An unreasonable demand

During an iftar party hosted for the diplomats on September 26, 2008, AL Acting President Zillur Rahman claimed that withdrawal of all 'false cases' against Hasina is essential to create a congenial atmosphere for free, fair and transparent elections, and remarked that it would be impossible to move forward without making Hasina's release permanent. Mr. Rahman has however not clarified how does the holding of trials of an individual leader under the law of the land can interfere with the creation of a congenial atmosphere for free, fair and transparent elections. How can Mr. Rahman term cases against Hasina as false before the adjudication takes place? Does he have the moral or legal authority to exonerate an accused before the trial is held in a court of law? Do Mr. Rahman, himself a veteran lawyer, and his party AL believe that all are equal in the eye of law? If so, how can he make such an unreasonable demand, that too in the presence of foreign diplomats who are supposed not to poke their nose in our internal affairs?

Unfortunately, over the years, we have built up a very bad political culture in our country. No sooner a criminal case of, say, corruption, extortion, murder etc is filed against a politician than his/her cohorts come out in chorus demanding withdrawal of the case terming it as a false one. It is high time we come out of this dangerous culture which was primarily responsible for breeding corruption in our country. If none of the political leaders was corrupt then who made Bangladesh a leading corrupt country? Let our leaders like Shekh Hasina and Khaleda Zia set personal examples by fighting the cases filed against them in the court of law. They should also ask their followers not to raise such unreasonable demands as Mr. Rahman has done. Our judiciary is now independent. Surely they have nothing to fear. If they are proved not guilty in the court, I am sure, their public image will not only be free from present cloud, it will be much brighter. Fighting such cases in the court, and winning them, will discourage a sitting government from filing such cases if these are really false.

Barrister Rafique-Ul Huq’s advice to politicians

After Begum Khaleda Zia was granted bail by the High Court on September 11, 2008 her lawyer, and also lawyer for Sheikh Hasina and other senior corrupt politicians, Barrister Rafique-Ul Huq advised Khaleda, Hasina and their corrupt cronies to take lesson from 1/11 and stop “ churi, batpari ebong maramari” (stealing public property, swindling and fighting one another). He further advised that if they did not do so 1/11 might be repeated again. I personally feel that his advice will fall flat on the ears of the senior corrupt politicians. Because, as long as distinguished lawyers like Barrister Rafique-Ul Huq are readily available to defend them at the higher courts they have nothing to fear ! Professionally ACC lawyers and PPs are no match to lawyers like Barrister Huq.

In early 1950s, when I was a school going boy, our teachers told us that the distinguished lawyers of those days like Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Nehru, Mr. Jinnah, Mr. Suhrowardy, Mr. AK Fazlul Huq and others alike always refused to take up a case to defend a client in the court who appeared to them as guilty, or on the wrong side. They motivated us to become lawyers to fight for the truth. I am sure Barrister Rafique-Ul Huq also had similar advice from his school teachers. Leave aside the nitty-gritty of laws, is it morally and ethically correct for a patriot to defend a person who is corrupt, or universally known to be corrupt, or who harbored the corrupt ? Does Barrister Rafique-Ul Huq, after having defended the leading corrupt politicians in the court, has the moral authority to advise anyone to stop “ churi, batpari ebong maramari”?

One may come out with the argument in favor of the lawyers that it is the duty of a lawyer to render his professional service to his client in exchange of money without caring for the truth, clients character and background, or national interest. If that is true, then what is the difference between a lawyer and a prostitute who also renders her professional service to her client without caring for anything ? Will a learned member of the bar kindly explain for a laymen like me to understand this practice by some lawyers ?

Slaves do it again

In my letter to the editor of the Daily Star dated Aug 24, 2008 I stated, “It will appear to any casual observer that in Bangladeshi politics the leaders do not have supporters or followers. They have slaves. These slaves blindly support their respective leaders, even if such leaders are grossly wrong, corrupt and unpatriotic.” Two most recent incidents further substantiate my statement. In one incident the standing committee of a major party sat in a formal meeting with its chairperson in the chair who was released from the prison on the preceding day. The learned members of the standing committee unanimously resolved that the chairperson would lead their (or the chairperson’s personal) party for life. The chairperson graciously didn’t say word in the meeting to oppose the resolution. However, after one or two days, when it was observed that the decision faced severe adverse criticism from the local and the international press as an undemocratic one, the chairperson declined to accept the offer. In another incident the secretary general of another major party after coming out of the prison publicly reinstated himself as the secretary general of the party by ousting the acting one. The president of the party now at the opposite side of the globe for “treatment” ruled over telephone that the secretary general cannot reinstate himself to his old post. The acting one should continue till further order. As if there is no constitution or committee to decide such matters. The interesting part of both the stories is that the members of the standing committee of one party, and the members of the central committee of another, all behaved like the slaves in a fiefdom. One may call it anything, but democracy. One eleven has taught our politicians no lessons so far.

Train on the right track?

I tend to agree with the analysis of the current political situation made by Mr. Husain Imam (DS August 28, 2008). He has correctly catalogued the successes and failures of the present caretaker government (CTG) of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed. Mr. Imam is very right when he says, “The bandits, we say godfathers, who were put in jail (more appropriately in quarantine camp) or kept on the run on charges of wanton corruption, violence, loot, extortion and abuse of state power, now seem to be flexing their muscles to stage a comeback with garlands around their necks and making V-sign with their fingers, thanks to the handling, or should we say mishandling, of the cases.” According to the much talked about roadmap the primary objective of the present government is to hold the national parliamentary election by December, 2008 and hand over power to a team of honest and efficient political leaders from whichever party they may be. Mr. Imam has not come out with any suggestion for the government to achieve this mission in an unhindered way. The lady and the gentlemen who are running the CTG are all known for their honesty, efficiency and professionalism. But none of them is a politician. They are likely to err when handling political matters. It seems all politicians have now openly united to form a united front to discredit these distinguished persons. It would not be fair to criticise these advisers and special assistants without telling them what was, or will be, the right political course for them to follow. In his write up Mr. Imam did not mention what the CTG could/can do to avoid the present political fiasco. Only telling them, “Hand over power to politicians here and now” is not a responsible way of talking. Mr. Imam has further mentioned, “--- they (people) have begun to believe that running the affairs of a country is not the task of an un-elected non-political government. They have begun to think that the earlier the caretaker government holds national election and hands over power to a truly representative elected government, the better .” There cannot be any disagreement on this point. No member of the present CTG has, to the best of our knowledge, ever claimed that running the affairs of a country is the task of an un-elected non-political government. They also believe that the best course open to them is to hand over power “to a truly representative elected government” within the declared time frame. Would Mr. Imam suggest how the CTG could hand over power to a truly representative elected government and not to the “bandits”, as it was before one eleven?