What's new

Ershad regime illegal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zabaniyah

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 24, 2011
14,923
7
12,444
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
By: Ashutosh Sarkar

The Supreme Court yesterday declared the military rule of H M Ershad illegal in a verdict that also said the actions taken by his regime will remain effective until their fate is decided by parliament.

A six-member SC bench, headed by Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque, upheld a High Court judgment knocking off the 7th amendment to the constitution that validated Ershad's illegal military regime.

Ershad, an army chief-turned-president, seized power in a military coup on March 24, 1982 ousting the elected government of President Justice Abdus Sattar.

His martial law regime continued until November 10, 1986 when a parliament loyal to him legitimised his takeover of power. He became president in a controversial election and continued to be so until 1990 when a mass upsurge ousted him.

“All proclamations, Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders, made/promulgated during the period between 24th March, 1982 and the date of commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) are hereby declared illegal and void….,” the SC said in its brief verdict.

The apex court, however, provisionally condoned all acts, things, deeds and transactions and proceedings during the military rule of Ershad between March 24, 1982, and November 10, 1986.

Legal experts said this means the acts, deeds, actions, transactions and proceedings during the period will remain in force until parliament takes decisions on these.

The SC condoned forever the international treaties, which were made during that period.

The controversial 7th amendment was first challenged by Siddique Ahmed, a 64-year-old ordinary man from Chittagong, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by a martial law court in 1986 in a murder case.

The SC voided the trial and conviction of Siddique and ordered his release on bail from jail in Chittagong.

The apex court, however, said trial of the case against Siddique will continue in the Sessions Judge's Court.

The SC rejected a petition filed by Siddique for quashing the proceedings against him..

It came up with the verdict after Siddique filed the appeal against the HC verdict, which declared the seventh amendment to the constitution illegal, but neither acquitted him [Siddique] of the murder charge nor ordered a retrial of the case.

The HC passed the verdict on August 26 last year following a writ petition filed by Siddique challenging the legality of the seventh amendment.

Siddique surrendered to a Chittagong court on April 7 in connection with the murder case, as per the HC order.

Counsels for the petitioners and the attorney general said the legacy of military rule has been removed from the constitution.

Barrister Syed Amirul Islam, principal counsel for Siddique, told journalists that the Paragraph 19 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution which ratified the martial law regulations and orders by Ershad is no more a part of the constitution following the SC verdict.

Barrister Hassan MS Azim, another counsel for Siddique, said in its short order the SC did not pass any ruling about punishment of HM Ershad, while the HC in its verdict left the matter to the government.

Attorney General Mahbubey Alam said he cannot make any comment on in this regard without examining the full text of the SC verdict.

The apex court had invited four senior lawyers to give their opinions on the 7th amendment.

Earlier, the SC declared illegal the 5th amendment to the constitution that legitimised the regimes that ruled the country after the August 15, 1975 assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman until April 9, 1979.

Ershad regime illegal
 
Pay attention to what is legal or illegal now not what happend 30 years ago. Every day something illegal acts are getting executed.
 
As a mater of fact the Govt that was formed following the war was based on 1970 election, when it was in fact East Pakistan. How was that legal ? What about Dictator Mujib rule from Jan 1975 to Aug 1975 ? Did the constitution grant the parliament the authority to select him as a dictator ?

People want to move on and not tied back to history. She is opening too many can of worms.
 
As a mater of fact the Govt that was formed following the war was based on 1970 election, when it was in fact East Pakistan. How was that legal ? What about Dictator Mujib rule from Jan 1975 to Aug 1975 ? Did the constitution grant the parliament the authority to select him as a dictator ?

People want to move on and not tied back to history. She is opening too many can of worms.

Do you know what might happen if someone
points out that in the streets?
Hell will break upon the poor chaps for blasphemy.
 
Pay attention to what is legal or illegal now not what happend 30 years ago. Every day something illegal acts are getting executed.

Unless one corrects the past, it continue to haunt and skews the present.

As a mater of fact the Govt that was formed following the war was based on 1970 election, when it was in fact East Pakistan. How was that legal ? What about Dictator Mujib rule from Jan 1975 to Aug 1975 ? Did the constitution grant the parliament the authority to select him as a dictator ?

People want to move on and not tied back to history. She is opening too many can of worms.

History cannot be washed off.

It can be corrected.

History repeats itself!



And I hope that worms eat Hasina alive. I really do.

I thought you were in the US.

You don't know what 'a can of worms' means?

It is an English idiom and not a Can with worms sold in the Supermarket!
 
Mujib also did position himself as a dictator. He closed down many of the country's newspapers during his reign. His sons were out of control. AND he put down ALL political parties except his own of-course. He even had his own armed militia for his own security. That guy got what had coming at him.

These verdicts simply reflect Hasina's pitiful little mind all locked in dreams. Hypocrisy times a million.

She can only dream of a one party state. Let alone getting a Nobel Peace Prize.

She don't have a good relationship with anyone in her own country, including her own country's military. Neither has an amicable relationship with the West and the Middle East. Apart from India of-course :D

She is simply destroying her own party. The trouble is, so is Bangladeshi grass roots society (i.e: poor supporters of the AL who simply get money for voting).
 
Love or Hate Mujib, it cannot be denied that he mobilised the Bengalis and got Independence for Bangladesh.

Yes, he overextended himself and thought he was some sort of a messiah and could do what he wanted.

This vainglorious psyche was his downfall.

Notwithstanding, any coup, military or otherwise, is Illegal.

Unless of course, democracy is not what the people wants.

BD could always become a Sultanate with Begum Zia as the new female Sultan.

Good candidate for the same since she is a pious and devout Muslim who is keen on spreading Islam around the world!!

Why have this farcical democracy?

Let Begum Zia be the new Razia Sultan!!
 
Tiki, again, what does religion have to do with this???

We want REAL democracy.

A former law minister stated that the present government is "autocratic". Funny, the man was the Vice President under a military dictator. Dictators are a hated species around the globe.

They don't have legitimacy since they do not represent the public. They cannot tolerate dissent. Opponents are jailed or go missing. The average person cannot protest against a misdeed or express opinion. Dictators fear any political establishment. That is one reason why countries like Syria, Libya and Yemen (among others) do not have political establishment.

Mujib was never interested in a long lasting democracy for Bangladesh. He wanted a one party state that is similar to North Korea. His own daughter is trying to do that right now. If you want evidence, look at the expensive monuments and a $7.5 billion airport she is building to commemorate her father. These HC verdicts reflect Hasina's intentions.

Democracy in Bangladesh was restored in 1991, 20 years after its independence. The former law minister was partly correct, but completely wrong when his own party is in power. Elections are only part of a democracy.

The present situation in Bangladesh is an "electoral autocracy". We want real democracy.
 
@ One think I am not understanding, how come a court can declare 5th and 7th amendment illegal.
@ The 5th and the 7th amendment of the constitution was duly passed by the sovereign parliament, it is immaterial whether it was enacted by the martial law government or some one elses.
@ What AL government had started ? They are recruiting the judges from own political parties and giving verdict as per their sweet will. This cannot continue in a democratic country.
@ Martial law is no law, it is illegal but again it is superior to constitutional law. Once their activities are ratified in the parliament then it is a valid law.
@ Where AL wants to take own country ?
@ Does the AL thinks by doing so they are save ? And sure to come to power again or remain in power for eternal period ?
@ All these activities of AL is paving the way for another revolution in our peaceful country.

@ Ershad was far far better than these two political parties.:victory::victory::victory:
 
As a mater of fact the Govt that was formed following the war was based on 1970 election, when it was in fact East Pakistan. How was that legal ? What about Dictator Mujib rule from Jan 1975 to Aug 1975 ? Did the constitution grant the parliament the authority to select him as a dictator ?

People want to move on and not tied back to history. She is opening too many can of worms.

YOu forgot about 1973 election. After the constitution they called for general election. Before that it was a interim government based on Mujib Nagar Sarkar formed 16 the of April 1971.
It took them a year to finish the war and another year to hammer out the constitution. If 1970 electio was illegal then How Bhutto ran Pakistan therearfter? At least they were people's representative.
 
@ One think I am not understanding, how come a court can declare 5th and 7th amendment illegal.
@ The 5th and the 7th amendment of the constitution was duly passed by the sovereign parliament, it is immaterial whether it was anacted by the martial law government or some one elses.
@ What AL government had started ? They are recruiting the judges from own political parties and giving verdict as per their sweet will. This cannot continue in a democratic country.
@ Martial law is no law, it is illegal but again it is superior to constitutional law. Once their activities are ratified in the parliament then it is a valid law.
@ Where AL wants to take own country ?
@ Does the AL thinks by doing so they are save ? And sure to come to power again or remain in power for eternal period ?
@ All these activities of AL is paving the way for another revolution in our peaceful country.

@ Ershad was far far better than these two political parties.:victory::victory::victory:

Why you always give wrong information. 5th ammendment was done my marshal law administrator which was ratified by parliament. Parliament can not legally ratify a illegal act when Marshal Law is not even exist in constitution.
 
Why you always give wrong information. 5th ammendment was done my marshal law administrator which was ratified by parliament. Parliament can not legally ratify a illegal act when Marshal Law is not even exist in constitution.

@ From August 1975 till June 1977 various ordinances were proclaimed by the President/Chief Martial Law Administrator. Once general election were held on 7 June 1977. then member of the Parliament ratified these in a 5th Amendment.

@ There is a provision in the constitution that once the parliament is not in a session, the President can make ordinances and once Parliment seats than these are ratified in the parliament.

@ If the 5th and 7th amendment is illegal than what about the various revolutions in the world like the Frence and Bolshevik revolution ? Who has legalised their actions ????????
 
@ From August 1975 till June 1977 various ordinances were proclaimed by the President/Chief Martial Law Administrator. Once general election were held on 7 June 1977. then member of the Parliament ratified these in a 5th Amendment.

Ordinance does not cover constitutional ammendment. Can president ammend constitution by ordinance let alone MLA.
@ There is a provision in the constitution that once the parliament is not in a session, the President can make ordinances and once Parliment seats than these are ratified in the parliament.

First whether there was any legal president that time?? Sayem was made president? Can he?

Zia was made MLA. Can he?

Can president ammend constitution through ordinance? Can he?

@ If the 5th and 7th amendment is illegal than what about the various revolutions in the world like the Frence and Bolshevik revolution ? Who has legalised their actions ????????

You comparing snatchin power by military is a revolution???? You retard??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom