Font size: 
On July 27, members of the Bangladesh Judicial Service Association, a professional organization of judicial officers, went to the Bangladesh Secretariat, led by the association’s president, Abdul Gafur, a judge in Dhaka district, and its secretary general, Shajahan Shaju, a judge for women’s and children’s issues in Gazipur district.
The leaders met Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Shafique Ahmed to raise their objections to a proposed separation of the ministry into two parts – one for legislative and parliamentary affairs and another for law and justice affairs. They feared that the bureaucrats’ intention was to maintain authority over the judiciary.
The law minister acknowledged to the media that judicial officers had met him to share their views regarding the proposed division of his ministry. However, other bureaucrats accused the judges of unauthorized entry to the country’s administrative headquarters and neglecting their judicial duties without prior permission.
At the same time, around 100 judges from various jurisdictions, members of the Bangladesh Judicial Service Association, held a demonstration at the Secretariat. During the course of the demonstration, an official from the Ministry of Home Affairs directed the armed police to conduct body searches of the judges – a great insult to them.
In the following days, debates raged in the media and in the judiciary regarding issues related to the division of the Law Ministry and the judges’ demonstration.
On July 30 the government announced that the president had ordered judges Abdul Gafur and Shajahan Shaju, who had led the delegation to the Secretariat, to retire for “violating public service rules.” This despite the fact that judiciary is under the Supreme Court, not the executive branch of the government.
Jurists say the government’s decision is in violation of Article 116 of the country’s Constitution, which states that the president should consult the Supreme Court concerning disciplinary action against judicial officers. Local media published reports quoting the registrar of the Supreme Court saying that the government did not consult the Supreme Court in the matter.
When judges decided to challenge the government’s action, on Aug. 3 the government changed its position and withdrew its notification of “forced retirement” imposed on the two judges, claiming it had been a “procedural mistake.”
Bangladeshis have welcomed the latest decision. Still, many are surprised that the government could so easily violate the Constitution and then claim it to be a “procedural mistake.”
People want to know who was behind this mistake and whether or not they will be held accountable for it. They are concerned that there may be repetitions of such “procedural mistakes.”
Through this incident, people have clearly understood the interference by the executive branch in judicial matters and the control they wield over the entire judiciary including, at least indirectly, the Supreme Court.
Politically motivated and non-transparent appointments to the executive body have resulted in continued interference in the judiciary, despite the knowledge that the judiciary is independent of the executive in a democratic system.
Bangladesh’s executive branch is notorious for weilding authority over the judiciary in different ways. For example, the ruling Awami League – which had pledged to establish rule of law in the country during its December 2008 election campaign – amended the criminal code so it could authorize its administrative officers to take cognizance of criminal cases whenever the government deemed fit.
Deputy commissioners, who head public administration at the district level, have repeatedly demanded that their former judicial powers be reinstated. To strengthen their position they have argued that the law-and-order situation in the country is deteriorating since the separation of the judiciary from the executive.
Was Bangladesh a heaven in terms of law and order when the deputy commissioners had complete judicial authority? In many nations judicial officers, rather than bureaucrats, successfully manage the affairs of the judiciary. Why should the same not prevail in Bangladesh?
There should be open public discussion regarding these issues. The government and civil society should rethink why judges have to raise their demands through demonstrations. Also, why and how so-called “procedural mistakes” take place, and why the government would revoke its own arbitrary decision, should be explored.
The demands of both bureaucrats and judges and their rationale in establishing justice require further scrutiny. Could not an independent judiciary and bureaucracy ensure a fair trial system as well as a people-friendly administration in Bangladesh?
It remains to be seen whether there will be a transparent effort to make the judiciary truly independent so it can fulfill its function of providing justice to the people of Bangladesh.
--
(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.)
