The warrant for the execution of the death sentence of Abdul Quader
Molla on war crimes charges is likely to be issued today by the
International Crimes Tribunal-2.
On September 17, the Appellate Division sentenced Jamaat leader Quader
to death overturning his life term awarded by the ICT-2 on February 5.
The death row convict has been shifted from the Kashimpur Jail to the
Dhaka Central Jail. ICT registrar AKM Nasiruddin told New Age that he
expects to receive today the copy of the Appellate Division verdict and
that it would take him at least two hours to issue the warrant of
execution of the sentence.
Supreme Court registrar AKM Shamsul Islam expressed the hoped the copy
of the verdict, signed by all the five judges on Thursday, would reach
the tribunal this afternoon.
‘The moment we receive the warrant, the process of execution of the
sentence would begin in accordance with the law,’ Dhaka Central Jail’s
senior superintendent Forman Ali told New Age.
Quader’s wife, three daughters and the eldest son met him on Friday, a
day after he was shifted from the Kashimur Jail, said Forman.
Quader can only seek mercy from the president and no review as the ICT
Act stipulates, state minister for law Quamrul Islam and acting attorney
general MK Rahman told reporters at separate news briefings Thursday.
Section 20 (3) of the ICT (Tribunals) Act 1973 states ‘The sentence
awarded under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the
orders of the Government.’
Defence lawyers, however, differ and said Quader has the constitutional right to seek a review of the apex court’s verdict.
Chief defence counsel Abdur Razzaq said in 30 days after receiving the
certified copy of the verdict, ‘We will file a review petition.’
And nothing should be done before the review petition is disposed off, he said.
He said, Article 105 of the Constitution stipulates ‘The Appellate
Division shall have power, subject to the provisions of any Act of
Parliament and of any rules made by that division to review any judgment
pronounced or order made by it’
He also cited the Supreme Court (Appellate Division) Rules, 1988 which
in PART IV Rule 1 states, ‘Subject to the law and the practice of the
Court, the Court may, either of its own motion or on the application of a
party to a proceeding, review its judgment or order in a Civil
proceeding on grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1
of the ‘Code of Civil Procedure and in a Criminal proceeding on the
round of an error apparent on the face of the record.’ (source)