How strong is our rule of law?

[Banglar Bir]

How strong is our rule of law?

• Ziauddin Choudhury
• Published at 06:27 PM May 16, 2017

Why is it so difficult for the average citizen to access our justice system?
Transparency, accountability, and due process are essential for the rule of law

An interesting exchange has been taking place in the country for the past few weeks between the executive and the judiciary over rule of law, independence of judiciary, and equality of three branches of government.
The debate, however, ignores the fundamental fact that the rule of law is not just about independence of judiciary or interference of one branch of government over another.

The rule of law is a legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.

It is a combination of framing and preserving human rights, transparency of governance, and people’s access to justice. Above all, the rule of law is making government and its services available to all its citizens without discrimination.

It is ironic that the debate on the rule of law is taking place in a country where the law is more respected in breach than in its observance; at least that is the perception of our own people.

The most recent assessment of Bangladesh’s position (2016) in a global index of the rule of law published by the World Justice Project (WJP) points out this sad reality.

The WJP report
WJP is a US based non-government organisation that was set up about ten years ago to advance rule of law globally. Headquartered in Washington DC, the entity is staffed and managed by a multi-disciplinary team including eminent jurists and funded by donations from multiple national and international charitable foundations.

Of all its research and publications, and other activities that WJP undertakes, its annual rule of law index gets the most attention worldwide.
The index is the product of a year’s monitoring of eight indicators of rule of law, including constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, regulatory enforcement, civil and criminal justice, and fundamental rights.
In 2016 a total of 113 countries were surveyed globally, with Denmark topping the list and Venezuela at the bottom.

Bangladesh came in at number 103, slightly above Pakistan (106), but way below India (66) and Sri Lanka (68). Among six South Asian countries, Bangladesh figures at the bottom or nearly at the bottom on most of the factors.
The position of Bangladesh near the bottom of a list of 113 countries in the survey on rule of law sheds light on the fact that we have failed to honour our Constitution, which is anchored in democracy and human rights.

It tells us that the principles of transparency and openness of government that our leaders proclaim every now and then are rarely practiced in reality in this country.
We cannot dismiss the report as a subjective analysis by a foreign organisation either, since the country scores are computed after surveying a large sample of households, meaning the citizens themselves evaluate the law and order situation.

That said, why is there is such a gap between the pronouncements of our leaders on rule of law and actual perception of it by our own people?
The fact is, much of what the government says is inconsistent with what it actually does.

We have a judicial system that is intended to uphold the principle of equality of all before law. Yet our common people find it hard to access the system when in need

Upholding rule of law
Rule of law is not just about having a set of laws or legislating new ones; it is a combination of efficient due process, and maintaining transparency and accountability in government.
As defined by WJP, the factor “constraints on government” indicates the extent to which government powers are effectively limited by the legislature, judiciary, and independent audit, and whether officials are sanctioned for misconduct.

The factor “open government” measures whether basic laws and information on legal rights are publicised, and evaluates the quality of information published by the government.
The factor “fundamental rights” shows the extent to which the state provides equal treatment and absence of discrimination for all citizens, the right to life and security, due process of law and rights, freedom of expression, etc among other things. Apparently, we have been unable to demonstrate sufficient tangible results in these fronts.

In theory, Bangladesh has all the clauses in its Constitution and in its laws to ensure the rule of law in the country. Fundamental rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and laws provide for freedom of information and transparency of government.

But the reality says otherwise
Editorial Editorial We have a judicial system that is intended to uphold the principle of equality of all before law. Yet our common people find it hard to access the system when in need.

We have law enforcement agencies that are legally obliged to ensure life and security, and offer due process of law to all without discrimination. Yet, people have a negative perception of these agencies.

The rule of law cannot be upheld simply with debates on independence of judiciary and separation of powers. The rule of law is not just about whether administration of justice is hampered by executive interference.

It is more than that. It is about ensuring that there is transparency in governance, accountability of government officials and agencies, and above all, it is to ensure that all citizens including lawmakers are equal before the law.

Justice must not only be deliberated in debates, but it should be seen being served in practice. The rule of law can only be achieved when there is no gap between concept and reality.

Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.

 

[Banglar Bir]

Bangladeshi editor who faced 83 lawsuits says press freedom under threat
The Awami League-controlled government has charged and jailed journalists using vague new laws

Mahfuz Anam (centre), editor of the Daily Star of Bangladesh, walks from a court in Rangpur after securing bail in March last year over a defamation case filed by pro-government activists. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
Michael Safi South Asia correspondent

Thursday 18 May 2017 08.12 BST First published on Thursday 18 May 2017 06.30 BST

Mahfuz Anam still laughs at the size of the damages claims he was landed with last year.
“It amounted to about US $8bn [£6.2bn],” the editor of Bangladesh’s Daily Star newspaper said. “I’m in the realm of Bill Gates.”
In a two-week flurry in February 2016, Anam was served with about 67 criminal defamation cases and 16 sedition charges.
Most were lodged by members of the Awami League, Bangladesh’s ruling party. “It was farcical,” he said from his office in Dhaka.
“Its purpose was to intimidate me and my institution. The message was: if we can do that to the Daily Star and its editor, we can do it to anybody.”

Avoiding jail became a logistical challenge. The cases had been lodged in far-flung districts across Bangladesh deliberately, Anam said.
As a result, he spent weeks traversing the country making bail applications, some scheduled for the same time in multiple districts at once. “It was legal harassment,” he said.

The Bangladesh high court criticised the charges and stayed them in April last year. Those suing Anam have yet to respond to the court’s decision and the cases are sitting in limbo.
Anam still eyes the charges warily. “A stay means they are frozen in time,” he said.
“If the government felt I was exercising too much press freedom, they could revive the cases … or they could institute new ones. It all depends on how I behave.”

The spree of killings of writers and LGBT activists in Bangladesh in the past four years has drawn international scrutiny.
But editors, journalists and bloggers in the south Asian country say they have plenty of other worries – not just the threat of machete attacks from Muslim extremists.

The Bangladesh government is increasingly charging and jailing writers using vague new laws against “prejudicing the image” of the state, threatening national security, and “hurting religious belief”, according to a report this month from Amnesty International.
“Between the violence of armed groups and state repression, secular voices in Bangladesh are being consistently silenced,” said Olof Blomqvist, the Bangladesh researcher for the London-based human rights group.
Prothom Alo, another national newspaper, has faced more than 100 criminal cases against its staff since 2013, nearly half of them still awaiting resolution in Bangladesh’s overburdened legal system, according to the report.
Along with the Daily Star, Prothom Alo is also being starved of advertising revenue.

In mid-2015, Bangladesh military intelligence reportedly took exception to the newspaper’s coverage of militants in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
At least one major corporation has admitted it and several others were called by the military and ordered to cease advertising in both outlets, which share an owner.
The informal ban remains in place, according to Amnesty, and has cost the newspapers at least 25% of their advertising revenue.

Section 57 of Bangladesh’s digital communications act is singled out by media workers as particularly harmful.
Amended in 2013 to allow police to arrest people without a warrant, the section punishes any media perceived to have deliberately attacked religion or undermined the state.

According to Odhikar, a Dhaka-based human rights organisation, at least 82 people have been arrested under the law between January 2014 and December last year.
Among them is AKM Wahiduzzaman, an environmental researcher and blogger who has been critical of the government’s human rights record.

He told the Guardian he was briefly held in jail on remand in 2013 after being accused of making derogatory comments about Sheikh Hasina Wazed, the prime minister, on his Facebook page.
“People like us who write on blogs and social media are always under threat,” he said.
“Those who write against the government are threatened under Section 57 and get arrested, detained and tortured by police.
“And those who write against religion are threatened by fanatic followers of those religions,” he said.

Afsan Chowdhury, a veteran journalist and researcher, said: “In terms of media freedom, Bangladesh is going through a very major transition.”
He said that throughout the country’s brief history (it established independence from Pakistan in 1971), media had traditionally been aligned with one of the two political parties who had alternately controlled the government.
“The shift is online and citizen journalism,” Chowdhury said. “The amount of freedom working media people have now is actually greater than ever, and that’s terrifying for the ruling class, including the media owners.”

He said events in Bangladesh mirrored those in Turkey or India, where the governments were increasingly appealing to lower-middle class voters along religious and nationalist lines.
In the editor’s office at the Daily Star, Anam admitted the 83 lawsuits he faced last year had made him more careful about what he published.

Asked what concerned him more, religious vigilantes or repressive laws, his answer was clear.
“The religious extremists are passing phenomena,” he said. “If the government and media work together, we can resist these people.
“But when a government takes a position of being intolerant of free expression, the risk is to the structure, the institutions of the state.”

Additional reporting by Mushfique Wadud in Dhaka

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...m-under-threat-in-bangladesh?CMP=share_btn_fb

 

[Banglar Bir]

Journalists visiting abroad under surveillance

Special Correspondent

Foreign minister AH Mahmood Ali on Thursday said it is necessary to monitor whether anybody is doing anything while travelling abroad that goes against the country’s image and interests.

He said monitoring is not only for journalists but also for all citizens and that is in the interest of the county but mentioned that journalists will face no obstacle during their travel abroad.

The foreign minister came up with the remark when a senior journalist wanted to know about an official communication urging the foreign missions stationed in Dhaka to monitor Bangladeshi journalists travelling abroad to check their activities that might go against Bangladesh’s interest and image.
“I didn’t see it. I’ll look into it. No journalist will face any barrier. If anybody does let me know, “ said the foreign minister.

Earlier former president of Diplomatic Correspondents Association, Bangladesh (DCAB) and current EC member Masud Karim urged the foreign minister to withdraw the ‘discriminatory’ instruction conveyed to foreign missions in Dhaka tagging only the journalist community.
The foreign ministry on Wednesday conveyed the decision to heads of missions in Dhaka, a diplomatic source said.
“If anybody’s involvement is found against the interest and the image of the country, s/he must be identified and their such negative activities must be reported back to foreign affairs ministry immediately,” the diplomat said quoting the message sent to the foreign missions.

The foreign ministry requested the heads of missions in Dhaka to take up the matter ‘seriously’ so that Bangladeshi journalists, whenever travelling to the respective host countries, should be monitored to unearth their activities.

The twelfth meeting of the parliamentary standing committee on foreign affairs ministry has said that any Bangladeshi journalist travelling abroad should be monitored and reports in this regard be sent back to the foreign affairs ministry if their activities are found against the country’s interests.
The standing committee expressed its concern over the negative activities of Bangladeshi journalists abroad since such activities give wrong information on Bangladesh in the international arena, reads the document signed by director general of external publicity wing Md Lutfor Rahman.

 

[Banglar Bir]

Dr. Kamal Hossain rebuking the RAWAMI Attorney General.

 

[Banglar Bir]

Bangladesh govt backtracks from trailing journalists abroad
SAM Staff, May 20, 2017

Undated Reuters file photo of demonstrators against attack on freedom of press.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has withdrawn its order instructing missions to watch activities of Bangladeshi journalists travelling abroad.

A Bangladeshi diplomat posted in a Western country confirmed the withdrawal of the notice to bdnews24.com in the early hours of Saturday.

The diplomat requesting anonymity said the foreign ministry sent a notice withdrawing the previous order on Friday.
However, the foreign ministry did not issue any media statement in Dhaka and officials at the External Publicity Wing could not be immediately reached for comments.

The foreign ministry earlier instructed all the foreign missions to monitor the activities of the Bangladeshi journalists travelling abroad and report back to Dhaka.
The External Publicity Wing also sent the instruction to the media on Wednesday.

It said the decision had been taken on the recommendations of the parliamentary standing committee on the foreign affairs.
The 20th meeting of the parliamentary watchdog viewed that “any Bangladeshi journalist travelling should be monitored and accordingly will have to be reported back to Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ascertain whether their activities are against the interest of the country”.

“The parliamentary standing committee has expressed its concern over the ‘harmful activities’ of some Bangladeshi journalists abroad which send out wrong information on Bangladesh to the international arena”.

The foreign ministry had instructed missions to “take up the matter seriously so that they can identify untoward activities by any Bangladeshi journalist, whenever travelling to the respective host countries.”
The foreign ministry, however, did not clarify what type of negative activities journalists carry out abroad.

But, following the parliamentary watchdog meeting, it was reported that the issue came up following recent visits of Bangladeshi journalists to Pakistan at the invitation of Islamabad

 

[Banglar Bir]

MP: Only Pakistan-bound journos should be monitored

• Shohel MamunSyed Zainul Abedin
• Published at 10:13 PM May 20, 2017

'It is our duty to watch over everyone who travels abroad but that does not mean that we are bringing them under any control mechanism'
The parliamentary standing committee directive to monitor to Bangladeshi journalists while travelling abroad was actually intended only for journalists travelling to Pakistan on the invitation of the Pakistan government.

Mehjabeen Khaled, member of the parliamentary standing committee on foreign affairs admitted that she had raised the issue of monitoring journalists at the committee meeting after finding out some journalists who take part in this tour make statements that undermine Bangladesh.

“I felt we should find out if there was a conspiracy going on against the government,” she told the Dhaka Tribune.

She added that the recommendations of the standing committee were wrongly interpreted by the foreign ministry to mean all Bangladeshi journalists travelling abroad.

The Pakistan government usually hosts three official trips to Pakistan every year, where mostly journalists, as well as some civil society members, are invited to visit top officials of the Pakistan government, prominent Pakistani media organisations, as well as tourist sites.

A journalist who made the trip in March this year, on condition of anonymity, claimed the Pakistani embassy in Dhaka had asked the Pakistan-bound travel party to say in public that a ‘genocide’ had not taken place in 1971. The embassy officials however backtracked once members of travelling party reacted strongly to the suggestion.

Earlier, the foreign ministry backed away from its directive to foreign missions to monitor journalists travelling abroad, saying it was “not appropriately coordinated.”

The ministry admitted that the foreign missions, who would have to monitor activities of Bangladeshi journalists and report back to Dhaka, had no mechanism for surveillance.

Although Foreign Minister AH Mahmood Ali on Thursday said he was not aware of any such directive, he added that journalists should support it “since it intends to uphold our national interest.”

“It is our duty to watch over everyone who travels abroad but that does not mean that we are bringing them under any control mechanism,” the minister added.

The parliamentary standing committee on the Foreign Ministry on Wednesday expressed concern over the spread of wrong information about Bangladesh due to the negative activities of the journalists travelling abroad.

The standing committee said journalists should be monitored so that the missions can report to Dhaka if their activities are found to be against the interest of the country.

http://www.dhakatribune.com/banglad...17/05/20/mp-pakistan-bound-journos-monitored/

 

[Banglar Bir]

HC sets criteria for recommendation of judges

• Ashif Islam Shaon
• Published at 10:16 PM May 22, 2017
• Last updated at 10:42 PM May 22, 2017Bigstock

In an effort to entice brilliant lawyers to apply for the posts of judges, the High Court stated that the remuneration of judges of the Supreme Court should be made as attractive as possible.
An individual cannot be recommended for appointment as a judge of the High Court if his antecedents are not in line with the fundamental principles of state policy and the spirit of the Liberation War.

This observation was made in a verdict which lists seven criteria to be fulfilled in order for an individual to be recommended for a judge position in the High Court division.

The full 46-page verdict of the seven-year-old writ petition which sought guidelines for the appointment of HC judges was published on Monday, though the verdict itself was pronounced by Justice Obaidul Hassan and Justice Krishna Debnath on April 13 this year.

According to the verdict, for a person to be recommended to for a HC judge position, he must have a “brilliant academic profile, towering level of professional skill, legal acumen and integrity”.

With the view that age should be one of the key considerations, the High Court also stated that the minimum age of a person intending to be selected for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court should be 45 years, since a person only achieves professional maturity after years of hard work in the professional arena.

The High Court also opined that the remuneration of judges of the Supreme Court should be made as attractive as possible so that brilliant lawyers would be enticed to apply.

“…We think that the existing system of appointment can be improved by the Chief Justice as he is the best and prime person to evaluate which lawyers and judicial officers working in the sub-ordinate judiciary are truly eligible to be elevated to the Bench―and we mean it,” read the verdict.

It charged the Chief Justice to, if necessary, consult with or share views with two senior judges of the Appellate Division and two of senior judges of the High Court Division when forming his “opinion”and to ensure that the recommendations given are appropriate, effective and transparent.

The court also said once the Chief Justice’s recommendations are made, there should be no room for the recommendations to be rejected or changed unless the person recommended are found to have antecedents involved in anti-state or otherwise subversive activities.
http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/court/2017/05/22/hc-sets-criteria-judges/

 

[Banglar Bir]

Dr Kamal Hossain calls attorney general 'bastard' at chief justice's court

• Staff Correspondent, bdnews24.com
  Published: 2017-05-18 03:56:49 BdST

Senior lawyer Dr Kamal Hossain ‎has called Attorney General Mahbubey Alam names at a hearing at the court of the chief justice.

He called the state's chief law officer 'bastard' while the court on Wednesday was hearing a case involving 138 doctors who were recruited at the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University.
The BSMMU questioned the legality of the 'appointments' and the State is arguing for the university.

Barrister M Amir-Ul Islam and ‎Kamrul Haque Siddique also took part in the argument for the doctors. They were assisted by advocates Sharif Bhuiyan and Tamim Hussain Shawon.
Attorney General Mahbubey Alam and Barrister Tanzibul-ul-Alam made the case for the BSMMU.

After the attorney general put up his argument, Dr Kamal stood up and said, "There were syndicated appointment during that time (BNP-Jamaat-e-Islami government). Now they are taking a stand against it. These are intellectual prostitution."

Mahbubey Alam objected to the choice of diction but Dr Kamal retorted saying: "Shut up! Bastard! You take your seat."
"You cannot utter this word," Alam shot back.

Dr Kamal, who led the panel that drafted Bangladesh's Constitution in 1972, took his seat when Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha intervened.
"You, as a senior lawyer, should not have used such language," said Chief Justice Sinha.

Attorney General Alam asked Justice Sinha, "You (chief justice) have rather flattered him (Kamal Hossain). What would become of a senior lawyer swearing at me?”
Dr Kamal Hossain later apologised to Alam when the hearing resumed after a break.

After the hearing, the court set May 21 to deliver the verdict on the case.

Attorney General Alam has been spearheading at the Supreme Court the State's case for upholding the special tribunal's verdicts against 1971 war criminals.

Dr Kamal Hossain's son-in-law, David Bergman, is a well-known campaigner denouncing the process of war crimes trial at the International Crimes Tribunal.

On Wednesday, Dr Hossain also came under fire from Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for failing to criticise the brutal murders of Bangladesh's founding father and many members of his family in 1975.

Dr Kamal Hossain, who turned 80 recently, serves on major international arbitration panels and has a reputation as one of top legal minds in the global petroleum industry.

http://m.bdnews24.com/en/detail/bangladesh/1336334

প্রকাশ : ২৩ মে, ২০১৭ ১৩:৫৩:৪৩ অঅ-অ+

23 May, 2017
Government wants to retain control the Higher Courts- Chief Justice.
উচ্চ আদালতও নিজেদের কব্জায় নিতে চায় সরকার: প্রধান বিচারপতি

শীর্ষ নিউজ, ঢাকা: প্রধান বিচারপতি সুরেন্দ্র কুমার সিনহা বলেছেন, সরকার নিম্ন আদালতের মতো উচ্চ আদালতও নিজেদের কব্জায় নিতে চায়। সংবিধানের ষোড়শ সংশোধনীর আপিল শুনানিকালে তিনি এ মন্তব্য করেন।

মঙ্গলবার প্রধান বিচারপতি এস কে সিনহা নেতৃত্বাধীন সাত বিচারপতির বেঞ্চে বিচারপতিদের অপসারণের ক্ষমতা সংসদের হাতে ন্যস্ত করে আনা সংবিধানের ষোড়শ সংশোধনী বাতিলের আপিল শুনানি হয়।
মঙ্গলবার সকাল ৯টা ১৫ মিনিটে থেকে অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল মাহবুবে আলম তার যুক্তি খন্ডন শুরু করেন। বেলা ১১টা পর্যন্ত শুনানি চলার পর আধাঘণ্টার বিরতি দিয়ে সাড়ে ১১টা থেকে আবার শুরু হয়েছে শুনানি।

প্রধান বিচারপতি সুরেন্দ্র কুমার (এসকে) সিনহার নেতৃত্বে সুপ্রিমকোর্টের আপিল বিভাগের সাত সদস্যের বিচারপতির পূর্ণাঙ্গ বেঞ্চে আপিলের এই শুনানি চলছে।
শুনানিতে আদালত আরো বলেন, নিম্ন আদলতের ৮০ পার্সেন্ট সুপ্রিমকোর্টের নিয়ন্ত্রণে নেই। আপনি বলছেন, বিচার বিভাগ কার্যকর, এক জেলায় ৫ মাস ধরে জজ নেই। বিচার বিভাগ কার্যকর হলো কিভাবে?

এর আগে এ সংক্রান্ত মামলার শুনানির জন্য আজকের এই দিন ঠিক করেন আদালত।

আদালতে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষে শুনানি করছেন অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল মাহবুবে আলম ও অতিরিক্ত অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল মুরাদ রেজা। অন্যদিকে রিটকারীর পক্ষে আছেন অ্যাডভোকেট মনজিল মোরসেদ।
বিচারপতি অপসারণ সংক্রান্ত সংবিধানের ষোড়শ সংশোধনী অবৈধ ঘোষণা করে হাইকোর্টের দেয়া রায়ের বিরুদ্ধে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের করা আপিলের শুনানিতে ১২ জন অ্যামিকাস কিউরি নিয়োগ দিয়েছেন আপিল বিভাগ।

যৌক্তিক ব্যাখ্যা শোনার জন্য ১২ জন অ্যামিকাস কিউরি (আদাতের বন্ধুরা) হলেন- সাবেক বিচারপতি টি এইচ খান, ড. কামাল হোসেন, ব্যারিস্টার রফিক-উল হক, ব্যারিস্টার এম আমীর-উল ইসলাম, ব্যারিস্টার আজমালুল হোসেন কিউসি, ব্যারিস্টার রোকন উদ্দিন মাহমুদ, ব্যারিস্টার শফিক আহমেদ, এ এফ হাসান আরিফ, এম আই ফারুকী, ব্যারিস্টার ফিদা এম কামাল, এ জে মোহাম্মদ আলী ও আবদুল ওয়াদুদ ভূঁইয়া।

এর আগে ৪ জানুয়ারি হাইকোর্টের রায়ের বিরুদ্ধে আপিল আবেদন করেন রাষ্ট্রপক্ষ।

তার আগে ২৮ নভেম্বর সংসদ কর্তৃক বিচারপতিদের অপসারণ সংক্রান্ত সংবিধানের ১৬তম সংশোধনী অবৈধ ঘোষণা করে হাইকোর্টের দেয়া রায় চূড়ান্ত নিষ্পত্তি করার জন্য আপিল বিভাগে আবেদন করেন রিটকারী আইনজীবী।

২০১৬ সালের ৫ মে সংবিধানের ১৬তম সংশোধনী অবৈধ ও বাতিল ঘোষণা করে রায় দেন হাইকোর্ট। বিচারপতি মইনুল ইসলাম চৌধুরীর নেতৃত্বাধীন তিন বিচারপতির বৃহত্তর বেঞ্চ এ রায় ঘোষণা করেন। রায়ে দুই বিচারপতি ১৬তম সংশোধণী অবৈধ ঘোষণা করলেও এক বিচারপতি ওই সংশোধনী বহাল রেখে রিট আবেদন খারিজ করেন। কিন্তু নিয়মানুযায়ী সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ মতের ভিত্তিতে যে রায় দেয়া হয় সেটাই চূড়ান্ত রায়।

শীর্ষ নিউজ/এইচ /জে
http://sheershanews.net/2017/05/23/137883

 

[Banglar Bir]

SC has no effective control over subordinate judiciary: Chief Justice.
​

Staff Correspondent | Published: 00:39, May 24,2017 | Updated: 00:48, May 24,2017

Chief Justice SK Sinha said Tuesday said that the Supreme Court has no effective control over the lower judiciary.

He was chairing the 4th day’s hearing on government’s appeal against striking down of the 16th amendment by the High Court Division.
All the seven judges of the Appellate Division took part in the hearing.
The amendment had restored Parliament’s power to remove Supreme Court judges on the grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity.

At the outset of the hearing, the Chief Justice asked the attorney general Mahbubey Alam to say whether the judiciary was functioning when the SC has no effective control over the subordinate judiciary and the vacancy in a district judge’s position cannot be filled for five months.
He also asked the attorney general to say whether it could be said that an effective and functional judiciary exists when a district goes without a district judge and ‘You want to bring the higher judiciary under Parliament’s control.’

In reply, the attorney general submitted that the judiciary would be ineffective only if anarchy prevailed in the country but that was not the situation now.
He submitted that some of the observations in the High Court Division’s verdict on the 16th amendment were harsh and he prayed that the Appellate Division would drop them.

At this point, Justice Md Abdul Wahhab Miah pointed that verdicts were delivered only to uphold the Constitution.
The Chief Justice said that the verdicts were delivered to uphold the Constitution and keeping human rights and the rule of the law in the perspective.
‘We would definitely consider if there are unacceptable things in the HC judgement’, he assured the attorney general.

He said that as the Chief Justice whatever he says were in the interest of the judiciary.
He said that the law minister loves to say that the judiciary was independent and that the judges’ salaries had been increased.
He wanted to know whether the judiciary becomes independent because of enhancements in judges’ pays.

The attorney general submitted that the 16th amendment was brought in the interest of the country and restore the Constitution to its original shape.
At one stage, the Chief Justice demanded to know why then keep Article 70 in the Constitution.
The attorney general submitted that the provision refers to the history of horse trading that took place in different countries.
The Chief Justice shot back, ‘When you cannot trust them who would give the guarantee that no horse trading would take place with regard to the judges.’

‘Can the MPs work independently?’ asked the Chief Justice.
The attorney general submitted that an HC judge referred to criminal records of MPs, which if found to be incorrect, could be forwarded to the President for his removal.

The Chief Justice shot back whether the President could remove a Judge while no law exists for this.
The attorney general submitted that in the absence of the Supreme Judicial Council and a specific law, the president can remove a judge as the appointing authority.
‘Is it possible to remove a judge when there is no law for such action? How many thousand years back you want to take the country?’ the CJ wanted to know.
‘This is my opinion, my lord,’ submitted the attorney general.
At this point the judges led by the Chief Justice rose for the day.
The hearing resumes today.

- See more at: http://www.newagebd.net/article/161...subordinate-judiciary-cj#sthash.fD486GO3.dpuf

 

[Banglar Bir]

03:41 AM, May 26, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 04:58 AM, May 26, 2017
SC circular ineffective
Says govt, ruling out bar on 17 judges' travelling abroad
Staff Correspondent

The government has issued a statement regarding a Supreme Court circular that 17 lower court judges cannot travel abroad without the apex court's approval.
The statement, issued by the law ministry yesterday, said the SC circular “has no effectiveness.”

The ministry has decided to send around 500 lower court judges to Australia for training on different issues, including cyber crime, at a university there in phases.

As part of the initiative, 17 judges were to travel to Australia later this month.

On May 22, the SC authorities issued a circular restricting their travel. The circular said the apex court was not consulted about sending the lower court judges abroad.

Under the apex court directives in the judgment of Masdar Hossain case, popularly known as the separation of judiciary from the executive branch, it is mandatory for the government to take SC's advice before sending lower court judges abroad.

However, the law ministry circular said this was not applicable for the judges who are on deputation. Also, the president has approved their travel.
The law minister was not available for comment last night.

http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/sc-circular-ineffective-1411171

 

[bluesky]

SC has no effective control over subordinate judiciary: Chief Justice.
Staff Correspondent | Published: 00:39, May 24,2017 | Updated: 00:48, May 24,2017

This dire situation has not been made in a single day. This process started during Pakistan time and it is continuing as it is. Every political party resorts to this type of control over judiciary. When in opposition, the parties say opposite things to manipulate a situation. Political leaders are dishonest in BD. It is more dishonest this time when the greedy AL is in power for a long time.

We should learn better things from India, where the power of legislature, executive and judiciary branches of the govt is separated. Even the Election Commission is separated there.

 

[Banglar Bir]

This dire situation has not been made in a single day. This process started during Pakistan time and it is continuing as it is. Every political party resorts to this type of control over judiciary. When in opposition, the parties say opposite things to manipulate a situation. Political leaders are dishonest in BD. It is more dishonest this time when the greedy AL is in power for a long time.

We should learn better things from India, where the power of legislature, executive and judiciary branches of the govt is separated. Even the Election Commission is separated there.

When the Judge, the Jury and the Executor is the same person,what else can the Nation expect?. A glaring example is the so called "International Crimes Tribunal", a mere Kangaroo Court, that to where all loyal henchmen have been deputed.

 

[bluesky]

"International Crimes Tribunal", a mere Kangaroo Court

Kangaroo or what, the country should be relieved of the 1971 BDphobiac Jamaati killers. Others who are growing up under their tutorial should also be dealt with severely in the future. No amount of ISIS or Talibanic consipracy should be tolerated.

 

[Banglar Bir]

EDITORIAL
Ensure media freedom and journalists’ safety
Euphoric rhapsodies about the ruling Awami League regime amid ceaseless cacophony and shrill hurrahs are tantamount to ineffectual window dressing, while according to Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha “the Government has captured subordinate courts, and now it wants to take control over the Supreme Court”, which points towards the state of the Apex Court, the Guardian of the Constitution, and the rule of law.

Over the years the the Government’s law enforcement agencies have committed an alarming number of extrajudicial killings. According to the human rights watchdog Odhikar, the total number of victims of extrajudicial killings from 2001 to 2017 February was 496, of which 149 were killed during the BNP rule (2001 - 2006), while during the Awami League regime (2009 to February 2017) the total number of victims of extrajudicial killings were 319—-more than double that of the BNP rule. [Vide http:/ /1dgy051 vgyxh 41o8cj 16kk7s 19f2. wpengine. netdna -cdn. com/ wp- content/ uploads /2017 /03/ Statistics_EJK_2001-2017-Janu-Feb.pdf].

For the first time in this country’s history the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in its wisdom recommended that newsmen travelling abroad would be under surveillance, which move albeit was withdrawn—-but the bid did expose the queer mindset of the government regarding the so-called gentlemen of the press.

The dire straits of the people as regards their liberty and privacy through phone bugging, ostensively of the political opposition. [Vide Bangladesh to purchase modern wiretapping technology for surveillance procured from Israel, dated August 03, 2015, the dailystar.net/frontpage/govt-buy-new-surveillance-tools-120967]. As regards the media, independent and\or anti-establishment journalism—-indispensable in checking authoritarian tyranny—-is in the back seat, so that out of, say 20 major mainstream papers, not more than 4 print analytical reports\commentaries on corruption, crime, human rights violation, custodial deaths etc.

Despite the fact that contentious acts or directives impeding democratic rights unquestionably call for justified public outcry, hence an ideal democracy ought to steer clear of authoritarian despotic course; nevertheless depressing instances are there when attempts are made to stir up a furore and upset the applecart, not necessarily to the advantage of the powers that be.

The Bangladesh media and journalists—particularly those not toeing the government line—have been facing repeated onslaughts which began in 1974 when press freedom was done away with by the Awami League (AL) regime headed by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

Some 66 years ago the Awami League’s founder President Moulana Bhashani edited the most popular Bengali political weekly [Saptahik Ittefaq], and championed free flow of news and views of the opposition and of anti-establishment segments of the body politic. The irony of fate is that degenerate machinations were buttressed in independent Bangladesh by no other person than a sometime political disciple of the Moulana, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman whose action resulted in the ban on all newspapers and periodicals of the country except 4 (four) daily papers under government control.

To look back, during the trial of the Agartala Conspiracy Case in 1969, Sheikh Mujib personally requested journalist Ataus Samad of the then Pakistan Observer to go to Mujib’s former mentor Moulana Bhashani at Shantosh in Tangail to do something. The Moulana acted in no time and organised a countrywide violent movement against the Pakistan government headed by Field-Marshal Ayub Khan, asking him to withdraw the Agartala Conspiracy Case. And the rest is history.

Poet John Milton’s Areopagitica eloquently protested censorship 375 years ago. The Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh has explicitly guaranteed press freedom along with recognising citizen’s freedom of thought and conscience with regard to freedom of expression and speech. While Khaleda Zia’s first term (1991 – 1996) saw publication of some 250 daily newspapers, Sheikh Hasina in her first term (1996 - 2001) closed down two dailies and a weekly, the Dainik Bangla, The Bangladesh Times, and Saptahik Bichitra.

The ARTICLE 19, a British human rights organisation with a specific mandate and focus on the defence and promotion of freedom of expression and freedom of information worldwide, has marked 2016 a repressive year for press freedom in Bangladesh. It said on May 02, 2017, at least 320 violations, including murders, abductions and threats against journalists, took place within that period.
“Brutal attacks on journalists and online activists, and the use of unfair laws and criminal defamation provisions which clearly violate international standards, continued to stifle free speech,” it added.

ARTICLE 19 also came up with a five-point recommendation in the report “in order to address these serious and continuing violations of free expression, and protect journalists and online activists.” It proposed a safe and enabling environment for journalists and activists to carry out their work, and take measures to ensure their security and protection in line with Bangladesh’s obligations under UN Human Rights Council Resolution 33/2 on the Safety of Journalists, and the government’s commitments.

Founder of the News on Sunday tabloid, twice winner of the Britain’s Journalist of the Year Award, eminent war correspondent, columnist, documentary film maker John Pilger has succinctly written about Julian Assange, who has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt. He has rightly commented, “The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted. Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state’s collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and “rendition”. Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure, notes Pilger.

We understand, unprincipled charges against Assange, a prisoner of conscience, should be withdrawn if the US government policymakers have respect for the right to information and their great sage President Thomas Jefferson who wrote, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government—-I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”.

 

[Banglar Bir]

A glimpse from the Past.

BBC HARD. talk Sheikh Hasina Prime Minister of Bangladesh.mp4