Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Politico-legal battles in Bangladesh By Nurul Kabir When ordinary individuals have no access to leaders of powerful political parties, the higher judiciary has a fight on its hands _ to make the big guns listen to the silent majority. Whether the political controversies could be settled in the court of law, however, remains to be seen. At the moment, the high court of Bangladesh is dealing with a good number of politically controversial issues. Perhaps the most important petition before it is whether the constitutional provision for holding general election under non-party caretaker government, which came into effect in 1996, is adequately democratic and consistent with the spirit of constitution. Besides, the court is set to hear a complaint of contempt of court allegedly committed by the government. The court would take time to settle all these issues. But many in Dhaka believe, the verdicts, whenever they come, would have long-term implications on the growth of democracy in Bangladesh. It was a lawyer, M Salimullah, who challenged the constitutional provision of elections under a non-party caretaker administration, headed by the immediate past chief justice, in January 2000. In a writ petition filed with the high court, he argued that there was no scope in the scheme of Bangladesh's constitution to have any non-elected government to run the affairs of the state for a day, in the first place-not to mention that the phenomenon is inconsistent with the basic concept of democracy. Besides, the petitioner argued that the provision of making the immediate past chief justice (CJ) the head of the caretaker government was bound to have a negative impact on the freedom of Judiciary from the influence of the executive wing of the State, especially when the latter had a scope to have an immediate past CJ of its choice. The petitioner made respondent to the case all the political parties, in and outside the power, who had approved the concept and composition of the caretaker government. The hearing continues. Meanwhile, the high court asked the government of Prime Minister Khaleda Zia on June 22 to explain why the constitutional provision for having 45 reserved seats in parliament for women to be 'elected' by the MPs, and distributing the seats among political parties having representation in parliament will not be declared unconstitutional and therefore void. The court issued the rule nisi after seven women's rights activists had filed a writ, arguing that the provision, incorporated into the constitution on May 16, is inconsistent with the spirit of democratic principles which approves nothing but election of peoples representatives directly by the people. Besides, the provision eventually barred women without any political affiliation from contesting in the elections to the reserved seats, which is again discriminatory against those women who are not the members of the political parties in question. The government has yet to respond to the high court order. The question of whether the section 124A of the Bangladesh Penal Code, politically known as sedition act, could be used against a citizen for opposing a government was taken to the court on June 26 by an election commissioner, Safiur Rahman, himself an accused in a sedition case. Rahman is one of the several former bureaucrats who had taken to the streets against the government of Khaleda Zia in 1996. He was made an election commissioner when Sheikh Hasina became prime minister after Khaleda's electoral defeat in 1996. Rahman was accused of sedition in April 2002 after Khaleda staged a comeback to power in 2001. However, the petitioner's counsel argued that the penal code was enacted in 1860 during the colonial rule and section 124A was incorporated in 1870 to deal with 'offences' against the state; yet, sedition has been defined as an 'offence against the government', which should be changed in an independent country. The high court issued a rule nisi on the government on July 5 to show cause, within two weeks, as to why the provision of the penal code in question shall not be declared inconsistent with the constitution and therefore void. Curious citizens are waiting for the government reply. Besides, the high court is set to hear a case of contempt of court allegedly committed by the government. A leader of a small opposition party, Bikalpadhara, who was defeated in the July 1 by-election to the Dhaka-10 constituency of parliament, filed the case on July 6. Praying to draw contempt proceedings against four top officials of the government-the principal secretary to the prime minister's office, the defence secretary, the home secretary and the acting principal staff officer to the prime minister- the petitioner said that government failed to comply with a high court order, issued on June 29, asking the former to post 'necessary number of army personnel to all the polling centres' on the election day. Acting Chief Election Commissioner, Safiur Rahman, also told the press, on the election day that the government did not fully comply with the court order as regards the deployment of soldiers at the polling stations. All the cases have generated significant amount of curiosity among the politically conscious sections of the citizens. Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
