16TH AMENDMENT VERDICT

Pro-AL lawyers announce protest programmes

Staff Correspondent | Published: 01:36, Aug 13,2017 | Updated: 01:41, Aug 13,2017

 
 

Bangabandhu Awami Ainjibi Parishad, a platform of the pro-Awami League lawyers, on Saturday announced three-day demonstrations protesting at ‘irrelevant observations’ made in the verdict that scrapped the 16th amendment to the constitution, which re-empowered parliament to remove higher judiciary judges for misconduct or incapacity.
The demonstrations included holding protest rallies in all the bars across the country on August 13, 16 and 17.
Member secretary of the parishad Fazle Noor Taposh, a lawyer and also a parliament member, at a press conference at AL president Sheikh Hasina’s office at Dhanmandi in Dhaka, announced the protests.
‘There are some objectionable and irrelevant statements in the 16th amendment verdict by the Supreme Court and we are protesting the observations, not the verdict,’ Taposh said.
He demanded ‘objectionable observations’ to be expunged.
On August 1, the Appellate Division released the full text of its verdict upholding the High Court verdict that declared the 16th amendment illegal and reinstated the Supreme Judicial Council system for removal of Supreme Court judges.
Yusuf Hossain Humayun, convener of the parishad, said that they would not protest against the verdict but against some observations of the verdict. He demanded scrapping of the controversial observations.
Abdul Baset Majumder, joint convener of the parishad, said that in the verdict, the rights of the people were ignored.
SM Rezaul Karim, a leader of the parishad and law affair secretary of Awami League, delivered a welcome address at the conference. Lawyers Kamrul Islam, also food minster, Kazi Najibullah Hiru, and Biplob Barua, also attended.
The apex court chaired by chief justice SK Sinha observed in the verdict that human rights in the country were at stake, corruption was rampant and parliament ‘dysfunctional’ and lawmakers ‘immature’.
It also observed that crores of people were deprived of basic healthcare, crimes were increasing, acute mismanagement marked the administration, the life became utterly insecure and the law enforcement agencies were unable to tackle the situation.
The court said that before assuming the powers, the members of parliament should have considered as to whether they were capable of dealing with such a responsibility.

Want stories like this in your inbox?

Sign up to exclusive daily email

Advertisement

images

 

Advertisement

images