Special Powers Act of 1974 explained in the context of bangladesh

Special power act is a draconian law that all successive government in bangladesh has abused. In recent times the law has been indiscreminately used against the members of opposition.

1. S pecial Powers Act 1974 P repared by- Showkat Hossain. Additional District Judge, Member, First Court of Settlement, Dhaka.

2. T he background D etentions can be of two types- punitive and preventive. Special Powers Act 1974 is infamous for its provision for preventive detention, this act is popularly known as the “ kalo ain” [ why black?] H owever the practice of preventive detention seem to have been stopped since 2009 Nonetheless, the abuse of this law, to my opinion, has been increased and multiplied in recent years. J ustification of preventive detention.

3. P reventive detention in different laws during British and Pakistan period. East India Company Act 1784 and 1793 Bengal State Offences Regulation Act 1808 Foreign Immigrant Regulation Act 1812 Bengal prisoners regulation 1818 CRPC( limited ) 1898. Defence of India Act 1915 and 1939 Government of India Act 1919 and 1935 Bengal Special Powers Ordinance 1946 East Bengal Preventive Detention Ordinance 1949 Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance 1952 Security of Pakistan Ordinance 1952 Constitution of Pakistan 1956 and 1962 East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance 1958 Pakistan Defence Ordinance 1965

4. The 1972 C onstitution of Bangladesh A rticle 7- (2) This Constitution is, as the solemn expression of the will of the people, the supreme law of the Republic, and if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. 26. (1) All existing law inconsistent with the provisions of this Part shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, become void on the commencement of this Constitution.   (2) The State shall not make any law inconsistent with any provisions of this Part, and any law so made shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

5. 33. (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.    (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the magistrate, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

6. 35. (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than, or different from, that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.   (3) Every person accused of a criminal offence shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an independent and impartial Court or tribunal established by law.

7. Article 102- (2) The High Court Division may, if satisfied that no other equally efficacious remedy is provided by law –  (b) on the application of any person, make an order-  ( i ) directing that a person in custody be brought before it so that it may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner ; or

8. T he infamous second amendment of the constitution, 1973 Article 26 was amended to add that the parlament may amend the constitution to add provision which is inconsistent with the fundamental rights A new chapter ( IXA) enabling the executive government to declare state of emergency were added empowering the government to suspend few of the fundamental rights Article 33 were amended to enable the parliament enact laws regarding preventive detention

9. N ew article 33 of the constitution after the second amendment 33. (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.   (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the magistrate, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.   (3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply to any person–   (a) who for the time being is an enemy alien; or   (b) who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.  

10. Article 33 continued (4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a period exceeding six months unless an Advisory Board consisting of three persons, of whom two shall be persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of the Supreme Court and the other shall be a person who is a senior officer in the service of the Republic, has, after affording him an opportunity of being heard in person, reported before the expiration of the said period of six months that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention.   (5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order:   Provided that the authority making any such order may refuse to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose.   (6) Parliament may by law prescribe the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under clause

11. T he special powers Act 1974 T he Act was passed on 9th feb 1974 S ection 2 of the Act defined “ dealing in black market, detention order, hoarding and prejudicial act” Dealing in black market means selling or buying anything at a price higher than the maximum price fixed. Hoarding means stocking or storing anything in excess of the maximum quantity allowed to be stored.

12. P rejudicial act means – any act which is intended to prejudice - the sovereignty or defence, maintainance of friendly relations with foreighn state, security of bangladesh, endanger public safety, maintainance of public order, excites feeling of enmity between different sections of people, interfere with the administration of law and order, supply of essential commodity, cause fear to public or to prejudice the financial interest of the state.

13. S ection 3 to 14 provides that G overnment may detain any person with a view to prevent him doing any prejudicial act – in case that person is a foreigner, government may remove him from bangladesh ( sec 3) DM or ADM may issue the detention order. DM or ADM shall instantly send a report to the government. I f government allows, the detention will continue, if govt doesn’t aprove, the order of the detention shall expires after 30 days.( sec 3) T he detaining authority shall as soon as possible ( but of course within 15 days) communicate the grounds of detention and will give him a right to a representation. ( sec 8) H owever, if the authority thinks that providing grounds will be against public interest, authority may withheld the grounds . ( sec 8)

14. 5. T here shall be an advisory board of 3 persons- two of them are or have been or qualified to be a judge of the Supreme Court, anothe r is a senior officer of the govt. ( sec 9) 6. G overnment shall send the matter to the advisory board within 120 days with detail grounds and the representation of the detaned person.( sec 10) 7. T he advisory board after hearing ( no lawyer allowed) and evaluating the materials before it, shall submits its report with opinion to the government within 170 days from the date of the detention. ( sec 11)

15. 8.I f the advisory board is satisfied, the government may confirm and continue the detention order for indefinite period. M eanwhile the advisory board will give hearing and review its decision twice a year. (sec 12) 9.I f the advisory board is not saisfied government shall release the detenue ( sec 12) 10. G ovt may on its own revoke the detention order ( sec 13)

16. P roblem with this law Bangladesh’s Special Powers Act is identical to indian MISA ( Maintainance of internal security Act) 1971 and East pakistan public safety ordinance 1952, but the bangladesh law was harsher than that of india and pakistan U nder MISA 1971, the Indian government is allowed to detain a person 3 months max at a time. I n bangladesh it is 6 month (record max in the world) In India, governement may detain a person for maximum 2 years, in Pakistan it is 8 months a year- in bangladesh it is indefinite

17. Problem/ defect of the law continued I n democracies, preventive detention is only allowed during war time or in emergency time. I n bangladesh it is a regular law , always existing. S cope of preventive detention in bangladesh is wide with vague and subjective words. G overnment may withheld grounds of detention which effectively jeopardise the detenues right to representation. R ight to consult a lawyer is denied

18. P ractice and abuse of the preventive detention law in bangladesh Every successive government in Bangladesh took advantage of this law to supress the political opponent. After enacting the provision by the Special Powers Act, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman government used Preventive detention against the tribal people of Chittagong Hill Tracts, and against the suspected members of Jatio Shomajtantirik Dol and Shorbohara Party. The Zia regime used the law against whoever he thought necessary to detain. President Ershad govt. used this Preventive detention against Awami League and BNP during his regime (1982-90). But unfortunately two elected party BNP Govt. (1991-95) and Awami League Govt. (1996-2001) used it to oppress the opposite party severely.

19. A lmost invariably, the detenu was refused to provided with the grounds of their detention A dvisory board became a mere paper existence On 7 September 2000 a three-member Sub-committee of the Parliamentary Standing Committee submitted a 31-page report on SPA to the Parliament, in which it was mentioned that 69,010 people were detained under SPA of 1974 in the last 24 years and 68,195 persons were released by order of the High Court Division. Supreme Court has been very liberal in granting relief to the detenu under this Act

20. S upreme Court held that the satisfaction of the DM or ADM or the Government is not subjective satisfaction but should be objective and there should be real grounds G rounds should be supported by facts and reason E ven when some grounds are good and some are bad and when it is impossible to ascertain which grounds actually lead the authority to detain , the entire detention order is bad in law V ague grounds, insufficient grounds etc all are reason for release. E ven if grounds were not provided , the detention is bad

21. G overnment , in neumerous occasions tried to infructuate or by-pass the order of the high court by issueing fresh detention order A t some point the Supreme Court started providing whole sale relief I n july 1992, 4500 people were detained in a single month. D uring that time total detenu under preventive detention were around 10,000. 69,010 people were detained under SPA of 1974 until 2000. After 2000, the practice of preventive detention started to decline I don’t recall a single incidence of preventive detention in last 12 years. Does it indicate an improve in the scenario? I doubt so. We will discuss detail about the current situation at the later part of this lecture.

22. B reak ?

23. S ome other provisions and features of the Special Powers Act T he original Act of 1974 provided punishment for sabotage, prejudicial act, forming subversive association, hoarding and dealing in blackmarket ranging from 3 years to 5 years of imprisonment. I n 29th july 1974 , the Act was amended to provide death sentence for all of these above mentioned crimes. T he amendment also provided death by firing squad in case of a conviction. T he amendment was loudly applauded in the parliament.

24. N ow Sabotage means any act with intent to cause damage to any government building, vehicle, machinery or apparatus, any damage to railway, road, canal, bridge, culvurt, port,telephone line, any building used for production or supply of essential commodities, any jute product- punishment death or life imprisonment or upto 14 years P enalty for hoarding or blackmarket death or life imprisonment or upto 14 years P enalty for counterfeiting currency note , even buying or selling or possessing counterfeiting notes is death or life imprisonment or upto 14 years

25. P enalty for smuggling – death , life imprisonment or upto 14 years [ what is smuggling?] S elling smuggled goods up to seven years P enalty for adulteration or sale of adulterated foods, drinks, drugs or cosmetics - death , life imprisonment or upto fourteen years.

26. P enal populism and the misconception of the legislators T he intention of the legislators were to impose hrsher punishment to create fear D oes extreme punishment really works ? [ attitude of the court, witnesses] W as special powers act a success in dealing black market or hoarding? P enal populism and the recent legislative trend ( fixing minimum punishment, criminalizing civil wrongs, disproportionately harsher punishment, how crime and punishment is political, how government considers it as a panacea, how this is a global issue, how the focus of our penal policy needs to be shifted, 51, 21, witnesses, penal populism in judiciary, the recent hike in death sentences)

27. S pecial tribunal O ffences under Special Powers Act and some other acts mentioned in the schedule of the act is exclusively triable by special tribunal S essions judge, additional sessions and assistant sessions judge shall be the special tribunal T he sessions judge may transfer cases P olice officer not below the rank of SI will submit investigation report. T he trial will be summary { judicial attitude] S pecial tribunal may pass any sentence [ even a joint district judge may pass death sentence when acting as the capacity of a special tribunal) C rpc applicable A ppeals lie to the HCD A ll offences are cognizable and non-bailable.

28. T he recent trend of abuse D uring 2007-08, there were provisions for preventive detention in the emergency rules. but after 2009 the practice of preventive detention has been stopped N ow, section 15 of the special powers act is being widely mis-used for the same purpose T he abuse of preventive detention is easily visible, the detention order itself speaks a lot about the abuse, the idea of preventive detention itself is eye catching but the widespread abuse of section 15 is under-reported E ven our judiciary is not understanding what to do with this

29. A glaring example of how section 15 of the SPA is being mis-used https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/ এক-ভয়ংকর-সেপ্টেম্বর *এক মাসেই ৫৭৮টি নাশকতার মামলা  *পুলিশের ওপর ৯০টি হামলার তথ্য  *এত ‘সন্ত্রাস’, তবু নগর ছিল শান্ত  *জীবনযাত্রা ছিল একদম স্বাভাবিক  *বিএনপির নেতা-কর্মীরা আসামি  *আসামিদের ধরতে বিশেষ অভিযান গত সেপ্টেম্বরে ( ২০১৮) ঢাকা শহরে আসলে কী ঘটেছিল? ওই মাসে নাশকতার মামলা হয়েছে ৫৭৮টি। প্রায় সব মামলার বাদী পুলিশ। এসব মামলার তথ্য বলছে, পুলিশের ওপর হামলা হয়েছে ৯০ বার। ওই মাসে উদ্ধার হয়েছে ১ হাজার ১৮৬টি ককটেল ও ৩৭০টি পেট্রলবোমা।পুলিশের ওপর এমন হামলা এবং ককটেল-পেট্রলবোমা উদ্ধারের এই সংখ্যা অতীতের সব রেকর্ড ছাড়িয়েছে। যে বছরগুলোতে শহরময় জ্বালাও-পোড়াও আর সংঘাত ছিল, তখনো পুলিশের ওপর হামলার অভিযোগে এর অর্ধেক মামলাও হয়নি।আর এ বছরের সেপ্টেম্বরে শহরময় পুলিশের ওপর এত হামলা, সহিংসতা হলেও কিছুই টের পায়নি ঢাকা শহরের মানুষ। জীবনযাত্রা ছিল একদম স্বাভাবিক।

30. ২০১৮ সেপ্টেম্বর ছাড়াও গত অক্টোবর, নভেম্বরেও নাশকতার মামলা হয়েছে। অক্টোবরে ৭৬টি ও নভেম্বরে ৪৩টি নাশকতা মামলার তথ্য পাওয়া গেছে। চলতি মাসেও মামলা করার এ ধারা চলছে। গত সেপ্টেম্বর থেকে ১৪ ডিসেম্বর পর্যন্ত এসব মামলায় বিএনপি- জামায়াত ও এর অঙ্গসংগঠনের ১ হাজার ৫০৯ জন নেতা-কর্মীকে গ্রেপ্তার করে ঢাকার সিএমএম আদালতে হাজির করেছে পুলিশ। এর মধ্যে সেপ্টেম্বরের নাশকতার মামলায় গ্রেপ্তার হওয়া আসামির সংখ্যা ছয় শতাধিক। পুলিশ প্রতিবেদন দিয়ে আদালতকে বলেছে, এসব নেতা-কর্মী নাশকতার সঙ্গে জড়িত। এসব মামলায় ঢাকা মহানগরের ৫০টি থানা এলাকায় বিএনপি ও জামায়াতের নেতা-কর্মীদের বিরুদ্ধে বেআইনি জমায়েত, পুলিশের ওপর হামলা, ককটেল বিস্ফোরণ এবং নাশকতার চেষ্টা চালানোর অভিযোগ আনা হয়েছে। ঢাকা মহানগর পুলিশ ও ঢাকার মুখ্য মহানগর হাকিম আদালত সূত্র থেকে এসব তথ্য পাওয়া গেছে। পুলিশের করা মামলার নথি থেকে হিসাব করে সেপ্টেম্বরে ঢাকায় কয়েক শ ককটেল বিস্ফোরণের তথ্য পাওয়া যায়। তবে এসব মামলার কাগজে ককটেল বিস্ফোরণের যেসব ঘটনাস্থল উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে, গত এক মাসে এ রকম ৩৪টি মামলার ঘটনাস্থল সরেজমিনে ঘুরে ককটেল বিস্ফোরণ, জমায়েত বা নাশকতার তথ্য পাওয়া যায়নি। এ ব্যাপারে বক্তব্য জানতে চেয়ে সরাসরি যোগাযোগ করা হলে ঢাকা মহানগর পুলিশের একাধিক উচ্চপদস্থ কর্মকর্তা কোনো কথা বা কোনো রকম মন্তব্য করতে রাজি হননি।

31. ৩০ সেপ্টেম্বর ককটেল বিস্ফোরণের অভিযোগে শিল্পাঞ্চল থানার উপপরিদর্শক (এসআই) মোস্তাফিজুর রহমান বিএনপির ১৪৫ জন নেতার নাম উল্লেখ করে মামলা করেন। মামলায় সিকদার সিএনজি পাম্পের সামনে বেলা সোয়া তিনটায় ককটেল বিস্ফোরণের অভিযোগ আনা হয়। অথচ সিকদার সিএনজি পাম্পের কর্মীরা ওই ঘটনার কথা স্মরণ করতে পারেননি। এই পাম্পের একজন কর্মচারী বলেন, ‘আমাদের পাম্পের সামনে ৩০ সেপ্টেম্বর কোনো ককটেল ফোটেনি।’ ঢাকার একজন সহকারী কমিশনার নাম প্রকাশ না করার শর্তে বলেন, সব এলাকার বিএনপি-জামায়াতের নেতাদের তালিকা তাঁদের হাতেই আছে। সম্প্রতি পুলিশের তৈরি করা নাগরিক তথ্যভান্ডারে (সিআইএমএস) নাম ধরে খুঁজলে তাঁদের পূর্ণাঙ্গ পরিচয় চলে আসে। এসব ব্যবহার করেই পুলিশ মামলাগুলো করছে। স্থানীয় রাজনৈতিক নেতারাও মামলা করার ক্ষেত্রে ভূমিকা রাখছেন। ঘটনা না ঘটলেও মামলা হচ্ছে, এই কল্পিত ঘটনার উৎস কী—জানতে চাইলে ওই কর্মকর্তা বলেন, পুরোনো রাজনৈতিক সংঘাতের মামলাগুলোর ওপর নাম, তারিখ ও ঘটনাস্থল বদলে নতুন মামলাগুলো করা হচ্ছে। অনেকটা অনিচ্ছায় তাঁদের এ কাজ করতে হচ্ছে জানিয়ে তিনি বলেন, ঊর্ধ্বতনদের নির্দেশেই মামলা হচ্ছে।

32. C lick on this link and you will be surprised https://www.prothomalo.com/topic/ গায়েবি-মামলা Section 15 , sabotage , punishment death or life imprisonment. No conviction , but pretrial jail is almost inevitable The declining state of independence of judiciary The casino raid – should we call it a judicial crossfire? Why should the government in power use preventive detention when you can file gayebi mamla ?

33. A ny questions?

34. S elected reading https://bdjls.org/research-monograph-preventive-detention-and-violation-of-human-rights-bangladesh-perspective/ Special Powers Act DLR publications

35. R ecommended watch for law students Movies - A few good men, 12 angry men, My cousin Vinny, Murder in the first , Judgment at Nuremberg, T o kill a mockingbird, T he accused, P rimal fear, The Verdict, A time to Kill, Witness for the Prosecution, In the Name of the Father, Paths of glory, The trial of the Chicago seven, the client , compulsion (1956), Nothing but the truth , Marshal, legally blonde, Bollywood- Jolly LLB, Pink   Tv Series- The people vs O. J Sympson, Better Call Saul, Goliath , The Devil Next Door.   Documentaries - RBG, the staircase, Making a murderer, 13th, the thin blue line, The central parl five, T he trials of gabriel fernandez, Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father .