That was in 2008. Pakistan cricketers played in Seba IPL. That is the first and so far it is the last. The IPL closed its doors to Pakistani cricketers on November 26 of that year after the horrific terrorist attacks at the Hotel Taj and other places in Mumbai. Afridi has also been able to play in one of the IPL matches. And after 13 years, he is sad to see the IPL growing. Due to India’s influence in the ICC, the IPL has become more important than international cricket. The South African cricketers have left the team to play in the IPL in the one-day series against Pakistan. Bangladesh’s Shakib-Mustafiz also left Sri Lanka series and went to IPL. Former Pakistan captain Afridi is saddened by the matter. How can a domestic event be more important than international cricket?
Expressing his sorrow on Twitter, Afridi wrote, “It is sad to see that the IPL is now affecting international cricket. I was amazed to see why Cricket South Africa let their players go to the IPL in the middle of a series. It’s time to dump her and move on. Congratulations to Pakistan for winning a great series. Fakhar has scored a great century.
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has appealed to the Appellate Division (Leave to Appeal) seeking permission to appeal against the High Court’s verdict banning any citizen of the country from going abroad.
ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan said the application was made to the concerned branch of the Appellate Division on Thursday (April 8). The petition seeks stay on the judgment of the High Court.
On March 17, the High Court ruled that the ACC’s ban on Ataur Rahman alias Sweden Ataur Rahman from going abroad was illegal. However, the full 12-page verdict was published on April 4. The ACC then filed an application (leave to appeal) seeking permission to appeal.
The High Court passed the order in a writ petition challenging the ACC’s ban on Narsingdi resident businessman Ataur Rahman alias Sweden Ataur Rahman from going abroad.
“We have no hesitation in saying that it is unconstitutional to control or restrict the constitutional right of movement of a citizen at the whim of any person or authority,” the High Court judgment said. The verdict further said, “Imposing such restrictions on anyone for an indefinite period is unconstitutional and inhumane.” In the absence of specific laws or regulations, it is unconstitutional to take such steps or proceedings with an official order of an investigating agency. So it would be fair to set a deadline.
Referring to Article 36 of the Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to move freely, the judgment said, Such action should not be taken only in the public interest – it must be by specific law; Again, it should not be done only by law – it should be in the public interest. In order to control or restrict the movement of a person, it is essential to fulfill the above two conditions; If one of the two conditions is fulfilled and the other is not, it will not be lawful.
“In the light of the established principles of the Constitution and the law, we have no hesitation in expressing the view that the deportation action taken by the Commission against the petitioner was taken without legal authority and has no legal effect,” the judgment said.
It is learned that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) issued a notice on August 24, 2020 seeking information on Ataur Rahman’s assets. Following the notice, he submitted his assets to the ACC on October 22. The ACC got information about the assets and launched an investigation. During the investigation, on December 20 last year, the ACC sent a letter to the Special Branch (SB) of the police banning Ataur Rahman from going abroad. Ataur Rahman filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the letter.
The verdict further said, “Many suspects or accused are leaving the country on various pretexts at the stage of search and investigation and it is not possible for them to face the law in the future.” In view of all these realities, it has become imperative to enact laws or regulations to control the movement of a person involved in corruption or money laundering or in other cases, which is also a matter of time.
“Considering the overall situation, the court’s clear and unequivocal view is that various investigative agencies and law enforcement agencies, including the Anti-Corruption Commission, should immediately deport any suspect involved in any crime at the investigation stage,” the verdict said. Make laws or rules; And to seek such barred orders from a competent court as an interim measure until such laws or rules are enacted and to obtain the permission of the court.
At the stage of investigation or inquiry, if the concerned investigating agency or authority applies to the competent court through its appropriate representative, the court may, subject to satisfaction, issue a barred order or any other just order at its discretion for a specified period of time not exceeding 60 days. The aggrieved person or party can apply to the concerned court for revocation or revocation of the order and in that case the court can issue the necessary order.