Some rule, some law !
It does not surprise me at all to come across people letting out sighs of helplessness at the way certain legal matters have been handled of late. So much for the rule of law in Bangladesh, they say, more in a hapless rather than accusatory tone. And one can hardly disagree.
The causes of their outbursts relate to the case of murder of one Ibrahim and the presidential pardon to 20 murder convicts a few days before Eid.
As for the first, the case is under investigation, and one should not comment on the substance. But what has caused public consternation are the process of investigation and the contradictory statements emanating from people in high positions; and all because the person that happens to be at the centre of the issue happens also to be an AL MP. The matter has assumed a murky character because of the degree of opacity that has come to be associated with it.
The police are acting very shy, almost to the point of being apologetic when it comes to the question of Mr. Nurunnabi Choudhury Shaon, the said MP. What is most surprising is that the police on the very first day of investigation had pronounced the "not-guilty" verdict in his favour. Whether the police can make such pronouncements before completing the investigation is a question that assails our mind.
A month has elapsed since the murder but Shaon is yet to be questioned. And reportedly too, the police are deeply engrossed in contemplation as to whether the pistol, the murder weapon, which happens to belong to the MP, should be seized or not. One finds it difficult to believe that the police are still not decided about one of the most important material evidence in the case. In the backdrop of the clean chit given by the police, the statement of the state minister for law that the MP is liable for arrest under the Arms Act, has been contradicted by the police. Whose words do we take as correct?
Without attempting to pass a value judgment on the case, or pointing fingers at anybody, one cannot help wondering whether we should let our political future rest on people who cannot even assure the safe custody of their personal weapons. Can we trust a person who leaves his pistol in his car unattended? By the way, it is the same person whose name was deleted recently from the list of accused in the Malibagh murder case.
The other matter relates to the pardon granted to 20 persons under sentence of death. Nobody questions the president's prerogative to mercy given him by the constitution. And it is not the first time that that prerogative has been exercised.
During the erstwhile 4-Party Alliance rule a person sentenced to death on charge of murder was granted pardon by the president, and that was severely criticised by the AL. President's prerogative to mercy has also been exercised by the current regime in the case of the son of the deputy leader of the House. But the Grand Alliance government has gone one up in that while the former had surrendered to the court and then sought mercy, in the latter case the convict was granted pardon while still a fugitive -- in violation of the law.
The Gama murder case is unique on several counts. Hardly have we seen so many given the death sentence in a murder case, and hardly have we seen the presidential prerogative invoked before the end of the trial process. For all that we know all the convicted persons could have been victims of a frame up. But we have no way now of ascertaining that since the trial process has been brought to an abrupt halt. And that has raised many eyebrows.
The question is why did the Ministry of Law feel it necessary to initiate mercy petition while the case was in the High Court? Does it display lack of confidence in the higher judiciary, or was it anticipated that the sentences would be upheld by the appellate court?
I am personally against capital punishment and certainly believe in the maxim that it is better to err on the right side of judgment, that it is better to have 20 accused go free rather than one innocent punished wrongly; but everything must be done through the legal process. And when one sees some of the death-row prisoners emerging from the jail gate with pedestal fan and TV antennae in hand one is kept wondering at the way rules have been defiled.
Regrettably, this has been a subversion of the judicial process, an expression of no-confidence on the judiciary. And it has dragged the President's Office in the shoddy process. While the president can do little but to sign on the dotted line, one would have hoped, being a lawyer himself, that he would have combined the dignity of his office and the wisdom of his legal mind and sent it back to the ministry for reconsideration.
It is well to keep in mind what Aristotle said about the fate of man when separated from law and justice.
The causes of their outbursts relate to the case of murder of one Ibrahim and the presidential pardon to 20 murder convicts a few days before Eid.
As for the first, the case is under investigation, and one should not comment on the substance. But what has caused public consternation are the process of investigation and the contradictory statements emanating from people in high positions; and all because the person that happens to be at the centre of the issue happens also to be an AL MP. The matter has assumed a murky character because of the degree of opacity that has come to be associated with it.
The police are acting very shy, almost to the point of being apologetic when it comes to the question of Mr. Nurunnabi Choudhury Shaon, the said MP. What is most surprising is that the police on the very first day of investigation had pronounced the "not-guilty" verdict in his favour. Whether the police can make such pronouncements before completing the investigation is a question that assails our mind.
A month has elapsed since the murder but Shaon is yet to be questioned. And reportedly too, the police are deeply engrossed in contemplation as to whether the pistol, the murder weapon, which happens to belong to the MP, should be seized or not. One finds it difficult to believe that the police are still not decided about one of the most important material evidence in the case. In the backdrop of the clean chit given by the police, the statement of the state minister for law that the MP is liable for arrest under the Arms Act, has been contradicted by the police. Whose words do we take as correct?
Without attempting to pass a value judgment on the case, or pointing fingers at anybody, one cannot help wondering whether we should let our political future rest on people who cannot even assure the safe custody of their personal weapons. Can we trust a person who leaves his pistol in his car unattended? By the way, it is the same person whose name was deleted recently from the list of accused in the Malibagh murder case.
The other matter relates to the pardon granted to 20 persons under sentence of death. Nobody questions the president's prerogative to mercy given him by the constitution. And it is not the first time that that prerogative has been exercised.
During the erstwhile 4-Party Alliance rule a person sentenced to death on charge of murder was granted pardon by the president, and that was severely criticised by the AL. President's prerogative to mercy has also been exercised by the current regime in the case of the son of the deputy leader of the House. But the Grand Alliance government has gone one up in that while the former had surrendered to the court and then sought mercy, in the latter case the convict was granted pardon while still a fugitive -- in violation of the law.
The Gama murder case is unique on several counts. Hardly have we seen so many given the death sentence in a murder case, and hardly have we seen the presidential prerogative invoked before the end of the trial process. For all that we know all the convicted persons could have been victims of a frame up. But we have no way now of ascertaining that since the trial process has been brought to an abrupt halt. And that has raised many eyebrows.
The question is why did the Ministry of Law feel it necessary to initiate mercy petition while the case was in the High Court? Does it display lack of confidence in the higher judiciary, or was it anticipated that the sentences would be upheld by the appellate court?
I am personally against capital punishment and certainly believe in the maxim that it is better to err on the right side of judgment, that it is better to have 20 accused go free rather than one innocent punished wrongly; but everything must be done through the legal process. And when one sees some of the death-row prisoners emerging from the jail gate with pedestal fan and TV antennae in hand one is kept wondering at the way rules have been defiled.
Regrettably, this has been a subversion of the judicial process, an expression of no-confidence on the judiciary. And it has dragged the President's Office in the shoddy process. While the president can do little but to sign on the dotted line, one would have hoped, being a lawyer himself, that he would have combined the dignity of his office and the wisdom of his legal mind and sent it back to the ministry for reconsideration.
It is well to keep in mind what Aristotle said about the fate of man when separated from law and justice.
Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd) is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star
__._,_.___