Two Appellate Division judges, in the full verdict on the 16th Amendment review, have accused High Court judge Md Ashraful Kamal of judicial misconduct for making derogatory and politically motivated remarks about late president Ziaur Rahman, terming his language vulgar, indecent, and a violation of judicial conduct
Justices Rezaul Haque and SM Emdadul Haque accused siting Justice Ashraful Kamal of judicial misconduct for making politically biased and indecent remarks about Ziaur Rahman and other Supreme Court judges, and ordered to expunge his comments from the official judgment for violating judicial conduct and constitutional norms.
The Supreme Court published its 50-page verdict, written by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed and supported by five other judges, on its website on June 4.
On October 20, 2024, a six-judge bench led by chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed unanimously rejected the government鈥檚 review petition against the verdict that had reinstated the Supreme Judicial Council, introduced by the Fifth Amendment in 1979 during Ziaur Rahman鈥檚 rule.
Justice Md Ashraful Kamal, one of the three High Court judges who delivered the verdict on the 16th Amendment in 2016, described Ziaur Rahman as a 鈥榰surper鈥� of state power in his separate opinion.
The 16th Amendment, passed during the Awami League regime, had empowered Parliament to remove Supreme Court judges for proven misconduct or incapacity.
The amendment was declared unconstitutional by a majority High Court verdict on May 5, 2016, a decision later upheld by the Appellate Division in a landmark judgment on July 3, 2017.
Justice Md Rezaul Haque said Justice Ashraful Kamal鈥檚 remarks about Ziaur Rahman amounted to judicial misconduct.
He recalled Ziaur Rahman鈥檚 significant role as a sector commander and chief of the 鈥榋鈥� Force during the Liberation War. Despite personal hardships, including the imprisonment of his wife and sons, Ziaur fought bravely on the frontlines for independence.
Justice Rezaul said that calling Zia a 鈥榙acoit鈥� for assuming state power was inappropriate and irrelevant to the case, and showed political bias.
He criticised the remarks for lacking objectivity and for breaching judicial decorum.
Justice Rezaul also rejected Ashraful Kamal鈥檚 claim that Ziaur Rahman granted citizenship to Jamaat leaders.
He cited the Appellate Division鈥檚 verdict in Bangladesh vs Ghulam Azam and others, which addressed the issue of Jamaat leaders鈥� citizenship.
In the review verdict, Justice SM Emdadul Haque condemned Justice Md Ashraful Kamal鈥檚 remarks about Ziaur Rahman, calling them indecent, vulgar, and a case of judicial misconduct.
He noted that although the Appellate Division had expunged some controversial comments about MPs in the 16th Amendment verdict, Ashraful Kamal鈥檚 political and historical remarks remained.
During the review hearing, attorney general Md Asaduzzaman clarified that Ashraful鈥檚 comments, as the third judge, were considered obiter dicta鈥攏ot binding, but possibly persuasive in future cases.
Justice Emdad stressed that judges must avoid political commentary in verdicts, as such remarks show personal bias and harm judicial neutrality.
Referring to the Ghulam Azam case, he said that political affiliation, such as with Jamaat-e-Islami, cannot alone justify denying legal rights or labelling someone anti-liberation.
In contrast, Justice Ashraful claimed Jamaat opposed the Liberation War and controversially alleged that some sitting Supreme Court judges were linked to Jamaat.
He argued that judges should abandon political identity upon taking oath to ensure impartial rulings.
Justice Emdad said that Ashraful made serious allegations against several past chief justices, accusing them of failing to uphold the Constitution.
By ignoring the apex court鈥檚 authority and attacking its judges, Ashraful Kamal violated the judicial code of conduct and constitutional duties.
After reviewing his entire opinion, Justice Emdad found Ashraful鈥檚 language abusive and unfit for a judge, and ordered that all such remarks be removed from the official judgment.