SINGAPORE | From the Himalayas to the Korean DMZ to the South China Sea, the balance of power in Asia appears to be shifting. But beneath the rhetoric, have the fundamentals really changed ? In East–West Center International Media Conference in Singapore, an expert panel of journalists, policy analysts, and academics examined the situation from…
The Bangladesh High Court has issued a rule asking the government to explain why the detention of four (BNP) leaders would be considered illegal.
BNP Vice-Chairman M Hafizuddin Ahmed challenged the detention against the government, in a written petition on March 29, of this year, after which the said action was taken by Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Md Ashraful Kamal of the Bangladesh High Court.
The Home Secretary, the Inspector General of Police and the Dhaka Metropolitan Police Commissioner were asked to reply within four weeks after they were made offenders to the rule.
Home Secretary, the Inspector General of Police and the Dhaka Metropolitan Police Commissioner were asked to reply within four weeks after they were made offenders to the rule
Law–enforcement agencies on the other hand have arrested BNP Joint Secretary General Syed Moazzem Hossain Alal, Swechchha Sebak Dal President Shafiul Bari and President of JCD’s Dhaka North Unit SM Mizanur Rahman and Vice President of the same unit Jakir Hossain Milon in separate cases regarding violence during BNP–sponsored anti–government protests.
After Milon died in the police custody, the BNP alleged that the law enforcers had ‘tortured the JCD leader to death’.
Senior BNP leader and lawyer Moudud Ahmed, who argued for the petitioner in the hearing, said that the Appellate Division previously, in a verdict specified how an arrest has to be made and how a person should be remanded and how these rules are mandatory for everyone in the administration.
“But the arrests of the four leaders have been made disregarding the law and the Supreme Court directives,” the former law minister was heard saying.
He said that the High Court had set Aug 1 of this year itself for the next hearing. ■