Photo, courtesy of the Daily Star.
National leader of Bangladesh, late Presiedent Ziaur rahman lived in this house from 1972 till his death in 1981. This was a house he was allotted as the deputy chief of staff of Bangladesh Army.
After his death, the then elected government’s cabinet decided to give the property to the widow of the slain president in a 99 year lease. That widow is now our leader of opposition.
Coming back to power for the second time, PM Sheikh Hasina seemed hellbent in evicting the opposition leader from that house and then demolishing this residence of late President Ziaur rahman.
A legal battle is underway in the court in this regard. A hearing is scheduled to take place in the Supreme court on Nov 29th.
However government looks like too impatient to wait till final resolution of the legal process.
So far from the sketchy news coming out of Dhaka cantonment where Mrs Zia leaves, the followng incidences have been confirmed.
1. Military PR wing issued a press release that opposition leader is leaving the house on her own. However the opposition leader, through her press secretery has denied any such claim by the military.
2. All the staff of the opposition leader residence have been rounded up and taken to police station.
3. Police and military trucks have taken position in front of opposition leader’s house.
4. Telephone line has been disconnected from the residence of opoosition leader.
5. Cantonment officials went to opposition leader’s house to take over the property.
6. Police and paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion forces has entered opoosition leader’s house and they were seen at the roof.
7. Opposition leader is being debied to meet her lawyers and political collegaue.
8. Opposition chief whip and other colleague of the opposition leader were barred from entering cantonment.
9. Law enforcement agency members were reported to be using hand mikes instructing the opposition leader to evacuate the home and promising stern action otherwise.
10. Opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s General Secretary, in a press briefing, informed that the opposition leader is under house arrest at this time.
11. Sporadic clashed with opposition activists and law men are being reported from different parts of the country.
12. An attempted rally from opposition main office was dispersed by the police.
13. Lawyers of Mrs Zia, the opposition leader, went to meet the Chief justice in his residence begging for a legal remedy.
[ UPDATE 12 NOON BDT]
14. Apparently there is a media blackout about the events regarding the residence of the opposition leader.
15. The main opposition party called a down to dusk general strike for tomorrow.
[ UPDATE]
In the evening, after daylong siege, Law enforcement men breaks open Opposition leader Khaleda Zia’s home, breaks open into her bedroom, indiscriminately beats her staff and family members, dragging her out of her bedroom and escorts her out of her home for 40 years.
Later in the evening in a press conference, Mrs Zia talked to the nation of her ordeal.
November 13, 2010 at 1:24 am
This grotesque political malice by Awami regime is stetting both precedence and example for country as a whole:
Precedence: All government allotment and leased and even registered property potentially be under question. Including one leased to foreign entities.
Example: If Awami League Prime Minister and her administration can defy court proceedings and use state gun power to evict opposition leader then Awami cadres will simply use this as an example to further intensify looting from ordinary people and business. Anyone home and business is potential target now.
Awami Digital deception has entered a new chapter. In fact all institutions of a sovereign Bangladesh have been destroyed. Only institution left is street.
November 13, 2010 at 1:36 am
That’s the trademark of Awami League, history is full of such incidents –
– the only way AL hide their miserable vacuum in admin and development, is by witch-hunting a fictitious opponent.
– and every time, such witch-hunting back-fires on AL.
– and yet their record of false-talk & administrative FAILURE remains intact.
November 13, 2010 at 9:27 am
“Bold”, insensitive and utterly unnecessary move on AL’s part. Seems like over-reach to me. Worst case scenario: we go back to hartal culture, law & order situation breaks down further and economy is hurt.
Let me just note that AL has so far managed to be more decisive on this issue, which was not part of their manifesto, than it has been on the war crimes trial issue – which was a prominent part of their manifesto. Sensible AL supporters, i.e. those that love AL more than they hate BNP, need to ask some tough questions.
November 13, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Khaleda Zia kicked out of her home in BD!! Bravo DEmocracy !!
How can an official Opposition Leader, be so illegally man-handled from her state-provided residence?
So THIS is this the kind of ‘democracy’ that the Father of the Nation wanted to establish. Pretty Good, keep it up Bangladesh!
November 13, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Is Hasina now planning the MINUS-ONE formula against Khaleda ?
November 13, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Minusing ALL opposition parties have been an agenda for AL since the inception of Bangladesh. At the first opportunity, they established BAKSAL by banning all opposition parties. In the eighties, they tried to destroy BNP for nine years by collaborating with Ershad; they vowed to destabilize an elected government from day one when BNP was voted to power in 1991 and this time by taking power apparently collaborating with the army, they are hell-bent to destroy Zia family and BNP altogether in an apparent attempt to establish defacto ONE party rule again in Bangladesh. Are these AL folks still live in fool’s paradise? I really don’t get it why they fail time and again to take lesson from history of Bangladesh? Why AL still harbor the notion that Bangladesh BELONG to AL or Sheikh Family and only AL has the right to rule Bangladesh? Didn’t they take lesson from 75, 90 and 91 onward when Bangladeshis voted both BNP and AL alternatively to power in a free and fair election? Doesn’t this signify that people want good governance irrespective of who is in power? Why AL think it would be different this time around?
November 13, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Did Khaleda not do the same with Dr. Badruddoza Chowdhury and Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky?
“Every action has an equal and opposite reaction” — Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion.
[Edited]
November 13, 2010 at 5:40 pm
After seeing events up to now one more precedence Awami regime had set yesterday:
Precedence 3:
If appeal in Supreme Court is no longer matter for final judgment then Awami League regime essentially invalidated requirement of Bangladesh Supreme Court and its role in justice system.
What message this invalidating action by Awami regime send to the country and to those interested in the world?
For example, every lease govt had awarded including one to multinational companies like Chevron is and could be put under review.
November 13, 2010 at 8:41 pm
I sincerely believe, AL will pay for this in next or next to next election. Peopl will not like this and will give their mandate to hand over justice. It is a matter of time.
AL has used our army to attain its own political objective. Army had no option to choose. Army is led by PM. And now that we use military for political objective, why would we say hai hai when Army indulges in politics!
Dragging out a past PM, wife of a Freedom Fighter, President, General, Chief of Army Staff from her house and make her cry in full public view – I am not sure Bangladesh will like it.
And now AL is creating another controversy by planning to destroy the house and building house for the bereaved families of BDR revolt.
I wonedr, when govt can get land for so many officer in Rupgong, can give plots to all cricketrs, what stops them finding land to build home (which I fully support) for the bereaved families?
I have never seen such mean politics that does politics with dead man who after all served this nation.
Why would people resist, when BNP comes to power and destroys the house of our father of the nation and build home for the homeless as some BNPer already threatened, rightfully or wrongfully!
I guess the worst precedence AL is setting is this: Not any of the above.
That you can destroy a historic house. And so when BNP comes to power, they will destroy another historic house!
Would we be able to fault them then? Not that I support that. But that is a fear I have, will happen.
Unfortunate – we have such leadership that can not overcome petty issues. We like it or not, both Mujib and Zia is part of our history.
Please let them rest in peace.
November 14, 2010 at 10:53 am
Right before Qurbani eid as people goes home and any agitation from opposition party will hamper their already troubled journey to home and may provide an anger towards BNP.
November 14, 2010 at 1:30 pm
It is sad that people’s vacations are destroyed by hartals.
Did Hasina’s non-stop ‘lagatar’ hartals for FIVE YEARS from 2001-2006 during eids, exams, & work days, provide any anger towards AL ?
Hasina established the national culture of hartals & boycott in 1996 during the FIRST civilian regime of BD? Did she ever consider the “inconvenience” of people, or the EXAMPLE she set by kicking leaders out of their national homes?
November 15, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Kgazi, I was making a point that AW synced this event with Eid to score a point against BNP, knowing that a natural reaction of hartal is very much possible. Point is AW rather people suffer than waiting for this event to happen after Eid.
November 15, 2010 at 9:35 am
Attorney General and pro-AL intellectuals like Abed Khan have been continuously lying that because KZ’s lawyers did not take a stay order, Government was forced to evict KZ, and that KZ would be committing contempt of court if she stayed on in the home any longer. This post in UV answers all these falsities extremely well.
http://unheardvoice.net/blog/2010/11/15/opposition-leader-eviction-the-legal-side-of-things/
This is what happened in the legal side of things:
A. On 13th October the High Court Division gave its Judgment and Order the last and most important sentence of which read as follows:
“However, the respondents will allow at least 30 (thirty) days’ time from this day to the petitioner to vacate the house in question”.
Note 1 – There was no specific direction upon the petitioner (i.e. Khaleda Zia), meaning that she was not ordered to do anything. If there was a direction upon her, the Order would have read something like – “The petitioner is directed to vacate the house in question within 30 (thirty) days.”
As there was no direction upon Begum Zia she had no obligation to leave her residence by the 12th of November. So the Attorney General’s media statement that she would commit contempt of court if she didn’t leave the house was simply wrong. Likewise, ISPR’s claim that Begum Zia left her house showing respect towards the High Court Order was another badly twisted reading of the Order. When there was no direction upon her, there was nothing for her to follow or respect.
Note 2 – So to whom was the Order directed? The respondents, i.e. Government et al. However, the direction upon the government was not to evict Begum Zia after expiry of the 30 days. If it was, the Order would have read something like – “The respondents will evict the petitioner from the house in question after expiry of 30 (thirty) days from this day”.
So, although there was a direction upon the government, it was not to evict Begum Zia after 30 days. Again, what the Attorney General, ISPR, Shafique Ahmed, Mahbubul Hanif said about there being an obligation upon them to evict Begum Zia after 30 days was wrong.
Note 3 – So what did the Order actually say? My reading of the Order is suggests firstly, that the High Court assumed there would be further notice(s) served upon Begum Zia. Secondly, that as the previous notices were now validated by the Judgment, Begum Zia would respect the next notice and leave. So the direction was upon the government, in its next notice, to allow Begum Zia at least until 12th November to leave her house.
Note 4 – There were no more notices. The next “notice” was when the Police were miking in front of 6 Mainul Road from 7AM 13th November asking Begum Zia to leave.
Note 5 – The 30 days time frame was legally strange. Any Judgment or Order by the High Court Division can be appealed against in the Appellate Division within 60 days.
B. A civil petition for leave to appeal (No.2300 of 2010) and an application for stay were filed before the Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division on 8th November and it came up in the list as Item 18 for hearing on 9th November.
C. The Chamber Judge having heard both sides fixed hearing for both the petitions (appeal and stay) for 10th November before the full bench of the Appellate Division.
Note – The usual practice is that when leave to appeal and stay on a High Court Judgment or Order is sought before the Chamber Judge, if leave to appeal is granted, the appeal hearing is fixed for the next available date (usually a couple of months) and for the mean time the Judgment or Order is stayed. This practice was followed for the 17 other items that came before the Chamber Judge on 9th November and hearings were fixed for February 2011. An exception was made for item 18, both hearings were fixed to be heard together first thing on 10th November.
D. As Barrister Rafique-ul Huq, one of the two seniormost lawyers for Begum Zia (along with TH Khan) was on his way from Singapore after his wife’s cancer treatment (having heard that the appeal hearing was hurriedly fixed on the 10th), Advocate TH Khan on 10th November, prayed for an adjournment of the hearing. The AG opposed the adjournment, but the court granted adjournment till 29th November stating that it was convention that adjournment is granted when a lawyer has serious personal difficulty.
Note 1 – The hearing for whether stay would be granted was adjourned along with the main appeal hearing. So the AG and the Law Minister were not right to say that Begum Zia’s lawyers did not “move the stay petition” because firstly, it was moved before the Chamber Judge on 9th Nov, and secondly, on the 10th the hearing for stay was adjourned by the Court till the 29th.
Note 2 – If a stay hearing is adjourned, is a High Court Judgment deemed to be stayed until the stay hearing is completed? The law is admittedly not clear on this. But it has been a long-running convention of the Supreme Court that until and unless stay is “rejected” by the Appellate Division, a High Court Judgment or Order is not acted upon.
E. Being informed about the Government’s attempts to evict Begum Zia since 7AM of 13th November, Begum Zia’s lawyers Barrister Rafique-ul Huq, Barrister Rafiqul Islam Mia, and others called upon the Chief Justice at his residence at about 9.30 AM. The Chief Justice assured them that it was “impossible” that the “Government would take any action before the 29th”.
F. At about 11AM, Begum Zia’s lawyers were informed that the front gate of her residence has been torn down and law enforcement authorities are about to enter the building. The President of the Supreme Court Bar Association Khandker Mahbub Hossain then prepared a “Lawyer’s Certificate” detailing the meeting with the Chief Justice and mentioning his assurances.
G. The lawyer’s certificate was handed over to the Cantonment authorities at about 2PM but was rejected as “worthless”.
H. The AG is now right to say that if the appeal hearing goes in favour of Begum Zia, she can have her house back.
November 25, 2010 at 1:18 pm
[…] day before the eviction, started a campaign of lie that Mrs Zia is vacating her home on her own 2. On the day of eviction, while keeping journalists, family members, political leadership away from her house, kept on lying […]