Once the bill is passed, it will put the Bretton Woods institution beyond any legal action, a privilege that the organisation enjoys in no other country of operations.

Apart from the stiff opposition by the left-leaning political parties and human rights bodies outside parliament, the Awami League (AL) yesterday in the House opposed the bill terming it unconstitutional and also against the fundamental rights of the people.

But the main opposition party's objection was rejected by voice vote allowing Finance Minister M Saifur Rahman to place the bill. The House sent it to the parliamentary standing committee on finance ministry for scrutiny and asked for a report in a month.

When the finance minister sought permission of the speaker for placing the bill, AL lawmaker Shah AMS Kibria raised objection.

"The bill is very much objectionable... It is illogical and it has no orality...There is no need to place such a bill in parliament," Kibria told the House.

The former finance minister said the bill, if passed, would place the World Bank above the law. "It will violate the fundamental rights of people guaranteed by the constitution. There is no such law in South Asia to provide immunity to the World Bank."

Saifur promptly responded to his predecessor saying, "It is true that there is no such instance of giving immunity to the World Bank. But it is also true that there is no incident of issuing fatwa or filing case against the World Bank, except in Bangladesh."

The minister said the Asian Development Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and Food and Agricultural Organisation enjoy such immunity.

The bill was placed to enact The International Financial Organisations (Amendment) Act, 2004 by incorporating two new articles in The International Financial Organisations Order, 1972 (Presidential Order No 86 of 1972).

"The Bank shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process, except in cases arising out of or in connection with the exercise of its powers to borrow money, to guarantee obligations, or to buy and sell or underwrite the sale of securities, in which cases, actions may be brought against the Bank in a court of competent jurisdiction...," proposes the bill.

It also says, "...no action shall be brought against the Bank, by any agency, or by any entity or person directly or indirectly acting for or deriving claims from any agency or entity or person, and there shall be recourse to such special procedures for the settlement of controversies between the Bank and the government or the agency or entity or person as the case may be."

"Property and assets of the Bank shall wheresoever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from all forms of seizure, attachment or execution, before the delivery of final judgement against the Bank," the bill proposes.

However, critics have pointed out that the Articles of Agreement that the Bank gets signed with every member country already provided it with adequate immunity from legal process.

Such coverage includes immunity from actions brought by members or persons acting for or deriving claims from members. Its assets and property are also immune from all forms of seizure, attachment or execution before the delivery of final judgement against the Bank. The Bank's archives are also inviolable and its property shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.

No legal action is allowed against the activities of any employee if he or she does so at the directive of the Bank. No immigration related rules are applicable against the foreign staff of the Bank in Bangladesh.

The Bank formally asked the government for legal immunity about three years back, after being sued by its discharged staff member Ismet Zerin Khan.

The government subsequently sought legal opinion from the attorney general and the law ministry.

Two attorneys general, Mahmudul Islam and AF Hassan Ariff, in their opinions, said as a body the World Bank is not eligible for immunity under the existing legal provisions.

The late Barrister Syed Ishtiaq Ahmed gave a similar opinion when he was advisor to the law ministry in the caretaker government of 2001.

However, Law Minister Moudud Ahmed in initiating the extended immunity argued that UN organisations and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) enjoy similar privileges.

But the fact is no UN organisation enjoys such immunity. Critics argue that the ADB has this standard agreement with all its members and the facilities it enjoys are not country specific.

The privileges the WB is demanding of Bangladesh and which will be granted if the bill is passed is country specific and this does not apply to other member states of the Bank. They question why Bangladesh should put the WB above the law of the land, which no other country does.

Observers also pointed out that it is quite difficult to comprehend why the coalition government, which seems quite sensitive about the country's sovereignty, is so easily giving it up for a multilateral body which no other country, big or small, provides to the Bank.

This move has already put the World Bank and the government before many questions including that of why the Bank opted for such immunity in Bangladesh alone instead of going for similar facilities in other countries too. The ethos of the proposed law also goes against the very basics of the fundamental rights of the country's citizens, critics have pointed out.

'IMMUNITY WON'T HINDER GOVERNANCE’
Bangladesh is the only country where the move to give immunity to the World Bank (WB) has been questioned, according to its Country Director Christine I Wallich who yesterday dismissed the notion that the immunity will hinder good governance.

A total of 183 countries have kept the WB out of purview of their judicial system except for Bangladesh, she told the BBC Bangla Service last night.

"It is very easy to understand what chaos will happen if the World Bank has to abide by different laws of 184 countries where the World Bank is operating," she added.

All cases apart from those involving financial affairs, which were filed against the WB across the world, have been quashed, Wallich said.

Asked whether the WB are putting pressure on the government for immunity, she said, "The government is not bound to take financial assistance from the World Bank if it thinks the conditions framed by the World Bank are not suitable for the country."

OTHER BILLS PLACED
Five other bills placed in the House yesterday are The Welfare Fund Bill 2004 for Transport Workers under Private Ownership, The Mines Act (amendment) Bill 2004, The Livestock Diseases Bill 2004, The Isolation of Livestock and Livestock Bill 2004, and The Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission Act (amendment) Bill 2004.

Amid objection from the AL lawmakers the bills were sent to standing committees on ministries concerned for a 30-day scrutiny each.

The parliamentary standing committee on the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs yesterday placed a report in the House on Jatiya Sangsad (Reserved Women Seats) Election Bill 2004.

Senior AL lawmaker and member of the committee Suranjit Sengupta gave a note of dissent to the report saying that the bill is contradictory to the main spirit of the constitution, which declares equal rights of all citizens irrespective of gender.