DeskReport
The High Court will give its order on Wednesday on the writ petition seeking directions not to administer oath to BNP leader Ishraq Hossain as the mayor of Dhaka South City Corporation. Today, Tuesday, Justice Md. Akram Hossain Chowdhury and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury held two rounds of hearings. Later, the bench fixed Wednesday for the next hearing and order.
Lawyer Mohammad Hossain heard the petition. Barrister AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon represented Ishraq Hossain. Deputy Attorney General Mahfuzur Rahman Milon and Khan Ziaur Rahman appeared for the state.
During the hearing, the writ petitioner’s lawyer Mohammad Hossain said, “The tribunal did not seek any remedy to declare Ishraq the winner during the case. At the same time, there was nothing in the petition that Ishraq received more votes. Rather, the petition mentioned that Ishraq received fewer votes in the voting results. Later, Ishraq’s petition was amended twice. Which is not legal. Because no petition in an election tribunal case can be amended after 30 days. There are many Supreme Court judgments on this.”
He said, “Any application can be amended by the party to the case or his agent (through power of attorney) through an affidavit. But in Ishraq’s case, a person named Rajib Bepari from Barisal has filed an amendment application. Another amendment application was filed by a lawyer’s clerk, Manjurul Islam. However, there is no power of attorney. So there is no opportunity to accept this affidavit. Still, the court accepted it and gave the order. This amendment is illegal, the verdict is also illegal.”
Lawyer Mohammad Hossain said, “None of the witnesses whose names were mentioned in the application for the case were available during the testimony of the case. At the same time, the testimony of 6 people was recorded in the case through the commission. Their testimony was recorded at the Dhaka Bar Association building. In the application for the appointment of the commission, it was said that Ishraq was sick. However, there is no explanation as to why the testimony of other witnesses was recorded in the commission. And the witnesses were able to go to the Dhaka Bar Association, but could not go to the court. The court declared Ishraq as the mayor without mentioning anywhere in its verdict that he received more votes or won. Which is not legal.”
Referring to the appointment of the administrator, the lawyer for the writ petitioner said, “On August 19, the government removed the mayor of all city corporations, including Dhaka South City, and appointed an administrator. Therefore, the case pending in the Election Tribunal immediately became invalid. Even then, the tribunal’s judgment is beyond its jurisdiction. The court cannot declare anyone the winner without recounting the votes. “But here, without ordering a recount, Ishraq was declared mayor. They did not wait for the response after seeking the opinion of the Law Ministry. We gave a notice in the afternoon, and it was gazetted at night.”
Meanwhile, Barrister AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon, on behalf of Ishraq, said, “The gazette has been issued after the court’s verdict. They are obliged to take an oath. This writ petitioner does not have the legal jurisdiction to file the writ. I want the writ to be dismissed with costs.”
And BNP’s Legal Affairs Secretary Barrister Kaiser Kamal said, “There is a provision to appeal against the verdict of the Election Tribunal. The court’s time is being wasted by filing a writ without going there. This has become a highly political issue.”
On behalf of the state, Deputy Attorney General Mahfuzur Rahman Milon said that there is a question about the legal jurisdiction of the petitioner to file the writ. And Deputy Attorney General Khan Ziaur Rahman said that this is not a case in the public interest. Later, the court fixed the next hearing and order for tomorrow, Wednesday at 12:30 pm.
Earlier, regarding the verdict of the Election Tribunal and the publication of the EC’s gazette, Md. A Supreme Court lawyer named Mamunur Rashid gave a legal notice. However, after receiving no response, a writ was filed on May 13. The writ was listed as number 12 on the court’s agenda for hearing on Tuesday. The hearing lasted from 1 pm to about 2 pm. Later, the hearing lasted for about 1.5 hours from 4:10 pm.
