Home Videos Photos News & media Blogs Contact    
News and Articals

Has the Supreme Court Judgment indirectly nullified the 1/11 changeover and should Gen. Moin U. Ahmed be tried for subverting the constitution?

Edit Date:7/30/2010 12:00:00 AM

By MBI Munshi: After carefully reading the text of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the 5th Amendment Case it suddenly occurred to me that the breadth of the ruling would also cover what occurred after January 11, 2007 when Gen. Moin U. Ahmed and his close military associates subverted, mutilated, held in abeyance and amended the constitution by extending the caretaker government concept beyond the 90 days limit that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It may also be observed that the two years in which the Caretaker Government was operative there was in fact indirect military rule. The relevant part of the 5th Amendment judgment reads – “We are of the view that in the spirit of the Preamble and also Article 7 of the Constitution the Military Rule, direct or indirect, is to be shunned once for all. Let it be made clear that Military Rule was wrongly justified in the past and it ought not to be justified in the future on any ground, principle, doctrine or theory whatsoever as the same is against the dignity, honour and glory of the nation that it achieved after great sacrifice; … it is also against the honour of each and every soldier of the Armed Forces who are oath bound to bear true faith and allegiance to Bangladesh and uphold the Constitution which embodies the will of the people, honestly and faithfully to serve Bangladesh in their respective services and also see that the Constitution is upheld, it is not kept in suspicion, abrogated, it is not subverted, it is not mutilated, and to say the least it is not held in abeyance and it is not amended by any authority not competent to do so under the Constitution.” Logic dictates that everything done in pursuance of the 1/11 agenda is automatically nullified by the judgment including the elections of 2008 that were held under indirect military rule! This would, of course, be a very audacious and unexpected outcome clearly not envisaged by the Supreme Court judges. If even part of my analysis is correct then the following part of the judgment becomes highly relevant – “While dismissing the leave petitions we are putting on record our total disapproval of Martial Law and suspicion of the Constitution or any part thereof in any form. The perpetrators of such illegalities should also be suitably punished and condemned so that in future no adventurist, no usurper, would dare to defy the people, their Constitution, their Government, established by them with their consent. However, it is the Parliament which can make law in this regard. Let us bid farewell to all kinds of extra constitutional adventure forever.” One may certainly make an arguable legal case that Gen. Moin U. Ahmed was an adventurist, usurper and defied the people, the Constitution and the Government. The country therefore waits impatiently for Gen. Moin’s punishment and condemnation as Parliament no where extended the 90 day rule set on the Caretaker Government which he and others ignored to the utter detriment of the nation.

Terms & Conditions © Copy right by Awami Brutality 2010