Politicians’ double standards a threat to professionalism of BD’s judiciary

The question whether the chief justice of Bangladesh should have any say in appointing judges of the country’s apex court has recently caused an unofficial rift in the country’s legal circle _ thanks to the partisan political lines followed on the issue publicly by the top-level leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Subsequently, the HC premises have been witnessing rallies and counter rallies, processions and counter processions by the opposing groups over the last two weeks.

The president of the bar, Mr. Mohammad Ozair Faruq, a senior advocate known for his political loyalty to the Awami League, argues these days that the government must appoint the judges of the apex court “in consultation with” the chief justice.

But the general secretary of the Bar, Mr M.A. Hafiz, another senior SC lawyer whose political loyalty lies with the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party, says there is nothing wrong to appoint judges without having any prior consultation with the CJ.

What is ironical is that the opposing groups of lawyers argued just the opposite only the other day. They have changed stances with the change of guard after the last general election in Oct 2001.

This is obviously a strange situation, especially given the amount of sacrifices the people of Bangladesh made over the decades in the struggle for democracy, the rule of law in other words, which envisages an independent judiciary free from the interference of the State’s executive wing.

How can the judiciary be independent, if, in the first place, the CJ’s recommendations are frequently being ignored by the Executive in appointing the judges of the apex court?

However, the recent trouble began with the government of Begum Khaleda Zia dropping six of the nine additional judges, who were appointed for two years to the SC’s the High Court Division by the government of Sheikh Hasina in February 2001.

The services of two were confirmed, while another died last year. Reports have it that the CJ recommended to the President, apparently the appointing authority, but is constitutionally obliged to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, to confirm all the eight judges.

Reacting sharply to the dropping of the ad hoc judges, the pro-AL lawyers, headed by the Bar’s president, have been staging in the court premises noisy protests including rallies, processions, sit-in and boycott of court proceedings, to press home their demand to reinstate the judges since February 22.

But the pro-BNP lawyers, headed by the Bar’s general secretary, argue that the agitations staged by their political opponents are absolutely illegal, especially because there is no constitutional obligation for the government to have prior consultations with the CJ.

It is a see-saw situation, to say the least. The original provision, when the Constitution of Bangladesh was adopted in 1972, obliged the government to appoint judges to the High Court “in consultation with the Chief Justice”.

But when the Fourth amendment to the Constitution was adopted, decreeing One-Party system under late political supremo Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975, the provision was re-written to the exclusion of the pre-requisite of consulting CJ in appointing the judges. Since then, the relevant Article reads: “The Chief Justice and other Judges shall be appointed by the President”.

It is, however, important to note that the BNP and others still secure political dividends by reminding people of the democratic provisions the Mujib regime had done away with; but they are yet to restore many of those provisions.

But what is hypocritical about the ongoing debates by the opposing camps of lawyers is that both the both of them took diametrically opposite stances on the similar events in a reverse political scene only in the recent past.

To give an example, the government of Awami League in March 2001 appointed two judges of the High Court Division as judges of the Appellate Division, superseding their seniors. This was done in violation of the erstwhile CJ’s recommendations.

Subsequently, the pro-BNP lawyers had staged various kinds agitations, processions and rallies included, in the court premises against the government step and demanded that the appointments be made in line with the CJ’s recommendation. But the same group of the pro-BNP lawyers now does not find any legitimacy, legal or political, in the pro-AL lawyers’ demand for honouring the CJ’s recommendations.

The pro-AL lawyers, who are agitating now, did not feel it important to uphold the dignity of the CJ when the AL was in power.

What is interesting is that the present Law and Justice Minister, Barrister Moudud Ahmed, who is naturally believed to be the instrumental behind the dropping of the judges this time, was in the fore front of the pro-BNP lawyers agitating for the CJ’s dignity in 2001.

Similarly, advocate Abdul Matin Khashru, former Law and Justice Minister of Sheikh Hasina’s Cabinet, who was instrumental behind the violation CJ’s recommendation in 2001, is now in the fore of the pro-AL lawyers’ movement for “securing” the CJ’s honour.

Double standard is, perhaps, an understatement to describe the situation _ not to note that the politicians concerned undermine the IQ level of the people.

The hard fact of the contemporary Bangladeshi politics is that both the mainstream political parties love to see their own people on the benches of the country’s apex court.

If the trend is not stopped without delay, even the genuine aspirant for the job of the judges would eventually be compelled to toe this or that political line. The result is obvious, the professionalism of the higher judiciary will be the casualty.

The will to tackle city’s problems

Do we have a mindset that is permanently and passionately confrontational and in a state of ceaseless turmoil and conflict? Do we really find an emotional outlet when trapped in this kind of an unstable paradigm? Such questions come to the mind when you read disturbing reports that all is not well in the ties between the city and the provincial governments.

Such reports have been appearing regularly of late and, strangely enough, there are credible accounts of how well the city government has been doing. That is to say that Karachi has been prospering for the last about 19 months when the city government came into being.

Let me refer to a story in an Urdu daily which referred to the city government as announcing that the National Reconstruction Bureau had declared Karachi to be a model district in the context of work done in the field of Information Technology. According to the report, NRB experts met in the city government complex on Wednesday and announced that the City District Government Karachi had done outstanding work in the IT field not only in Sindh but also in the context of whole Pakistan. That could also well reflect the IT expertise that the city possesses, besides the dedication and commitment of the city government.

In fact, there is another news which gives details of how the Gulshan-i-Iqbal Town has been able to save Rs20 million with regard to road development work which it had carried out during the last 16 months. There are other details of works done in Korangi Town, Jamshed Town, with details like installation of streetlights, road-widening and cleanliness campaigns. Little things though, but they reflect the larger canvass of a change that is being felt in the city: this despite the visible incidence of crime and terrorism, cynicism and bigoted approach that we sometimes demonstrate towards civic matters.

One refers to these stories in a larger, sudden but not an altogether surprising context, wherein we are informed that the city government is finding itself in some sort of confrontation with the Sindh government. It does not make an average citizen feel comfortable to say the least. For a people accustomed to such a vocabulary that makes one anxious, here are some of the words that have been used to focus on the city government versus the Sindh government: There is “ongoing bickering”, “meddling” in the affairs of the city government, “sabotage”, “hindrances and jeopardy” — the general tone is troubling.

There is perhaps a need to seriously pray that it all comes to an amiable end in the interest of the provincial capital. As one has always said that Karachi could well show the way in which Pakistan’s urban centres will go, there is, therefore, much at stake.

While one does perceive a political and power struggle between the city and the Sindh governments, it is time for the citizens to show their concern. For there is not the slightest doubt that the city government has done substantial good work and produced results that are there for all of us to see. Not just positive and concrete results, like roads, bridges, anti- encroachment drives, water and sewerage issues and a general higher degree of cleanliness (one example being the work done during Eidul Azha) but what is more, there has also been an evident indication of attitude — an attitude that reflected that there is a will to tackle Karachi’s problems.

There are many examples of the good works that have been seen in the recent months. Take the fact that the general state of our roads or streetlights has improved. Of course, not all roads are ok, nor is every streetlight glowing; that is a big dream. Look at the congested roundabouts making way for systematic intersections and see the modern spacious look that is being given to bottlenecks like New Town, (Guru Mandir) and Old Exhibition. Take Rashid Minhas Road and look at the good work being done at Banaras Chowk. Little dreams but big changes in the lives of ordinary people. Look at the bridges and observe the dense flow of traffic. See the new smiling buses on the roads. It is a welcome sight and even ask the complaining common folks and they will tell you that a new happy transport culture seems to be taking roots.

Buses, minibuses, metrobuses, green buses; the drivers and the conductors all playing better role than ever before. There is much to talk about the work that is being done and as citizens contend the city government like any elected government should be given a fair and full chance. Let not history repeat itself at the city government level. Let our fears not come true.

From the look of things, it is likely that there are two distinct camps at this stage for and against the city government: it is a tussle for power and authority and the sufferers would be the people. Therefore, if there is an agitation in the minds of the citizens, there is a good reason for it. It is understandable that they are anxious. It is a city that is calling for, rather crying for, a sustained attention — a caring and dignified approach to all matters.

The city government has shown grace and decency and while one does realize that there are political divides and dissenting groups in society, it is in everybody’s interest to rise above bickering, threatening differences and pursue a vision that will do a lasting practical good to all.