Font size: 
Abul Kalam Azad, the press secretary of Hasina told the media that the Cabinet had approved in principle the proposed "Father of the Nation's Family Members' Security Act-2009" in its weekly meeting on July 6. The Act is effective from the same date as the Cabinet's approval although the parliament is only expected to pass it sometime later.
Although details of the Act have not been made public, there is speculation that it could be a repeat of the "Father of the Nation's Family Security Act 2001," which Hasina’s previous government had passed just 23 days before stepping down on completion of its tenure but was scrapped by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party that came to power then.
The 2001 Act had sanctioned the official house of the country's prime minister to Hasina in a symbolic 1-taka (about 1 US cent) price and another house to her sister Rehana at the Dhanmondi residential area in capital Dhaka, besides a basket of perks and privileges at the expense of the state.
The new Act has similar provisions to allot well-protected safe houses and other facilities but the government has cited security as the main reason behind drafting it. According to Azad, after the brutal assassination of Rahman and his family members in 1975, which Hasina and her sister Rehana escaped as they were in West Germany at the time, a vested group has been conspiring to kill other surviving family members especially Hasina. Azad said the grenade attack on Hasina in 2004 was proof that plotters were attempting to kill her.
However, an official in the Law Ministry of Bangladesh, on conditions of anonymity, informed the media that the definition of "family members” is not defined in the Act but would be advised later.
It is speculated that “family members” mean the families of Hasina and Rehana.
This raises a number of questions: Should there be a special law to protect only one family in a country, considering its political identity? Why should other families in a population of 150 million be less protected? Does Article 27 of Bangladesh's Constitution, which enshrines people's fundamental rights to be equally treated, allow the government to frame an Act like this? Can any law protect anyone from the risk of death? If so, why are Bangladeshis dying in the custody of law-enforcement agencies and security forces, which are officially liable to protect everybody?
Despite his valuable contribution to the nation, state agents allegedly killed Rahman. So, how can the same agencies be trusted to protect the country's high profile people? Also, a large number of ordinary citizens die a brutal death at the hands of the same security forces and law-enforcement agencies every year.
Making the process of governance more transparent and state institutions and law enforcement agencies more accountable for their actions can make security agencies trustworthy. People would feel more secure if the complaint mechanism against state actors is widened and the judiciary functions as an independent authority. The security of the nation can be upgraded by creating a credible prosecution system, banishing impunity and respecting views of others in sociopolitical affairs followed by complete avoidance of violent actions against opponents.
The new Act leaves more questions than answers: Will the children of Hasina and Rehana, who hold foreign residencies and some who are married to foreign nationals be eligible for state security cover when living abroad? If so, will a contingent of Bangladesh’s Special Security Forces permanently stay abroad to protect them? How much expenditure will be incurred? Why should Bangladesh, a nation where 44 million people still live below the poverty line, spend huge sums of money and resources on one family?
While politicians of the ruling Awami League and its allies claim Rahman as the "Father of the Nation,” their opponents disagree. Critics have questioned Rahman’s political decisions while Muslim religious leaders and politicians have criticized his adoption of state secularism. Many also believe that he alienated some segments of nationalists and the military that feared that Bangladesh would come to depend on India for aid and other regional and internal affairs. But such debates rage mainly for political gains of groups involved.
So, if Rahman is not accepted as the Father of the Nation, will the Act survive, as the premise hinges on him being the founder of the nation and therefore his family deserves state benefits? Critics of the new Act also point that if Rahman is accepted as the nation’s founding father, then the entire population is his family and deserve the benefits that the Act promises, as he is the father of the nation and not just a father to his two daughters, who stand to benefit from the new Act.
Last but not the least, if the government claims that the Act is effective solely from the date when the Cabinet approved it, then what role does Parliament in a democracy have? How can a proposed Bill, which is not an ordinance and not having completed its legislatorial process be termed an Act and come into effect? Isn't that insanity?
The whole issue is yet another farce where the government has lost its sense of legality and fair play. What is the role of civil society after this action? Will they remain silent in fear or demand that the Act be scrapped?
--
(Rater Zonaki is the pseudonym of a human rights defender based in Hong Kong, working at the Asian Human Rights Commission. He is a Bangladeshi national who has worked as a journalist and human rights activist in his country for more than a decade, and as editor of publications on human rights and socio-cultural issues.)
