Editorial
Office of attorney general undermines rule of law, HC
THE letter issued by the attorney general's office to the prisons department in the past week asking the latter to seek clearance from the former before releasing any convicts granted bail by the High Court is perhaps the most blatant move yet by the government to undermine not only the authority and independence of the highest judiciary but also the rule of law that it so tirelessly professes commitment to every now and then. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Saturday, the prisons department has already taken steps to ensure that the instruction is complied with and informed 59 prisons of the 'wish', so to speak, of the attorney general's office.
The rationale for the letter issued by the advocate on record, as explained by the attorney general when talking to New Age on Friday, is as lame as it could be. 'The government,' he argued, 'in most cases, appeals against the High Court and gets the High Court orders halted… If the convicts are released from jail, the Appellate Division's order becomes a futile exercise.' He also claimed that 'sometimes some criminals make the way for their release by submitting forged documents of High Court orders.' First of all, application of law or compliance with an order of the apex court cannot, and must not, be consequent upon the convenience of the executive branch of the state. As and when the High Court grants bail to any convict, the prison authorities are bound to arrange for his or her release; if the government were to secure an Appellate Division stay on the order, it could very well have the convict arrested and imprisoned accordingly. Secondly, whether the bail order produced is forged or not is for the jail authorities to check and ascertain; its failure does not constitute a justification to defer execution of a court order, let alone necessitate clearance from the attorney general's office.
Moreover, the Awami League-led government has thus far displayed an intriguing penchant for non-compliance with the High Court's order. A glaring example in this regard would be its failure to respond to the June 29, 2009 rule of the court asking the government to explain, within four weeks, why extrajudicial killings by members of the law enforcement agencies in the name of 'crossfire' and 'encounter' should not be declared illegal. In such circumstances, it would not perhaps be far-fetched to construe the latest move by the office of the attorney general, who is the top law officer of the government, as an attempt at encroaching upon the independence of the judiciary.
It could also be interpreted as the government's bid to establish the office of the attorney general as a supra-judicial body. In other words, the executive branch of the state could be viewed as trying to dictate the judiciary, which is in contravention with the constitutional decree that the state 'shall ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the State'.
Overall, the government has not only undermined the concept of the rule of law but also sought to trespass into the High Court's jurisdiction, which is tantamount to contempt of court. We believe the apex court should, and hope it would, issue a rule suo motto demanding an explanation from the office of the attorney general in particular and the government in general why they should not be held in contempt.
__._,_.___
