PM's Demand for Accountability of Judiciary & Media?
man...@my-deja.com
An ounce of fresh air
Prime Minister's demand for accountability of judiciary and media?
Emajuddin Ahamed
Everybody knows that the judiciary in Bangladesh is a constitutional
body, designed to uphold the constitution and fundamental rights of the
people. Its growth, its functions and modes of operation as well as the
whole gamut of issues related to accountability are rooted in
constitutional laws of the country. It is accountable to the
constitution itself wherefrom it has derived its powers
The cool-headed Constitutionalist James Bryce in his epoch-making book,
The American Commonwealth (page 273), has stated in bold letters that
"The Supreme Court is the living voice of the Constitution, that is of
the will of the people expressed in the fundamental law they have
enacted. It is therefore the conscience of the people." Many
commentators subsequently have approved of this position almost
everywhere in the world. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, much to the
horror of many a one in this society, demanding accountability of
judiciary along with media, has indeed struck at the very base. Can
anyone think of such aberration from some one placed so high in a
political community?
This kind of demand, which amounts to nothing less than a no-confidence
against the judiciary and press, betrays, in fact, not only her lack of
understanding of the system of governance but also the lack of her
motivation to initiate good governance in the country. Does the Prime
Minister want the judiciary and judges to be at her beck and call? Does
she want the media and media persons to be her sycophants, dancing to
her tune all the time?
The demand of the Prime Minister and the clumsy mood it represented are
not only ominous but deadly dangerous for the social order in
Bangladesh. The disappointed Prime Minister has chosen to strike at the
very root of national conscience.
The nation has become scared of it, not only because of present
insinuation but also of its past experience. Independence of judiciary
and free press are the two cognisable pillars of democratic society.
One keeps the conscience clear whereas the other keeps it mouth open;
one sustains its heart whereas the other sharpens its vision. The
judges belong to its constitutional edifice but the media persons to
its socio-political fabric.
The two together constitute the axle round which revolves the wheel of
social justice and peace. That speaks why independence of judiciary and
media has always received, almost anywhere in the world, the maximum
amount of care and concern of the sane thinking political elite.
Referring to a historic judgement of Justice Black, Justice Powell
wrote in 1976: "I unreservedly agree that 'free speech and fair trial'
are two of that most cherished policies of our civilisation." The Prime
Minister of Bangladesh seems to run against this universal stream of
human civilisation for reasons best known to her.
While focusing on the need for objectivity and neutrality of the judge
Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of American
independence, stated in Federalist 78: "This independence of the judges
is equally requisite to guard the constitution and the rights of
individuals, from the effects of those ill-humors which the arts of
designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes,
disseminate among the people themselves............" Some such scholars
as Johin P Roche have gone much farther and beyond this. They wanted
judiciary not only to be independent but also to be a kind of guardian
of both the executive and legislature. John Roche argued that the
people must be protected from themselves and no institution could do it
better that the judiciary.
In his own words, "Patently central to this function of social
chaperonage is the right of the judiciary to review legislative and
executive actions and nullify those measures which derogate from
eternal principles of truth and justice as incarnated in the
Constitution." Much to the dismay of many in this society, however,
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina revels in breaking rather than in
building. She believes in power only and wants the people and
institutions meant for the safeguard of people's rights to become the
safe ladder for her power only, caring the least for justice and peace.
Everybody knows that the judiciary in Bangladesh is a constitutional
body, designed to uphold the constitution and fundamental rights of the
people. Its growth, its functions and modes of operation as well as the
whole gamut of issues related to accountability are rooted in
constitutional laws of the country. It is accountable to the
constitution itself wherefrom it has derived its powers.
The three main organs of the government-the executive, legislature and
judiciary-with co-equal authorities and functioning in a spirit of co-
operations with one another, are some of the basics of the Bangladesh
Constitution. The lower courts have been put under the tutelage of the
Supreme Court (Article 109), the centre-piece of Bangladesh judicial
system, itself being under the supervision of the Supreme Judicial
Council for its accountability (Article 96).
Thus a perfect balance has been instituted in the judicial system
according to the Constitution of 1972. This balance was drastically
disequilibrated only when the omnipotent executive branch of the
government was put on top over the heads of impotent legislature and
subservient judiciary-fabricated through the Fourth Amendment Act of
1975.
The executive was headed by none else than Sheik Mujibur Rahman, the
illustrious father of Sheikh Hasina. With a view to making his
personalised power absolute, Sheikh Mujib did not hesitate to chain the
judiciary and make it one of the subsidiaries of the executive. After
sixteen long years the Twelfth Amendment Act, which itself was one of
the prize upshots of the people's uprising of 1990, had the judiciary
in Bangladesh re-invested with its earlier glories.
The press, which was also chained in 1975, also got back its freedom,
thanks to the people's uprising of 1990, after a series of agitations
by the mediamen through the vicissitudes of changing fortunes, during
the interregnum under the stewardship of Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed.
That Sheikh Hasina does not believe in the efficacy of independence of
judiciary and free press is obvious. When she was on the other side of
the table as the leader of the opposition in the Jatiya Sangsad, she
cried hoarse for all these. Even in the election manifesto published in
1996.
Awami League's top proiorities were to institutionalise freedom of
speech and fair trial; but once in power, her priorities have been
changed. Psychologically she is oriented not to brook any differing
viewpoint and not to tolerate any opposition. Whenever she comes across
any opposition she gets enraged.
The Supreme Court, a few months ago, found a statement of the Prime
Minister factually incorrect and advised her to take adequate care and
precaution while making any reference to the functioning of the
judiciary in public. That was something which the Prime Minister found
very hard to digest. Then came the Supreme Court's verdict asking the
Speaker of the Jatiya Sangsad to refer the controversy regarding
defection of Dr. Mohammad Allauddin and Hasibur Rahman Swapan, two
members of the Sangsad, to the Election Commission for a decision
instead of justifying arbitrarily by a ruling in Parliament. They were
elected on BNP's tickets but joined Sheikh Hasina's 'Government by
Consensus' by violating Article 70 of the Constitution. That generated
a lot of ire because many believed that Speaker's ruling came out in
the Sangsad because Sheikh Hasina wanted it that way.
The recent inhuman action of the government in pulling down the
dwellings of the squatters of Dhaka city have had for years without
providing any alternative arrangements and the ad interim injunction by
the Supreme Court restraining the government from going ahead till 19
August (later extended upto 23 August) filled up her cup of rage to the
brim.
Similarly, the media, both of the left, centre and right, though
enamoured of Sheikh Hasina's 'Government by Consensus' for some time,
have started raising their voices against the bad policies and worse
actions of the government. The allotment of residential plots to the
cronies of the party in power in the posh areas of Gulshan, Banani and
Uttara in utter violation of the standing rules raised a storm of
protest in the national press.
The wanton act of making those hapless women of Nimtali and Tanbazar
shelterless, the brutal demolition of the dwellings of the squatters in
Dhaka City without any alternative arrangement for their housing
elsewhere, the total breakdown of law and order in the society, harsh
treatment meted out to the low-level employees of the Secretariat are
some of the issues where the media men have not only been vocal but
positively critical of government action in the strongest terms.
All these have taxed the patience of the Prime Minister who, in total
exasperation, had called for accountability of the judges and newsmen.
In democratic society every functionary worth a bit of salt must be
accountable for his action. That is one of the glorious norms of
civilised social life. The judges are accountable to the constitution
and in the ultimate analysis to the people who have been recognised as
sovereign in our Constitution (Article 7).
The Press is too accountable: it is accountable to its professional
ethics; to its conscience, to the readers and on a limited scale, to
the Press Council. If it crosses its limits, it is bound to court
disaster in the form of indifference and rejection, censure, contempt
and finally, in the law courts.
The Prime Minister is supposed to know all these. Even then she has
demanded accountability of the judges and mediamen, That is why we are
scared. Does she want to tread on, as many people suspect, the same
slippery and dangerous soil which has been treaded by her illustrious
father? Does she want to succeed where her father failed? What else can
be an explanation?
[The New Nation, Sept. 7, 1999]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Shamim A. Khandekar
> Awami League's top proiorities were to institutionalise freedom of
> speech and fair trial; but once in power, her priorities have been
> changed. Psychologically she is oriented not to brook any differing
> viewpoint and not to tolerate any opposition. Whenever she comes across
> any opposition she gets enraged.
Thank you for your posting. In English there is a saying, 'like father
like son'. After reading this posting, I am tempted to write, 'like father
like daughter'. The question is, has our New Delhi groomed PM chosen to
revive BAKSALi like policies ???
As a well wisher of BD, let us all continue to strive for the
democratic rights of our people.
Dr. Shabbir A. Bashar
> horror of many a one in this society, demanding accountability of
> judiciary along with media, has indeed struck at the very base. Can
> anyone think of such aberration from some one placed so high in a
> political community?
'High in the political community' in Bangladesh is unfortunately not a
compliment as it may be in many meaningful democracies where the leaders
by and large have undergone rigorous personal deciplines be that through
tough education programs (law, economics, science, engineering etc) or
otherwise. Hasina on the other hand cares very little for these personal
achievements - for her to understand the gravity of the constitution and
the
supreme court may very well be too much. After all, she is the one who
saw it fit tell a blatant lie saying "ch'hatra league" (student militias of
BAL)
is not an organ of her of her ruling party - and arrogant enough to assume
that
all in the audience were too blind to believe her.
The judiciary and the media and to a more immediate extent the opposition
in parliament are the manifestation of checks and balances in a
(parliamentary)
democracy.
> are two of that most cherished policies of our civilisation." The Prime
> Minister of Bangladesh seems to run against this universal stream of
> human civilisation for reasons best known to her.
How does arrogance and ignorance (perchance one and the same) sound as the
prognosis ?
> Thus a perfect balance has been instituted in the judicial system
> according to the Constitution of 1972. This balance was drastically
> disequilibrated only when the omnipotent executive branch of the
> government was put on top over the heads of impotent legislature and
> subservient judiciary-fabricated through the Fourth Amendment Act of
> 1975.
>
> The executive was headed by none else than Sheik Mujibur Rahman, the
> illustrious father of Sheikh Hasina. With a view to making his
> personalised power absolute, Sheikh Mujib did not hesitate to chain the
> judiciary and make it one of the subsidiaries of the executive. After
> sixteen long years the Twelfth Amendment Act, which itself was one of
> the prize upshots of the people's uprising of 1990, had the judiciary
> in Bangladesh re-invested with its earlier glories.
>
> The press, which was also chained in 1975, also got back its freedom,
> thanks to the people's uprising of 1990, after a series of agitations
> by the mediamen through the vicissitudes of changing fortunes, during
> the interregnum under the stewardship of Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed.
Chip off an old block ... Hasina's attempts to muzzle the judiciary and the
media
are no less a facist act and an utter betrayal of trust than that
implimented by her
so called illustrious father to the detriment of the very people who
considered
him their friend.
Will the electorate tolerate this much destructive vengeance in someone who
is
the head of government ? With so much revenge on her agenda, when will she
ever find time to address the crux of the problems such as grass roots
level
education ? health care ? generating a nation of skillful citizens instead
of a
bunch od degerate cronies ?
--
Shabbir A. Bashar, Ph.D., AMIEE
http://www.betelco.com/bd