Latifur Rahman seemed to have been hurt by my omission to use the honorific justice before his name. I had no wish to hurt him by not using the honorific and the omission was not intentional. I will not however conceal the fact that I do not feel the same degree of respect for him as I do for the other two judges.

On the question of selection of advisers, I did not say that the method followed by him was illegal. In my view he acted within the letter of the law but he violated the spirit of the law. The caretaker concept is based on the need to create confidence in the minds of the government and the Opposition. Justice Latifur Rahman missed this basic point. Since the present text of the law does not provide for consultation with the two sides, I suggested reform of the system. Instead of addressing this issue, he went on to describe how he chose his Council. There must have been individuals in the Council who were upright and neutral, but the record of the Council as a whole is very poor. It failed to inspire confidence in the Opposition. I was amused to note that Justice Latifur Rahman does not know which "two sides" I was referring to. I was simply referring to the ruling party and the principal opposition party in the Parliament. Let him analyse the voting pattern in the election and he will realize what I mean by" two sides."

I was also amused by his attempt to cast doubts on my democratic credentials. I am proud to have been a bureaucrat with good reputation. I had the honour to rise to the position of ambassador of Bangladesh abroad and Foreign Secretary at home. I also had the honour to serve as an Under Secretary-General of the UN for over a decade. Unlike what he said, I did not suddenly turn into a politician. I have been in politics for the last twelve years. I was elected to the present Parliament after serving the country as Finance Minister for five years.

Justice Latifur Rahman has shown his poison fangs in the last paragraph of his response where he described the misdeeds of the Awami League government. In fact he has accused the Awami League government of 'criminality, corruption and terrorism'. This venomous outburst, to my mind, clearly proves my point that he was prejudiced against the Awami League. His actions speak loudly about his bias. Small wonder that he is unable to tolerate even a fair criticism of his performance. He has belittled the high office that he happened to have held.