Should the trial of a case last for 24 years? What does it say about a judicial system if a case for alleged possession of drugs runs for a quarter of a century, without any hope in sight of its completion? In a country where the rule of law is respected in letter and spirit, this is incomprehensible.

Ahad Ali has been caught in the tangle of our intricate legal process since 1998 on charges of drug possession. This case encapsulates everything that is wrong with our legal system. Firstly, the circumstance of his arrest is dubious. A packet containing heroin was found nearby where he was sitting while waiting in Gabtoli for a bus home in 1998. He was not found in possession of it. Does proximity to a banned substance merit arrest? If so, was he the only one in that area? From his statement, it appears that he may have been framed, the intention of the police being to extort money from him. He failed to pay up the Tk 5000 they had demanded, and that has cost him 25 years of his precious life.

Secondly, should it take a quarter of a century to dispose of the case? We must ask: Why hasn't a single witness been produced after all these years? The case is so old that the current OC of Mirpur Thana knows nothing about it, and for all that he knows, and we can guess, the policemen involved in the arrest may well have retired or be dead by now. And what can be more pitiful than to find that the main witness, the sole one produced after 24 years, knows nothing about the case? So is the case with witness number two.

Admittedly, the case is serious, since possessing heroin over 25 grams is a penal offence which carries the maximum sentence of death. But we wonder why the court has not considered the repeated dismissal petition of the defendant. Is it the fault of the accused if the state fails to prepare the case and conduct it properly in court? We agree that trial judges go by the evidence produced. But if no witness is produced to corroborate the charges even after 24 years, should the ruling of the court not go in favour of the accused, since everyone is innocent unless proven guilty?

We believe this is a case the High Court should take cognizance of. The logic and even the legal position of giving fresh dates every time after a hearing, when no witness has been forthcoming for so long, has to be explained. Such miscarriage of justice should be righted, and be never repeated.

The High Court today directed the authorities concerned to stop DJ party, illegal and cruel activities and bullying in the name of rag day at all educational institutions in 30 days.

The court also issued a rule asking the authorities to explain in four weeks why their inaction to stop such activities at the institutions should not be declared illegal.

Secretaries to the ministries of education, cultural affairs, and information and broadcasting; vice chancellors of universities concerned, inspector general of police; chairman of University Grants Commission and director general of Secondary Education Board have been made respondents to the rule.

The HC bench of Justice Md Mozibur Rahman Miah and Justice Khizir Hayat came up with the order and rule following a writ petition filed by Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Kamrul Hasan seeking necessary directives on the issue.

Deputy Attorney General Bepul Bagmar represented the state during hearing of the petition.

A Dhaka court today allowed the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to interrogate four members of North South University's (NSU) board of trustees at the jail gate for a day, in a Tk 304 crore money laundering case.

The accused are: MA Kashem, Benajir Ahmed, Rehana Rahman and Mohammed Shajahan.

Judge KM Emrul Kayesh of Dhaka Metropolitan Senior Special Judge's Court passed the order after ACC Deputy Director Farid Ahmed Patwary, also the investigation officer of the case, produced them before it with a forwarding report.

Read more

HC orders arrest of 4 NSU trustees in Tk 304cr laundering case

In the forwarding report, the IO said that all four, including the NSU Board of Trustees Chairperson Azim Uddin Ahmed, were directly involved with the money laundering. So, they should be interrogated at the jail gate for collecting more information.

Defence lawyers submitted four separate petitions for providing them with first class division in jail on grounds that they were holding high-profile social status in their respective position. 

Upon hearing both the sides, the judge sent them to jail and allowed the ACC to interrogate them at the jail gate for one day.

Read more

6 including 5 NSU trustees sued for laundering Tk 304 cr

The judge also directed the jail authorities to provide them with first class division in jail as per Jail Code.

Yesterday, the four were arrested after the High Court rejected their anticipatory bail petitions in the case filed by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) on May 5.