Prescribed verdict likely in Aug 21 case: BNP

Prescribed verdict likely in Aug 21 case: BNP

Dhaka, Aug 25 (Just News): Bangladesh Nationalist Party senior joint secretary general Ruhul Kabir Rizvi Ahmed speaks at a news briefing at the party’s central office at Naya Paltan on Saturday.

Bangladesh Nationalist Party on Saturday feared that a prescribed verdict is likely to be given in the case over August 21, 2004 grenade attack on a rally of Awami League.

The party’s senior joint secretary general Ruhul Kabir Rizvi Ahmed at a news briefing at the party’s central office at Naya Paltan came up with the remarks citing Awami League general president Sheikh Hasina and general secretary Obaidul Quader’s recent remarks.

‘The remarks of the Awami League leaders indicate that they are out to influence the verdict of August 21 case. People are still in doubt whether they would write the verdict and implement that through the court,’ said Rizvi.

He said Obaidul Quader has said that the BNP would be in crisis after the verdict of August 21 case and it would be delivered in September. ‘It becomes clear through Quader’s statement that they working on a blue print over August 21 case and on evil moves one after another,’ he said.

Awami League president and prime minister Sheikh Hasina at an August 21 memorial function had said that there is no doubt that Khaleda Zia and her son Tarique Rahman were directly involved with the grenade attack.

Rizvi said there was no mention of Tarique Rahman in the charge sheet submitted during Moeen Uddin-Fakhruddin regime.

‘After assuming office, Awami League appointed their man Kahhar Akand as investigation officer bringing him back from retirement just to implicate Tarique with the case,’ he said, and in 2011, in a supplementary charge sheet Tarique Rahman was implicated.

Rizvi said Mufti Hannan did not mention Tarique in his statement under section 164. ‘Hannan was taken to 410 days of remand in various cases and was forced to mention Tarique Rahman’s name… there is no legal basis of the statement as there is no instance to confess twice in the same case