Bangladesh
Papul MP Post Papul's MP post writ petition dismissed by High Court
Dhaka, June 8: The High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by Kazi Shahid Islam Papul to retain his seat as a Member of Parliament.
A virtual high court bench of Justice Md Mojibur Rahman Mia and Justice Kamrul Hossain Mollah on Tuesday dismissed the writ petition, saying it had no substance.
Kazi Shahid Islam Papul's sister Nurunnahar Begum and Papul's nominee Shahadat Hossain filed the writ petition challenging the validity of the cancellation of Kazi Shahid Islam Papul's parliamentary seat due to his criminal conviction, declaring Laxmipur-2 constituency vacant and the validity of the by-election schedule.
Although the writ petition was filed in March, the court kept it for order after hearing on Monday. Rokon Uddin Mahmud and Mostafizur Rahman Khan appeared for the writ petition. Deputy Attorney General Nowroz was on behalf of the state. Russell Chowdhury.
Mostafizur Rahman Khan said, “Our writ petition has been dismissed‘ Samarali ’(directly). There is an opportunity to go to the Appellate Division against this order. But so far I have not received any such instruction from the clients.
Papul was elected as an independent candidate in the Eleventh Parliamentary Election held in 2018. Later, his wife Selina Islam was also made a Member of Parliament in the reserved seat.
Papul was arrested in Kuwait in June last year on charges of money and human trafficking and bribery. A Kuwaiti court sentenced him to four years in prison on January 28 after the trial.
From that day onwards, Papul's MP post was cancelled and the seat was declared vacant. Later, the Parliament Secretariat issued a gazette. The Election Commission has also announced the schedule for the by-elections in that constituency on June 21.
This is the first time that a Bangladeshi lawmaker has been convicted abroad in this way and his post has been canceled due to punishment.
It was argued in the writ petition on behalf of Papul that the provisions of the Constitution of Bangladesh are not applicable in this case as there is no sentence in the court of Bangladesh. However, the state argued that Article 7 (2) (d) of the Constitution does not specifically mention the courts of the country or abroad. There is talk of being convicted of a ‘criminal offense’. As a result, this relevant article of the constitution is applicable to Papul.
Referring to the case against Papul under the Money Laundering Act, the prosecution said in the hearing that no fugitive or fugitive accused could get legal redressal.
