken for him by law enforcers.
“We're here as part of our regular duty. We had an open discussion and wanted to know if he [Kamal] has any observations regarding his security and he said he'll inform us over phone if he notices anything,” Anwar said.
Responding to a question on whether the alliance would stay in the election, Kamal said, “We have to hold on to this. So that they [rivals] cannot say that we moved away. This is our right. Why should we move away? If they make it impossible at the end of the day, then people will see.”
He also said, “The government's actions are casting doubt regarding the credibility and fairness of the polls.”
Meanwhile Bangladesh Police Service Association protested a comment about police made by Kamal during Tuesday's meeting with the CEC.
“His comment was motivated, objectionable and inconsiderate,” they said in a statement.
Kamal, at the meeting, had said some police officials were “acting like beasts".
Body:
The families of two teenagers killed in Mohammadpur during a clash of Awami League factions ahead of the general election have been robbed of justice.
The family members of one of the victims said police submitted the final report in the case without talking to them. The report mentioned no clash even though it was widely covered by the media at that time. It termed the incident an “accident”.
Councillor Tarequzzaman Rajib of ward-33 also threatened the father of one of the victims not to file a murder case, they said.
A case was filed after the November 10, 2018, incident and the father of one of the teens was made the plaintiff.
The father maintains he did not file the case and that the signature on the case document could not be his since he is illiterate. He said Councillor Rajib put a gun to his head and told him to do as he said after the incident.
The families opened up to this paper only after Rajib was arrested this week.
On the morning of November 10, 2018, a procession of vehicles, largely comprised of flatbeds, with supporters of AL leader Sadek Khan was going towards the AL Dhanmondi office to buy nomination paper for Sadek’s candidacy in the polls.
Mohammad Sujon, 19, and Arif Hossain, 14, were on one of the pickup trucks when the procession was attacked allegedly by the men of rival AL leader and then lawmaker Jahangir Kabir Nanak.
During the melee Sujon and Arif fell off the vehicle and the driver, trying to avoid the brick chunks being hurled at the pickup, reversed and ran the two over, according to case documents, news reports, witness accounts, and statements of the families.
Sujan and Arif died in hospital.
Arif’s father Faruk Hossain was taken to a community centre in Mohammadpur when he was on his way to the hospital. He was confined there for 12 hours by Rajib’s men, Faruk told The Daily Star.
Late at night, Rajib, reportedly Nanak’s ally, at the community centre told Faruk to go to the police station to talk about getting the body of his son.
Faruk then went to the police station, gave his details, and told the officials there what he knew about the incident. He had no idea that police were filing a case making him the plaintiff. The police officials there asked him to identify the body at the Suhrawardy hospital, Faruk said.
On his way to the hospital from the police station, two men stopped him near Shia Masjid and took him to Rajib’s home.
Rajib told him at gunpoint to do as he said regarding the matter, Faruk told The Daily Star.
“You wouldn’t get anything if you file a murder case. Instead, you will be harassed and face the same consequences as your son. You are from Lalmonhon of Bhola and so am I. Do what I say. You will get a good compensation,” Faruk quoted Rajib as saying.
Faruk eventually identified his son’s body the next day.
Faruk said, “After the incident, I thought it was police who were the plaintiff in the case.
“This is my NID, sir. See, I can’t sign,” Faruk showed his NID to this correspondent which had his thumb print.
Faruk said not a single police officer talked to him about the investigation since then.
Sujon’s uncle Md Riaz told The Daily Star last night that the police never talked to them either.
He said councillor Rajib had promised them compensation and jobs for family members but he never delivered.
Sujon’s family did not know that the final report was submitted. They heard it first from The Daily Star correspondent.
After “investigating” the case for 11 months, police submitted the final report terming the incident an “accident”.
Police had arrested convener of Jubo League’s Adabar Thana unit Arifur Rahman Tuhin in connection with leading the attack but in the final report police said they found no evidence of Tuhin’s involvement.
Rajib, on behalf of then MP Nanak, had given Arif’s family Tk 30,000 and Sujon’s family Tk 25,000 as burial cost.
After the incident, AL General Secretary Obaidul Quader said the prime minister directed the authorities concerned to submit a probe report over the incident within two days.
Whoever is found involved would be given exemplary punishment, he had said, adding that the prime minister wanted to know “who destroyed the peaceful election environment”.
Sub-Inspector Mukul Ranjan of Mohammadpur police station, investigation officer (IO) of the case, said they submitted the final report of the case in the first week of this month as they could not find any evidence or witnesses.
Police also could not identify the pickup truck and its driver.
In the final report, police said the two factions of the ruling party came “face to face” near Mohammadi Homes Ltd on November 10 when the unidentified driver reversed in a hurry and could not see what was behind him. This led to the two getting run over.
The SI in his investigation found no evidence of the clash. He only said the two faction came “face to face”. The media, however, had extensive coverage of the incident.
They reported that the attackers, armed with hammers, sharp weapons and brick chunks, swooped on the procession of vehicles.
The IO said said Faruk did not know what had actually happened and had “filed the case” based on hearsay.
Taking to this newspaper, the SI claimed that he did not find anything in CCTV footage and no local wanted to be a witness.
Asked why the IO never contacted Faruk, the IO first claimed that he had contacted him but later said they could not reach him.
The IO claimed that Faruk had indeed filed the case.
At one stage of the conversation with this correspondent, the IO said he had written the final report with direction from a superior officer of Tejgaon Division Police.
Anisur Rahman, deputy commissioner (Tejgaon division) of Dhaka Metropolitan Police, told The Daily Star that he had no knowledge about the development of the case as he joined the division only a few months ago.
“I will have to see the documents,” he added.
In November last year, Nanak said he had nothing to do with the attack on the procession.
Sadek had said that he did not want to blame anyone and demanded a proper investigation.
The Daily Star could not reach Nanak and Sadek for comments over the last few days.
Body:
Having been a journalist since 1972 and an editor-publisher since 1993, it saddens me deeply to see some editors, instead of embellishing, strengthening, and bringing more honour and dignity to their position, are doing the exact opposite: bringing shame, disrepute, and indignity by acting as public relations officers (PROs) of their owners.
Editorship is, no doubt, a job. However, far more importantly, it is a position of public trust. It is on that trust that the credibility of a particular media outlet depends, which, at the end of the day, determines its success. An editor must adhere to the fundamental ethics of journalism: truth, objectivity, honesty, and a complete absence of bias. Every story must be fact-based, verified by multiple sources, and the person or the institution being written about be given a chance to respond. Yes, proprietors may, and can and sometimes do, have an agenda of their own, but it is the editor's duty to protect his/her institution from gross misuse.
A prerequisite of being an editor—qualities far more important than his/her ability to write, edit, direct, lead, brief reporters, have a nose for stories, etc—is to have sufficient self-respect, personal courage, and dignity to never to allow the media under his control to be used to spread lies and hatred, defame, and falsely malign. When a proprietor forces an editor to publish something, the latter must ensure two things: one, that it is fact-based; and, two, that the other side is given a chance to respond. If all his/her efforts fail, he/she should resign and go public to show how he/she tried to save journalism from being exploited. That is how the editorial institution is built and the public respect for it grows.
It is not uncommon for proprietors and editors to have political leanings. But that should be in the opinion section and should never cloud reporting, which should only be fact-based and adhere to the fundamental ethics of journalism.
A proprietor can own anything permitted by law. But there is a difference between owning a shoe factory and a pharmaceutical company. As the owner of the former, he/she can experiment with practically anything: design, colour, material, shape, etc. But in the case of the latter, the owner must totally and completely submit to the professional management and allow complete freedom to operate the factory according to all scientific specifications. Can an owner tell a doctor how to treat a patient or which medicine to prescribe for which malady? Similarly, the media must be run by professional journalists. An owner must allow total independence of the professionals, led by the editor, to run a media establishment in an unbiased and fact-based manner.
The purpose of this column is to raise the issue of owner-driven journalism versus professional journalism, a PRO-editorship versus professional editorship.
Let us remember with pride that only two professions are given protection in any democratic country's constitution: the judiciary and mass media. Why? Because experience has shown that an independent judiciary acts as a pillar of democracy, and free media serves the essential purpose of assuring accountability and transparency of the governance process.
What I write below—without mentioning the names of either the newspapers or their editors—is not aimed at shaming journalists or fellow editors, but at raising the issue of how we are destroying the editorial institution and thereby bringing disrepute and ignominy to our highly esteemed profession.
On February 23, three newspapers—two Bangla and one English—published the same report, with the same headline, "Prothom Alo, Daily Star: The 'masterminds' behind plot to eliminate Begum Zia from politics," referring to the events that occurred in 2007—18 years ago. What sort of journalism is it when the same text—word for word—is published in multiple newspapers, each claiming it to be written by their own "special correspondent"? What does it say about the "editor's" authority in deciding on content? Where does such content originate from, what is the process of its verification, and what leads editors to carry such content without any explanation to its readers? This is when editors relinquish their authority and become PROs of their media owners.
The story line is: Prothom Alo and The Daily Star masterminded the ouster of Khaleda Zia from politics. The reports begin like this, "In 2007, a blueprint was devised to destroy democracy in Bangladesh and depoliticise the country. One of the key architects of the blueprint was the Prothom Alo and The Daily Star group. The two newspapers not only played (a) key role in formulating the plan but also engaged in relentless smear campaigns to eliminate BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia from politics."
The origin of the story is a press conference held by Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, the then secretary general of BNP, which was covered by all newspapers and TV stations at the time. We were able to gather the following few: "Khaleda Zia baad" by Ittefaq; "Khaleda Zia out" by Sangbad; "BNP's reform initiative keeping Khaleda Zia out" (translated) by Inquilab; "Proposal to reduce the power of BNP chairperson" (translated) by Naya Diganta; "BNP reform plan shows door to Khaleda" by The Bangladesh Observer; and "BNP's reform proposals" (translated) by Janakantha. The reports of the three newspapers singled us out and did not mention that all others newspapers published the same story. We had similar heading and content as the others.
What is striking is that this very line of propaganda was followed by the fallen regime, which is now being repeated by these three papers. The Daily Star and Prothom Alo—because we spoke truth to power—were accused by Sheikh Hasina and Awami League ministers and party leaders that we were behind the 1/11 army-backed caretaker government—again without submitting an iota of proof. For 15 years, Hasina and her party held unquestioned power. They must have investigated us as thoroughly as can be imagined. They found no proof. That is why, in spite of lodging 84 cases against this writer—16 of which were for sedition—they did not follow through.
On what basis, using what proof did the three newspapers' journalists write this common copy, and why did three separate editors allow this story to be printed? What fact-checking did they do? What sort of authentic—as against biased—investigation did they undertake? And how could the editors violate the most basic norm of journalism, and not give the subjects of the report any chance to respond?
Among many reforms that Bangladeshi newspapers must undertake—and we are looking forward to the report of the Media Reform Commission—an important one is to move away from "owner-driven journalism" to "editor-driven journalism."
The three newspapers in question have published false, twisted, distorted reports against us many times before, similarly without evidence. On April 21, 2011, the Bangladesh Press Council passed a stern judgement against one of the said newspapers on its reporting against Matiur Rahman, editor of Prothom Alo, saying that "… reporting constituted yellow journalism which is a violation of newspaper ethics." A similar judgement was passed against the other Bangla newspaper on May 12, 2011 on another report against the Prothom Alo editor, saying "… the report was false, fictitious and was an example of yellow journalism." On both occasions, the editors and publisher of those newspapers were reprimanded. Similar condemnatory judgements was passed by the press council and delivered against all three newspapers on May 22-24, 2013, who were accused of publishing false, fictitious, derogatory, and unsubstantiated news against Prothom Alo and its editor.
Recently, I came across a term in Bangla—"shikari sangbadikota" ("target journalism"), meaning journalism designed to target an individual, institution, personality, editor, or newspaper without proof. The purpose is to denigrate, malign or discredit someone. Just as one hires an assassin to kill someone, one hires "shikari sangbadik" to assassinate the character of a person of high repute or a newspaper of high standing.
I appealed to journalists in a piece I wrote on April 7, 2023, titled "Only journalists can protect journalism." This was in response to a vicious, Goebbels-style campaign, conducted by a private TV station against Prothom Alo about a photo of a child published with a quote from a day labourer as a photo card. The TV station accused Prothom Alo of "conspiring to destabilise our independence and make our Liberation War questionable." The Prothom Alo editor was sued under the infamous Digital Security Act (DSA) and his Savar correspondent was picked up, gangster-style, without a warrant. Sadly, other than the Dhaka Reporters Unity (DRU), no other journalists' body or media organisation said a word.
Today, I appeal again to all journalists, and especially to fellow editors, to move away from all our past prejudice, hatred, biases, and tendency to make fatal compromises and, alongside rebuilding Bangladesh in the post-July-August 2024 era, also rebuild journalism with renewed pledge to our journalistic ethos and commitment to democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and public service.
Editors, please don't sacrifice your dignity and become PROs of the proprietors.
Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.
There is currently a huge Awami League-shaped hole in Bangladesh's electoral politics, so BNP trying to dive headlong into it comes as no surprise. Since Sheikh Hasina's fall on August 5, BNP has had to navigate a delicate tightrope—balancing its ambition to return to power with the pressure to support popular demands for state reforms. The party doesn't want to risk the ire of the very students that ousted its arch-rival, potentially putting it in pole position to win the next election. But reforms take time, something it doesn't have plenty of after nearly two decades of wait. And the grassroots are getting impatient.
"Impatient" is perhaps an understatement for what has unfolded over the past month and a half. A more fitting description would be a chaotic transformation of a party getting used to having things its way. As BNP-affiliated leaders, activists, and professional groups scramble to fill the void left by Awami League, we are getting an early preview of the making of another regime—and it's nothing short of disturbing.
For example, since August 5, at least 14 BNP members have lost their lives, eight of them in factional clashes. The most recent murder occurred on Friday in Chattogram's Changaon area, where a Jatiyatabadi Jubo Dal activist was fatally stabbed during a clash between rival factions. On the same day, heavy clashes between two BNP-linked groups in Chandpur left at least 30 people injured. On Sunday, a similar clash in Narayanganj left at least 12 injured, followed by another in Kushtia two days later, injuring 10 more. These violent power struggles, often revolving around the control of extortion rackets, have become disturbingly common. In that, the BNP grassroots seem to be re-enacting scenes from Awami League's time in power which, too, was plagued by factional infighting, with over 150 of its leaders and activists killed in mostly turf wars since the 2018 election.
Over the past weeks, reports have also emerged of BNP leaders and activists taking over slums, footpaths, transport hubs, extortion rackets across various markets and informal businesses, and even former Awami League offices. Meanwhile, in the civil service, there have been allegations against BNP-affiliated groups trying to influence promotions, placements, public contracts, etc.
Officially, the party is against such practices. Tarique Rahman, the acting chairman, recently warned that BNP will not tolerate any reckless actions by "misguided" individuals that could harm "the trust and love" it has earned through "years of struggle, sacrifice, and perseverance." He urged party members to "identify and resist" those tarnishing BNP's image, emphasising its commitment to not only expelling such individuals but also taking "legal action" against them.
These warnings coupled with occasional disciplinary measures, however, have proven insufficient to deter errant party supporters, which suggests two things: either those were not strict or convincing enough, or the party is not trying hard enough. Both scenarios are likely in an environment of patronage politics that has long been the mainstay of our political culture. This system of patronage begins at grassroots with the capture of extortion rackets or other undue benefits by political thugs, and culminates with systemic regulatory capture by vested interest groups, all of which serves as an incentive for them to keep working for a party. Barring exceptions, the prospect or promise of mutual gain largely governs the relationship between major parties and their supporters.
BNP, for all its pro-reform posturing in the aid of the interim government, has yet to demonstrate a real willingness to dismantle this corrupt system. While, to be fair, it has shown some signs of remaking itself as a party with a more open political ethos, the revolutionary times that we are living through demand much more.
Ironically, Awami League's ouster through a bloody uprising has stripped BNP of two key advantages that it could have used in an election campaign: anti-incumbency bias, and public sympathy for the repression it had endured. In an alternate reality where those factors still mattered, BNP could have expected Gen Z—with no lived memory of its 2001-06 rule—to support it unquestioningly, and older generations to accept it as the lesser of two evils. The problem is, the new generation has shown a political maturity beyond their years, and to win them over, BNP now must offer something genuinely new.
Ironically, Awami League's ouster through a bloody uprising has stripped BNP of two key advantages that it could have used in an election campaign: anti-incumbency bias, and public sympathy for the repression it had endured. In an alternate reality where those factors still mattered, BNP could have expected Gen Z—with no lived memory of its 2001-06 rule—to support it unquestioningly, and older generations to accept it as the lesser of two evils. The problem is, the new generation has shown a political maturity beyond their years, and to win them over, BNP now must offer something genuinely new.
So far, it has been giving mixed signals. On the one hand, it acknowledged that repeating Awami League's mistakes could lead to the same fate for itself, stressing the importance of understanding the shift in people's mind-sets. On the other hand, it continues to call for elections as soon as possible. Its rhetoric surrounding the student-led mass movement, trying to co-opt it as its own, and its suggestion that long-term reforms should be left to an elected government also reveal glaring contradictions. Perhaps the army chief's recent statement—in which he vowed to back the interim government "come what may" to possibly ensure elections within the next 18 months—will prompt BNP to reassess its approach. While expecting an election roadmap is not unreasonable, it must lift its sights beyond its ambition and bring the reform drive to its own doorsteps.
At 46, BNP is in need of renewal, and the sooner it realises this, the better. As the largest party in the country now, it has a responsibility not just to its leaders and activists but to the entire political landscape. To truly demonstrate that it remains in tune with the spirit of the mass uprising, BNP needs to lead by example and undertake the following initiatives.
First, it must help dismantle the patronage system by making it clear to party leaders and supporters that BNP politics will henceforth offer no undeserved benefits, and anyone using its name for such purposes will be met with swift punishment. Second, it should ask its loyalist groups within the civil service to stop influencing decisions, or risk being blacklisted. Third, it should establish a democratic, secular, and gender-inclusive party structure, and have a high-powered committee constantly check erosion of these values in party activities. Fourth, it should bring clarity on its finances by making the names of its donors public and conducting internal audits of assets held by party leaders. Fifth, it should control its grassroots leaders and activists, preventing infighting and any criminality through strict enforcement of disciplinary measures.
Sixth, it should comply with the Representation of the People Order (RPO) clause that prohibits political parties from having affiliated student or teacher organisations. Over the years, political parties, including BNP, have bypassed this law on mere technicalities, passing their student wings off as "brotherly" or "associate" organisations, thus enabling crimes and hegemonic practices that led not only to a deep distrust of student politics but also unimaginable sufferings.
There can be many other reforms that are necessary. What BNP can do to remake itself in line with the spirit of the mass uprising can be the topic of a discussion that the party should itself encourage for its own benefit.
Just before the January 7, 2024 election, I wrote an article titled "Can BNP survive the pre-election meltdown?" amid heavy crackdowns by Awami League. I guess the question now is, can BNP fulfil the post-uprising expectations? After all, if political parties do not break free from their long-entrenched monopolistic and authoritarian attitudes, changing the constitution and implementing other state reforms cannot prevent future regimes from turning dictatorial again. BNP has a historic responsibility in this regard.
Badiuzzaman Bay is an assistant editor at The Daily Star.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
The government has turned down Khaleda Zia's family's application to allow her to be taken abroad for urgent treatment, which her lawyer and her party leaders have termed as a political vendetta. The government's reasoning, as explained by Law Minister Anisul Huq, was that the application, on which the government has suspended the jail sentence of Khaleda Zia and released her from jail on two conditions, has been disposed of and has become a "past and closed transaction." The minister also said that the decision to suspend her sentence was made under Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
This refusal to allow treatment abroad could not have come at a worse time, as the former prime minister's continuous illness has reached a critical stage, with life-threatening conditions. Besides, political distrust and division in the country over the coming election, too, have become highly charged. Against this context, it is hard to discard the notion that politics played no part in this decision from the government.
It is still unclear what rekindled the hope of her family and party that the BNP chief's treatment abroad could be possible, despite the fact that several attempts in the past have been flatly rejected by the government, citing the same law and argument which the law minister has referred to in his latest legal opinion. Reportedly, Khaleda Zia told her partymen not to agree to participating in the next parliamentary election under the current government in exchange for her medical care abroad.
It, therefore, begs this question: was the life of a politician, of such stature, really made a bargaining chip by either of the parties? The question became even more pertinent when the law minister, responding to reporters' queries on September 24, said that the government did not receive any application from her family seeking permission to take her abroad.
It followed the government's decision to extend Khaleda Zia's conditional release from prison for six more months, based on a separate application filed on September 4. As a result of the law minister's suggestive remarks that the family had not sought permission for her treatment abroad, Khaleda's younger brother Shamim Iskander made another application on September 25 seeking the required approval.
Should we believe that the issue of seeking permission afresh was brought about simply to humiliate the political opponent by reminding them of how "powerless" they are? Questions may also arise about whether the arguments of considering the petition "disposed of" and "a past and closed transaction" are tenable.
It is often said that the law will take its own course. But examples are plenty to prove that the incident at hand was simply political rhetoric. If someone compares the fate of the 78-year-old former prime minister with that of some other politicians, such as Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal leader ASM Abdur Rab, the irony becomes evident. The JSD leader was allowed to go to then West Germany for treatment while he was serving his prison term awarded by a martial law court. Another politician, Haji Mohammad Selim – who belongs to the ruling party – was not barred from travelling to Bangkok for his treatment despite being convicted and ordered to surrender, and having had a record of fleeing the country during the tenure of the caretaker government between 2006 and 2008.
Law Minister Anisul Huq said, "Once an application is disposed of under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), there is no scope to reconsider it under the law." Many other jurists, however, do not agree with his interpretation of the law as there is nothing that bars the government or limits its authority to reconsider its decision. Every law is subject to interpretation, and there are variations in interpretations. Among these variations – except the court's interpretation – some are known as literal, and some are mischievous or intended to create mischief.
Amid the contested claims by the government and by BNP, it would be better to read Section 401 of the CrPC and draw one's own conclusion. Under the title "Power to suspend or remit sentences," the law states in Section 401(1), "When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the Government may at any time without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced."
Additionally, Section 401(6) says, "The Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with." As the literal meaning of the rule is far from convincing, it would be wiser for the government to reconsider its decision, which may help improve the current political environment in the country.
Kamal Ahmed is an independent journalist. His X handle is @ahmedka1
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
