Staff Reporter :
BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia on Sunday filed three separate writ petitions with the High Court challenging the legality of the Election Commission (EC) order that cancelled her all the three nominations for the upcoming general election.
Barrister Nowshad Jamir, on behalf of Khaleda Zia, filed the petitions seeking High Court directive on the EC to accept her nomination papers so that Khaleda can run the polls from Bogura-6, Bogura-7 and Feni-1.
The High Court will hold hearing on the petitions today (Monday), Barrister Kayser Kamal, a lawyer for Khaleda, told the reporters after the petitions were filed.
Citing the petitions, Kayser Kamal said, the Election Commission has illegally cancelled Khaleda Zia’s nomination papers with malafide intention. Khaleda Zia did not violate any electoral code of conduct as she was in custody, he added.
On Saturday, the EC rejected her all three appeals against Cancellation of her nominations. Following the EC order, Khaleda Zia lost a legal battle to contest in the December 30 National Election.
Khaleda filed nominations for Bogura-6, Bogura-7 and Feni-1, but during scrutiny, the ROs rejected all the nominations on grounds of her conviction in criminal cases.
Later, her lawyers opted for appeals challenging the ROs’ decisions.
The EC began hearing three appeals of Khaleda on Saturday noon. After hearing the appeals, an Election Commissioner accepted those. However, the Chief Election Commissioner and three other Election Commissioners rejected the appeals.
On October 29, Khaleda was convicted and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment by a special court in Dhaka in Zia Charitable Trust corruption case. Khaleda landed in jail being sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in Zia Orphanage Trust case by the same court on February 8. The High Court later extended her jail terms in the case to 10 years.
A High Court Bench last week made an observation that an accused sentenced to more than two years in jail cannot contest an election even if an appeal against the sentence remains pending. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court did not interfere in the observation.
