Law Minister Anisul Huq says it was necessary to take action against the judge who instructed police to accept only those cases of rape that have occurred in the preceding 72 hours.
The judge’s advice as part of her observations in a closely-watched rape case verdict went against the victim’s fundamental right, according to the minister, reports bdnews24.com.
“It was necessary to take action and so we have,” he said. “It was done in complete accordance with the law.”
“A notice will be issued on the matter once we have a letter from the chief justice. Then, according to the law, the Supreme Court will issue a notice asking her to justify herself.”
But Huq did not wish to give an opinion on the verdict itself during his discussion with the media at the Secretariat on Sunday.
The Supreme Court said on Sunday morning that it had temporarily suspended the judicial powers of Dhaka Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal-7 Judge Mosammat Kamrunnahar, and sent a letter to the law ministry instructing that she be reassigned to its Law and Justice Division.
Asked whether the law ministry had received the letter, Huq said they had not.
Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain had removed the judge’s judicial powers and temporarily suspended her judicial work, which he had the ability to do, Huq said.
“I did not say anything to the chief justice. He made the decision himself.”
“Now, the question is – why was it necessary to take action? Our esteemed judges issue verdicts every day. Some are satisfied with the verdicts and some are not. Those who are unsatisfied can take the matter for an appeal to a higher court according to the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Judges are completely free to decide based on how they see the merit of the case and the existing law, Huq said.
“However, in this case, while issuing her verdict to an open court, the esteemed judge, in her observations, instructed law enforcers not to accept any rape cases if 72 hours had passed after the incident. This is the objectionable part.”
“There are no such limitations on criminal cases,” the law minister said.
Huq cited an example: there was no case filed in 1975 after the murder of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the nation’s independence leader. The first information report, a vital document that opens a path to formal charges, was submitted in 1996, he said.
“Article 31 of the constitution is clear – no action can be taken against a Bangladeshi citizen except in accordance with the law. Her statement also violated the fundamental rights laid out in Article 21 of the constitution.”
As such, the chief justice had to take action himself because of the consequences and implications in the verdict, Huq said.
“I think this is embarrassing for our esteemed judges. It was an incorrect order to give to law enforcers. And so, it was necessary to take action.”
The judge will be summoned and asked to explain her decision and the matter will be dealt with under the law, the minister said.
Asked whether he had spoken to the judge in question, Huq said: “I have not spoken to the esteemed judge. She will defend herself. Everything will proceed according to the rules.”
On Thursday, Kamrunnahar acquitted Shafat Ahmed, the son of an Apan Jewellers co-owner, and four others on charges of raping two university students at the Raintree hotel in Dhaka’s Banani in 2017.
In her observations, the judge wrote: “The investigating officer submitted a biased chargesheet in the case. The medical reports on the victims did not find any signs of sexual violation. The DNA found on the victims’ clothes did not match the suspects. The victims came to the police 38 days after the incident, saying they had been raped. The investigating officer should have given the matter proper consideration.”
Instead, the officer “wasted the public’s time”, the judge said, instructing that no rape cases should be filed if 72 hours have passed since the incident.
She also said it was proved that the university students had consensual sex before the incident.
Rights activists and lawyers said that Kamrunnahar’s observation was a violation of the constitution.
