Law monitor
Anti-terrorism ordinance, 2008
 |
stop-terror.com |
The government proclaimed one law with far reaching and serious consequences without any discussion or consultation whatsoever. The Anti Terrorism Ordinance 2008 issued on 11 June 2008 contained not only a new definition but gave list of terrorist acts. According to Section 6, acts or omissions constituting threats to unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of Bangladesh, creating panic among the people, or obstructing official activities would be regarded as 'terrorism'.
This definition is quite broad and vague, opening up possibilities of abuse. This unilateral decision shows dangers of having an unelected government in office. It was even difficult to obtain the text of the law for sometime.
The law provides a minimum sentence, three years rigorous imprisonment to life term as well as death sentence. Under Section 7, persons can be charged for extending financial or other support to terrorist activities, even on the basis of reasonable suspicion. Crimes under this Ordinance are non bailable. It authorizes police to detain a person on remand for ten days, which can be extended to five more days by the court. Section 28 authorizes the government to set up special Anti Terrorism Tribunals to try cases under this Ordinance. The Tribunal has to follow special procedures.
According to Section 41, the government may transfer, on “reasonable grounds,” any case relating to crimes under this Ordinance, from any Sessions Court or tribunal to any Special Tribunal, or from any Special Tribunal to any Sessions Court, at any stage prior to the completion of depositions.
The Ordinance gives extensive powers to law enforcement agencies, over and above the wide power given by existing legislations to arrest without warrant, on mere suspicion, and powers of preventive detention. There is no authority in Bangladesh to scrutiny the powers of such agencies.
Odhikar believes that terrorism should not be addressed from law and order perspectives alone; it has to take into account the economic, social, political, cultural context. An anti-terrorist law that extricates citizens from their constitutional and human rights can not be acceptable. Moreover, criminal activities mentioned in the Ordinance could be addressed under the existing penal laws.
Odhikar apprehends that the Ordinance would be used to persecute political opposition, human rights defenders, trade unions and other activists in the name of ensuring security of the State. As the definition is so vague and broad, it can catch all, even legitimate protests exercising constitutional rights, could be perceived by the government as threats against State and as such terrorism.
The law provides the authority to ban any organization purportedly engaged in terrorism and prohibits and criminalizes statements in support of a banned organization without needing to show that the speech directly incited a criminal or terrorist act. This is a tool that government would use against its adversaries.
Considering the grave consequences for human rights and that it was promulgated without any public consultation or participation whatsoever, Odhikar demands that the next Parliament should not only debate or discuss, in the house and in the committee, but must solicit public opinion, though public hearings and other means. Without broader public consultation, this law should not be approved, since there are strong opposing views, that laws already in place adequately address issues covered by the Anti Terrorism Ordinance 2008. All aspects must be duly considered before the adoption of this law. It has to provide adequate safeguards against its abuse.
In addition, the government also introduced the Money Laundering Ordinance, 2008 in April.
Source: Complied from Human Rights Report 2008, by Odhikar.
