স্বনামখ্যাত ডা. জাফরুল্লাহ চৌধুরী, সাংবাদিক মাহফুজউল্লাহ ও চ্যানেল২৪ এর বিরুদ্ধে আজ রাষ্ট্রপক্ষ ট্রাইব্যুনালের রেজিস্ট্রার বরাবর আদালত অবমাননার অভিযোগ দায়ের করেছে। আগামীকাল মামলাটি কোর্টে তোলা হবে। দরখাস্তটি নিম্নরূপ।
IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES TRIBUNAL-1, DHAKA.
IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES TRIBUNAL-1, DHAKA.
ICT – BD MISC. PETITION NO. ....... OF 2013
IN THE
MATTER OF:
A
petition for contempt under section 11(4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, read with Rule 45 of
the International Crimes (Tribunal-1)
Rules of Procedure, 2010.
AND
IN
THE MATTER OF:
Chief
Prosecutor.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1.
Channel 24, represented by its Managing Director, 387 (South) Tejgaon
Industrial Area, Dhaka-1208.
2.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Channel 24, 387 (South) Tejgaon Industrial Area,
Dhaka-1208.
3.
Executive Director, Channel 24, 387 (South) Tejgaon Industrial Area,
Dhaka-1208.
4.
Head of Programme, Channel 24, 387 (South) Tejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka-1208.
5.
Episode Producer, Muktobaak, Episode broadcasted on 18.09.2013 at 11.00
a.m., Channel 24, 387 (South) Tejgaon Industrial Area,
Dhaka-1208.
6.
Mahmudur Rahman Manna, Anchor, Muktobaak, Channel 24, 387 (South) Tejgaon
Industrial Area, Dhaka-1208.
7. Dr. Zafrullah Chowdhury, Trustee, Board
of Trustees, Gonosastho Kendro Trust, Gonosastho Kendra, House 14-E, Road-6,
Dhanmondi, Dhaka-1205, Bangladesh.
8. Mahfuz Ullah, Secretary General, Center
for Sustainable Development (CFSD), House – 8/6, (1st Floor),
Block-B, Lalmatia, Dhaka – 1207.
...Opposite
Parties
The
humble petition on behalf of the Petitioner above named most respectfully:
SHEWETH:
1. That on 14th August 2013, in
the Chief Prosecutor v. Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, both the Prosecution and
the Defence completed their arguments in front of the Hon’ble International
Crimes Tribunal No. 1 of Bangladesh and on the same day, the case was declared
as Case Awaiting Verdict (hereinafter referred as “CAV”) by this Hon’ble
Tribunal and the case is still pending for judgment.
2. That on 18th September 2013
at 11.00 p.m., opposite party No. 1, a television channel, namely- Channel 24,
represented by its Managing Director, its head office being in 387 (South)
Tejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka-1208, Opposite Party No. 2 is its Chief
Executive Officer and Opposite Party No. 3 is its Executive Director and
Opposite Party No. 4 is its Head of Programmes, broadcasted a television
talk-show, namely Muktobaak, which
is one of their regular television programmes, and the same was produced by the
Opposite Party No. 5 and anchored by Opposite Party No. 6 and on that night,
Opposite Party Nos. 7 and 8, a Trustee of Board of Trustees, Gonosastho Kendro
Trust, Gonosastho Kendra, House 14-E, Road-6, Dhanmondi, Dhaka-1205, and
Secretary General, Center for Sustainable Development (CFSD), House – 8/6, (1st
Floor), Block-B, Lalmatia, Dhaka – 1207, respectively, were guest discussants
along with another.
The
recorded Digital Video Disc (hereinafter referred as ‘DVD’) is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure-A.
3. That in the said Talk-show Opposite
Party No. 7, Dr. Zafrullah Chowdhury, said,
ÒAvR‡K
mvjvDwÏb Kv‡`i †PŠayix, Avgiv wPiKvj †R‡b G‡mwQ, GUv Avwg wek¦vmI K‡iwQ, AvR‡K
†m ej‡Q, †m bvwK wQ‡jvB bv, †mUv mZ¨, hvB †nvK, †m 4Uv mv¶x B K‡i‡Q, GKUv
†Zv ejjvg Avgv‡`i mvjgvb, Av‡iKRb n‡jb GKRb wmwUs RRmv‡ne, GB nvB‡Kv‡U©i eZ©gvb RRmv‡ne‡K †m mv¶x †g‡b‡Q Ges
Dwb e‡j‡Qb Dwb mv¶x w`‡Z Pvb, Dwb bvwK `iLv¯— w`‡qwQ‡jb, Avgv‡`i †gvRv‡¤§j
†nv‡mb mv‡n‡ei Kv‡Q mv¶x †`evi AbygwZ †P‡qwQ‡jb, Zv‡K AbygwZ †`qv nq wb Ges
GKRb cªv³b ivóª`~Z w`‡q‡Qb, Dwb ï‡b‡Qb| GB †h wRwblUv Gi d‡j wK n‡e? m‡›`nUv
wKš‘ gvby‡li g‡b †_‡KB hv‡e| AvB‡b e‡j G `kRb Avmvgx Lvjvm †c‡q hvK wKš‘ GKRb
wbivciva †hb kvw¯— bv cvq|Ó (Today Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, we have known
forever, I believed that as well, he was not here, that is true, whatever, he
produced four defence witnesses, one of them was our Salman, another one was a
sitting Justice, he [Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury] relied on the testimony of a
sitting Justice of the Hon’ble High Court Division and he [the Hon’ble Justice
of the High Court Division] was willing to testify, he submitted his
application, he sought the permission to our Mr. Mojjammel Hossain but
permission was not granted and a former High Commissoner testified and he was
heard. What will be the result of this? The doubt will remain within the
people. Law says that, let ten accused persons be released, lest an innocent
gets punished.]
Later,
Opposite Party No. 7 continued to say,
“mvjvDwÏb Kv‡`i
†PŠayix‡K g‡b-cÖv‡b N„Yv Kwi Avwg, GB †jvK `vex K‡i‡Q †m wQ‡jvbv, †m nvmbvBb
bv‡gi GK RR mv‡ne‡K mvÿx †g‡b‡Q, †mB RR mv‡ne‡K †Kb mvÿx †`b bvB, GUv‡K hw` bv
†`Iqv nq, Zvn‡j wK wePv‡ii evbx wbf„‡Z Kvu`‡e bv? ... GB wePviK †Kb mvÿx †`‡e
bv?Ó (I hate Salah Uddin
Quader Chowdhury with all my heart, this person is claiming that he was not
here in 1971, he wanted one Justice Hasnain as his defence witness, why this
justice was not given permission to appear as a defence witness? If he is not
allowed, whether that will not heart the natural justice?)
4. Subsequently, Opposite Party No. 8,
Mahfuz Ullah, said,
ÒAvi
Rbve Rvdi Djøvn †PŠayix mv‡ne †h cÖkœ DÌvcb K‡i‡Qb, †mUv nj, Dwb [mvjvnDwÏb
Kv‡`i †PŠayix] 4 Rb mvdvB mvÿxi bvg w`‡q‡Qb, †hUv Ab¨‡`i †ÿ‡ÎI MÖnb Kiv n‡q‡Q
ïay Zvi [mvjvnDwÏb Kv‡`i †PŠayix] ‡ÿ‡Î mvdvB mvÿx‡`i MÖnb Kiv nqwb| GB Rb¨B Dwb
[Rvdi Djøvn †PŠayix] ej‡Qb †h, GB Rb¨B cÖkœ¸wj evievi DÌvwcZ n‡”Q|Ó (And the question that is raised by Dr.
Zafrullah Chowdhury is that he [Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury] submitted the
names of four defence witnesses, which were allowed in other cases, but not
allowed in his case. That is why, he [Dr. Zafrullah Chowdhury] is saying that,
these questions are being repeatedly raised.)
5. That the Opposite Party Nos. 7 and 8,
thus, claimed in the said talk-show that such rejection of rights of the
accused Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury is bound to create doubt upon all the
proceedings of this Hon’ble Tribunal.
6. That the petitioner submits that the statement
made in the said talk-show is biased, baseless, utterly false
and fabricated,
ill-motivated, and is not made in good faith. Such statement was made only to
scandalize this Hon’ble Tribunal and its process (by exercising
its independent judicial functions and also fair trial) and to undermine the
confidence of the people in the integrity of this Hon’ble Tribunal and its
process.
7.
That the
Petitioner therefore prays, relying upon issues
relating to above mentioned statements made in the said talk-show, that this Hon’ble Tribunal may issue an order
of contempt against the above-mentioned opposite parties under section 11(4) of
the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,
1973, read with Rule 45 of the International
Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure, 2010.
I Applicable
Laws
8. That section 11(4) of
the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,
1973 states that:
‘A Tribunal may punish
any person, who obstructs or abuses its process or disobeys any of its orders
or directions, or does anything which tends to prejudice the case of a party
before it, or tends to bring it or any of its members into hatred or contempt,
or does anything which constitutes contempt of the Tribunal, with simple
imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which extent to Taka
five thousand, or with both.’
9. That moreover,
Rule 45 of the International Crimes
(Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure, 2010 states that:
‘In pursuance of section
11(4) of the Act, the Tribunal may draw a proceeding against any person who
obstructs or abuses the process of the Tribunal, or disobeys any of its order
or direction of the Tribunal, or who does anything which tends to prejudice the
case of a party before the Tribunal, or tends to bring the Tribunal or any of
its members into hatred or contempt, or does anything which constitutes
contempt of the Tribunal.’
II. PRAYER
10. Therefore,
it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly:
(a) Issue a contempt notice stating
that why a contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the Opposite
Parties in exercise of power of this Hon’ble Tribunal under section
11(4) of the International Crimes
(Tribunals) Act, 1973, read with Rule 45 of the International Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure, 2010;
(b) Upon
hearing, convict the Opposite Parties under section 11(4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973,
read with Rule 45 of the International
Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure, 2010 for
making, facilitating and broadcasting the alleged comtemptuous statement in the
said talk-show on 18.09.2013 at 11.00 pm (Annexure – A) through Opposite
Party No. 1’s satellite channel and thereby scandalising this Hon’ble Tribunal
by biased, baseless, false and fabricated and mala fide statement (Annexure
–A), and as
such, have either ‘tended’ to bring this Hon’ble Tribunal into hatred or
contempt and/or have ‘done’ an act which
constitutes contempt of the Tribunal;
(c) To stay further broadcasting, circulation or
use in any matter or in any other form of the scandalous statement made in the
said talk-show dated 18.09.2013 aired on 11.00 p.m. (Annexure-A)
(d) Upon conviction,
sentence the Opposite Parties, with imprisonment of one year and/or adequate
fine;
(e) Issue any other order(s)
or direction(s) that this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper for the
interest of justice.
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন