Revisiting our judiciary
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Shamsher Chowdhury
I am neither an expert on legal affairs nor on justice and workings of the judiciary. Over the years however I have been a keen observer of the processes and pattern of the workings of our legal systems and the workings of our judiciary. I am therefore restricting my views and comments on the subject from the perspectives of moral, ethical and philosophical view-points.
The past few years I wrote a number columns closely linked to the subject. Never before, since our independence judiciary and the judges have been faced with a number of such extraordinary challenges as of today. The reason that has presently inspired me to write on the subject is the recent comment made by our newly inducted Chief Justice who emphasised on "justice for the poor". I am not a statistician but it is common knowledge that over 60 per cent of our population is not only poorer but of late living on the edge of poverty. It is no secret that their access to justice is far from satisfactory. On the other hand, our judiciary is otherwise characterised by its workings by selective justice. As I said before, nothing deserves the cause of justice than selective justice. In the meantime the question of making the judiciary independent by separating it from the executive still continues to be elusive. What others might or may not say the fact remains that the lower courts are being influenced by the government operatives of the likes of ministry of home affairs and the ministry of law and parliamentary affairs or other powerful quarters of the Government.
Shocking, too, is the fact that many agencies and departments of the government frequently ignore court orders.
To my mind, what also stand in the way of due dispensation of justice is poor and incomplete investigation reports and charge sheets in specific cases. Judges are neither Gods nor soothsayers they are bound to base their judgment/verdict on the strength of arguments and counter-arguments as presented by the legal counsels in the closed compounds of the courts as presented by lawyers which are mostly based on relevant intelligence and investigation reports. Conversely our judges, if I may say so, are burdened to the extent of intimidation by a barrage of politically motivated cases. One other challenge, the judiciary is often confronted with is silent pressures brought upon them with regard to prioritising of cases from influential quarters.
After the conclusion of the Bangabandhu murder, our judiciary and the judges are now faced with other two other cases of vital importance namely the BDR revolt and the war crimes trial. As far as I am concerned the impact of these cases are bound to have far reaching effects within the country and the international community at large. It is therefore imperative that we deal with these cases with utmost caution, care and wisdom. Both the cases are heavily loaded with elements of widely perceived issue of human rights violations. On the other hand, the BDR revolt is more complicated than the war crimes trial. With it, is connected among other things the very security and integrity of the entire nation now and in the years to come.
I remain somewhat concerned about the war crime trials. As much as the trials must be held every care should taken with regard to making a trial that is credible both within and the international community. I am somewhat concerned when I see that people who opposed our war of liberation is branded as war criminals. For all practical purposes, the media and a section of ultra zealots have already given their verdict before the trial could begin. I, too, have lost a brother one of the illustrious sons of the soil at the hands of the cadres of the infamous Al-Bdr and Al-Shams. What I am trying to say is this that passing a court verdict or even holding a trial on the basis of community profiling would be a wrong thing to do.
With regard to the BDR trial in the interest of fair play and sustainable justice, our judiciary and the judges would do well to take into its cognisance the deaths over half a century of its personnel dying in custody since the revolt ended. Numerous human rights organisations have expressed their opinion about these deaths being serious incidents of human rights violations. The families of these dead are languishing under the pain of loss of a husbands or a brother. They two have their rights. Let us not forget in the eyes of that SUPREME authority, the death of a general or a king are of equal consequence.
I am grateful to our judges and the judiciary to have taken into cognisance this persisting issue of deaths by cross fires. To my mind, it has now become obligatory to bring the matter to a conclusion and pass a verdict that is just and fair.
It is my earnest hope that that the issues raised above will receive attention of our judges. These are issues of high public interest. Our judiciary must not operate as an entity away from the people. As I said before, justice must not only be done but seen to be done.
Indeed, judges are human beings just like the rest of us. At the same time they are expected to be of moral and ethical calling higher than those of the common man. They must be people with vision. Our judges should remember that they happen to be the custodian of the single-most important institution of the country. Judiciary is the guiding spirit and the conscience of a nation that it can relate to.
Our judges must work from the premise that "justice is the means by which established injustices are sanctioned". Our judges must remember that while they act on injustices of today they are also setting the trends for tomorrow.
(The writer can be reached at e-mail: chowdhury.shamsher@yahoo.com)
I am neither an expert on legal affairs nor on justice and workings of the judiciary. Over the years however I have been a keen observer of the processes and pattern of the workings of our legal systems and the workings of our judiciary. I am therefore restricting my views and comments on the subject from the perspectives of moral, ethical and philosophical view-points.
The past few years I wrote a number columns closely linked to the subject. Never before, since our independence judiciary and the judges have been faced with a number of such extraordinary challenges as of today. The reason that has presently inspired me to write on the subject is the recent comment made by our newly inducted Chief Justice who emphasised on "justice for the poor". I am not a statistician but it is common knowledge that over 60 per cent of our population is not only poorer but of late living on the edge of poverty. It is no secret that their access to justice is far from satisfactory. On the other hand, our judiciary is otherwise characterised by its workings by selective justice. As I said before, nothing deserves the cause of justice than selective justice. In the meantime the question of making the judiciary independent by separating it from the executive still continues to be elusive. What others might or may not say the fact remains that the lower courts are being influenced by the government operatives of the likes of ministry of home affairs and the ministry of law and parliamentary affairs or other powerful quarters of the Government.
Shocking, too, is the fact that many agencies and departments of the government frequently ignore court orders.
To my mind, what also stand in the way of due dispensation of justice is poor and incomplete investigation reports and charge sheets in specific cases. Judges are neither Gods nor soothsayers they are bound to base their judgment/verdict on the strength of arguments and counter-arguments as presented by the legal counsels in the closed compounds of the courts as presented by lawyers which are mostly based on relevant intelligence and investigation reports. Conversely our judges, if I may say so, are burdened to the extent of intimidation by a barrage of politically motivated cases. One other challenge, the judiciary is often confronted with is silent pressures brought upon them with regard to prioritising of cases from influential quarters.
After the conclusion of the Bangabandhu murder, our judiciary and the judges are now faced with other two other cases of vital importance namely the BDR revolt and the war crimes trial. As far as I am concerned the impact of these cases are bound to have far reaching effects within the country and the international community at large. It is therefore imperative that we deal with these cases with utmost caution, care and wisdom. Both the cases are heavily loaded with elements of widely perceived issue of human rights violations. On the other hand, the BDR revolt is more complicated than the war crimes trial. With it, is connected among other things the very security and integrity of the entire nation now and in the years to come.
I remain somewhat concerned about the war crime trials. As much as the trials must be held every care should taken with regard to making a trial that is credible both within and the international community. I am somewhat concerned when I see that people who opposed our war of liberation is branded as war criminals. For all practical purposes, the media and a section of ultra zealots have already given their verdict before the trial could begin. I, too, have lost a brother one of the illustrious sons of the soil at the hands of the cadres of the infamous Al-Bdr and Al-Shams. What I am trying to say is this that passing a court verdict or even holding a trial on the basis of community profiling would be a wrong thing to do.
With regard to the BDR trial in the interest of fair play and sustainable justice, our judiciary and the judges would do well to take into its cognisance the deaths over half a century of its personnel dying in custody since the revolt ended. Numerous human rights organisations have expressed their opinion about these deaths being serious incidents of human rights violations. The families of these dead are languishing under the pain of loss of a husbands or a brother. They two have their rights. Let us not forget in the eyes of that SUPREME authority, the death of a general or a king are of equal consequence.
I am grateful to our judges and the judiciary to have taken into cognisance this persisting issue of deaths by cross fires. To my mind, it has now become obligatory to bring the matter to a conclusion and pass a verdict that is just and fair.
It is my earnest hope that that the issues raised above will receive attention of our judges. These are issues of high public interest. Our judiciary must not operate as an entity away from the people. As I said before, justice must not only be done but seen to be done.
Indeed, judges are human beings just like the rest of us. At the same time they are expected to be of moral and ethical calling higher than those of the common man. They must be people with vision. Our judges should remember that they happen to be the custodian of the single-most important institution of the country. Judiciary is the guiding spirit and the conscience of a nation that it can relate to.
Our judges must work from the premise that "justice is the means by which established injustices are sanctioned". Our judges must remember that while they act on injustices of today they are also setting the trends for tomorrow.
(The writer can be reached at e-mail: chowdhury.shamsher@yahoo.com)