Needless furore over judiciary's separation

---

Enayet Rasul
The vehement body language and expressions of threat seen in a discussion meeting of Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) administrative cadre officials last week, was undoubtedly in bad taste. A number of officers who addressed the meeting and their dire and arrogant words and threats including the paralyzing of the civil administration of the country if their suggested course was not followed, smacked of nothing better than rabble rousing or filthy trade union like behaviour and definitely not anything finer. It was astounding that these individuals who passed BCS exams or had the proper background for it and were posted to positions of responsibilities in the services of the republic, that they should lack basic sensibilities or be so uncaring about their own service rules or the requirements of disciplined demeanour expected from them.
The tone or delivery of their statements and the language used, both ran afoul of the standards expected from civil servants of considerable rank and authority.
What they said amounted to warning about their rebelling against the government when they themselves are part of the government, if their dictates were not immediately met. The demands were for immediate postponing of the move for the separation of the judiciary by November 1 to a far away date into the future failing which would invite their wrath and their acting to cripple the country's civil administration. It is unbelievable that any officer of the state worth the name or the members of what should essentially be a very disciplined service, can quite legally or sensibly behave in this manner. Civil servants like the members of the armed forces or the police are required by law and necessity to abide very strictly by the code of conduct of their services. Anything short cannot be admitted because that would threaten the viability of the state itself leading to anarchy, lawlessness and breakdown of order.
It seemed that such consideration were but trifles to certain so called officers who not only proved to be any better than the common man on the street by their behaviour but went beyond doing what could be well recognized as treasonous activities to whip up anger and rebellious behaviour among their civil service colleagues. No amount of apologizing or crocodile tears shedding now, should be allowed to rub out these sins. The irresponsible ones will have to be seen as sufficiently penalized to create an example to deter potential such offenders in the future for the security of the state and the people. No leniency should be there in this matter in the highest public interest.
The behaviour of these civil servants appear completely unjustifiable from the train of events. The move to separate the judiciary is not the outcome of any particular government or an arbitrary decision of the one now in power. The separation is constitutionally ordained. It remains an unfulfilled fundamental requirement of the constitution. All governments in the last two decades pledged in varying degrees to work towards the implementation of this constitutional objective or pretended the same. From the long foot dragging in this matter by successive government, the Supreme Court finally had no choice but to issue rule on the immediate past government to expedite the separation. The court also charged a number of senior bureaucrats for willfully delaying the process of separation and subjected them to the process of law for their deliberate lapses. Thus, the incumbent interim government was under a pressure to push forward the separation.
The interim government also identified this task as not only dictated by the constitution but one that had the support or backing of the people in general. Specially, enlightened sections of people or quarters though on different sides of political divides, are in complete harmony as regards the separation of the judiciary. Thus, a national consensus of sorts exists about the separation and this government was only showing its respect to this consensus by working to attain the goal within its tenure. After all, 36 years have passed and no government worked truly dedicatedly to accomplish this objective. When the present government deserve appreciation for accelerating all activities to realize this goal, when the accomplishment came so near, only at this very fag end sections of civil servants burst out in anger against it. They threatened the government like blackmailers or extortionists to have their demands met. But why at this eleventh hour ? They could make their grievances known through an orderly process and have these effectively addressed if they really wanted this. Even now, this government has promptly taken actions in response to their misgivings and would do so even earlier if the same were expressed in an approved manner. The real reason for their unruly behaviour could be no other than a mal intentioned move to catch the government by surprise and get the judiciary separation delayed or postponed indefinitely through sudden threat communication and building of pressure. Transparently, the furore was kicked up by the interest groups in the civil services to perpetrate their grip on powers they exercised so poorly and irresponsibly in many cases, so far. They would loathe to see these powers gone from the separation process. But there is now nationwide awareness that the separation of the judiciary is an indispensable need to ultimately establish good governance. The separation will open up the way for justice dispensation free from the manipulation by governments. The separation should check the tyrannies of the executive, help the people to better realize their legal and human rights. It should strengthen democracy through checks and balances created between the executive, legislature and the judiciary.
The formal separation of the judiciary will now go through as scheduled and it has become a national obligation on everyone's part to help the process. But it would be unrealistic to expect that things will change magically in the judicial system from November 2. From the outset, the separation will be no more than a gesture or token activity. Its real promise lies in the future with steps taken by the judiciary itself and helped by successive governments. In fact, a more empowered judiciary in the present context can mean only strengthening of a deficient system that exists. An independent judiciary will only start delivering up to expectation only if its rank and file are also deeply cleansed. As it is, charges have been levelled and credibly that a large number of judges now serving in the highest courts of the country are mediocre persons or less. Loyalty to a certain political party was the basis of their appointments to the higher judiciary. Nothing can be more dangerous than a situation like this persisting after the independence of the judiciary.
The idea that people and the state will get better judgments or the ends of dispensation of justice all around will be attained after the separation, will prove to be an illusion as long as these judges with the alleged dubious background continue in their jobs. Thus, carrying out reforms of the judiciary specially in its higher echelons together with the separation, only the twin developments can make meaningful the move to make the judiciary free from the executive. The reforms of the higher judiciary are also very necessary because the higher judiciary would emerge as the watchdog over the lower judiciary under the new arrangement. If the higher judiciary itself remains mired in incompetence, lack of integrity and drawbacks, then it would be considered hardly fit to supervise the lower judiciary as it would assume the role of the supervisor of the latter after the judiciary's separation.
A separated judiciary also will be expected to engage quickly in capacity building in different areas for faster settlement of cases, make the process of accessing the courts easier and cheaper for non affluent sections of people and to provide legal aid to those who cannot absolutely access them as they cannot bear the costs or are ignorant in legal matters.