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 ?
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 ?
posted by Ashraf's column at
9:23 AM
2 Comments:
The concept on which this blog is based on has a fundamental flaw in it.
The coup d’etat of January 11th, 2007 happened because of the greed & hunger of Bangladesh Army to occupy power.
Nothing, including the allegations brought against the political parties & their leaders, vast majority of which are far from being proven in court of law, invited the coup of January 2007!
As aligned with historical facts, the coups, led by the chiefs of Bangladesh army, are periodical, routine, and staged during times of political and/or economical vulnerability.
The last coup, and its aftermaths, too is almost identical to the previous coups in Bangladesh, and shockingly those in Pakistan.
As for the loyalty and work ethics of lawyers and prostitutes to their clients, both groups are way more loyal and professional when compared to that of Bangladesh military.
I hope this gets published here.
Thank you!
By
Anonymous, At
9:32 AM
The views posted here by the first anonymous is biased and unrealistic. He failed to understand that 1/11 took over by Fakhruddin lead government backed by military happened as the mess, mass looting by Khaleda’s party men, MA Aziz lead corrupt EC and BNP’s election engineering plan and much more drove the situation towards as if it was Khaleda’s “baper desh” or Taraque/Koko’s “Nanar desh” only!
By
Anonymous, At
12:12 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home