Corruption: it is higher judiciary this time

WHEN allegations of widespread corruption, financial and political have tarnished the image of Bangladesh’s lower judiciary, controlled directly by the government, the higher judiciary is now under threat.

The president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Rokonuddin Mahmood, alleged at a rally of anti-government lawyers on October 1 that a sitting judge had recently taken money from an accused to help him get bail from the court of a fellow judge. This was duly reportedly in the media.

Subsequently, the Chief Justice, Justice K.M. Hasan, took the allegation into cognizance and officially asked Advocate Mahmood on Oct 6 to substantiate his allegation. Mr Mahmood submitted to the CJ a written statement, detailing the allegation with some documents, on Oct 15.

On Oct 14, the CJ had cross-examined the judge concerned, Justice Syed Shahidur Rahman and reportedly found a prima-facie case in the allegations. The CJ subsequently advised him to resign, but the beleaguered judge, refused to do that in order to ‘face the inquiry’. He, then, went on two months leave from Oct 16.

It is to be noted here that the additional judge concerned was appointed, along with five others, in April this year, and his appointment had sparked off criticism from a section of lawyers as he was ‘found guilty of misappropriation of funds’ while he was treasurer of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Meanwhile, four of the six judges appointed in April continued to maintain offices in the lawyers’ cubicles in the bar, with their former juniors still maintaining the offices with the name plaques of the judges affixed to the cubicles. The cubicles were allotted to them when they were practising lawyers before joining the bench.

But the lawyer-turned-judges did not deem it proper to remove their name plates from the cubicles, which is vital for the sake of transparency and prevention of conflict of interest. The cubicles were finally cleared of the judges’ belongings and name plates by the incumbent bar officials on Oct 18.

The CJ has now initiated a move to conduct an inquiry against Justice Rahman by the Supreme Judicial Council.

If the president, upon advice from the prime minister, allows the chief justice to conduct the inquiry, it would be the first such probe since independence in 1971.

In Sept 2000, Justice Latifur Rahman was found guilty in a contempt of court case, popularly known as the cassette scam case, for having a long telephonic conversation with former president H.M. Ershad, then accused and subsequently convicted in a graft case.

The then CJ, who had found a prima facie case in the media allegation of corruption against the judge, referred the issue to the president for an inquiry by the Supreme Judicial Council, but Justice Rahman resigned, and no inquiry was held.

Advocate Rokonuddin Mahmood has hinted at more allegations of corruption being brought against judges. “We do not endorse the policy of keeping the garbage hidden under the carpet,” Mr Mahmood said in his speech felicitating five additional judges to the High Court Division on Oct 18. “It is the time to uncover the dirt in the judiciary in order to protect the sanctity of the court, which is last legal recourse for the people.”

Meanwhile, the lower judiciary will continue to suffer from a credibility crisis until and unless, many believe, it is freed from the control of the government. Successive government have continued to delay implementation of a 12-point Supreme Court directive, issued in Dec 1999, which would free the lower judiciary from the clutches of the administration.

Since 1999, three governments - led by Sheikh Hasina, Justice Latifur Rahman and Khaleda Zia respectively - have so far sought extension of time to implement the directive 15 times on various excuses, the latest being on Sept 25 this year. The governmental reluctance clearly speaks of a wish to retain the power to politically manipulate the lower judiciary.

Pakistan may have reservations on proposals

Pakistan is likely to have serious reservations on some of the dozen confidence-building measures proposed by India on Wednesday to normalize bilateral relations.

Pakistan’s guarded response to the Indian announcement laced with its disappointment over exclusion from the proposals the offer of a composite dialogue was a clear indication of it.

Pakistan may have reservations on the proposal of a bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad as such a service would entail establishing an immigration post on the Line of Control (LoC) that would result in a border control. Pakistan may not be receptive to this proposal. The country has been openly opposed to proposals for turning the LoC into a permanent border and may therefore see it as an attempt to project this idea. Besides, Kashmiris too would have to be a party to such an arrangement.

Pakistan would perhaps not have a problem with the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service if no visa or travel permit was required as was the case between East and West Berlin prior to the integration of East and West Germany.

Also, in view of the disputed status of Jammu and Kashmir, establishing a checkpoint would have to give a critical role to the UN in managing it.

Pakistan is bound to be uneasy with the proposal of a halt in the arrests of fishermen within a common zone of the Arabian Sea given that more violations are from the Indian side. Pakistan does not arrest fishermen that stray up to 20 nautical miles inside Pakistani waters. However, according to Pakistani Maritime Security Agency, most Indian fishermen come up to 60-70 nautical miles inside Pakistani waters and many of them are repeaters.

This poses serious security concern to Pakistan.

On the issue of the arrest of fishermen, Pakistan has generally taken a humanitarian view. It was on this consideration that Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali announced release of all the arrested Indian fishermen in May.

Islamabad’s initial reaction to the Indian proposals contained a veiled message for New Delhi that Pakistan would have been more receptive to “unconditional” proposals. It was reflected in the foreign ministry statement issued on Wednesday.

A number of key measures proposed by India seem conditional to the success of the second round of talks on the resumption of civil aviation links. They convey that India would be ready to begin technical-level talks on the restoration of train service between the two countries only once the talks on air links and overflights were to prove successful. The Indian offer to increase the strength of the missions also appears to be linked to the resumption of both air and rail links.

On the question of air links, Pakistan is unlikely to come down from its position of seeking guarantees against unilateral withdrawal of the facility by means of a mutual undertaking by the sides through a joint declaration.

On Wednesday, there were exhaustive consultations at the foreign ministry on the Indian proposals. An inter-ministerial meeting is likely to be convened soon to further examine these proposals and formulate Pakistan’s response.

Meanwhile, some observers see the latest peace overtures by India as a positive development in the backdrop of strained Pakistan-India relations. However, others see them as half-hearted measures, pointing to their conditional aspect. “These measures seem more an attempt to look good rather than do good,” remarked a political observer.

From the Pakistan’s standpoint what is obviously more important is resumption of a substantive composite dialogue and it has already reminded India that all proposals made by it are integral to the composite dialogue process. But for now there is no indication from New Delhi of that happening.

Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha on Wednesday ruled out talks with Pakistan, saying a dialogue is not possible unless Pakistan ends the alleged cross-border terrorism in the occupied Kashmir.