DHAKA: The High Court will deliver its decision on its long-pending rule asking the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) to explain why the GATCO graft case filed against BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia and others should not be quashed.

The bench comprising Justice M Nuruzzaman and Justice Abdur Rob passed the order as the hearing on the rule ended on Wednesday afternoon.

After hearing the arguments from the both sides, the court, said, “Hearing concluded in the case; judgment CAV”. CAV (Curia Advisari Vult) is a Latin legal term which means the court wishes to be advised (judgment is reserved).

From April 19, AJ Mohammad Ali and Barrister Badrudduza Badal moved for Khaleda Zia in the rule hearing while M Khushid Alam Khan placed his argument on behalf of ACC.

Rejecting the four petitions filed by Khaleda to defer the rule hearing, the HC bench of Justice M Nuruzzaman and Justice Jafar Ahmed started a hearing on a seven-year-old writ petition challenging the legality of Gatco corruption case filed against the BNP Chairperson.

On April 7, Chief Justice SK Sinha assigned the bench to deal with Niko, Gatco and Barapukura coalmine graft cases.

Later, Justice Abdur Rob replaced by Justice Jafar Ahmed to settle the rule on Gatco graft case. 

On September 2, 2007, the ACC filed the GATCO corruption case during the military-installed caretaker regime against Khaleda, her youngest son Arafat Rahman Coco and 11 others.

According to the case documents, the defendants illegally awarded the contract of container handling at the Chittagong port and the Dhaka's Inland Container Depot to a certain firm GATCO, causing a loss of Tk 145.64 million to the state exchequer.

On Sept 27, 2007, Khaleda and Coco filed two petitions with the High Court challenging the legality of the case under the Emergency Rule Act and seeking a stay order on the trial's proceedings.

In 2008, a High Court bench issued a rule and stayed the trial's proceedings after hearing a petition of the BNP chief.

In 2008, Khaleda filed another petition challenging the legality of the case filed under the ACC Act, following which the High Court once again stayed the case's proceedings.

BDST: 1706 HRS, JUN 17, 2015
RS/RR