The representative of the main opposition Awami League (AL) in the parliamentary standing committee on finance ministry gave a note of dissent and walked out of the meeting while the parliamentary panel was scrutinising the bill, terming it a violation of the constitution and democracy

The committee later finalised the bill without bringing major changes and is to submit a report recommending its passage in the next parliament session slated for May 12, meeting sources said.

Once passed, the bill will put the Bretton Woods institution beyond any legal action, a privilege the multilateral lending agency enjoys in no other country of operations.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) were given legal immunity earlier in 1972 and 1973. The WB was then given partial immunity.

Responding to the criticism from the AL lawmaker, committee Chairman Mushfiqur Rahman said, "If the move is against the constitution, then why did the previous Awami League government give such immunity to the Asian Development Bank in 1973?"

"After the passage of the bill, an individual, if affected, can sue the World Bank, though the government cannot do so," the chairman told reporters after the meeting held at the Jatiya Sangsad (JS) Bhaban.

Committee member and AL lawmaker Sayadul Haque, however, told journalists after the walkout that the bill, once passed, would put the World Bank above the law. "Nobody will be allowed to file lawsuit against the World Bank, which is against the spirit of the constitution," he maintained.

The bill was placed in parliament on October 31 last year amid widespread criticism by the opposition political parties, civil society, and rights groups.

The bill, styled The International Financial Organisations (Amendment) Act, 2005, proposes incorporating two new articles into 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.

"...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," it adds.

It goes on: "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."

Apart from the stiff opposition by the left-leaning political parties and human-rights bodies outside parliament, the Awami League (AL) and different political parties have been protesting the move to grant the Bank immunity since the bill was introduced in the parliament.

Late AL lawmaker and former finance minister Shah AMS Kibria vehemently opposed the bill minutes before it was placed. "The bill is very much objectionable… It is illogical and it has no morality…

There is no need to place such a bill in the parliament," he told the House.

Finance and Planning Minister M Saifur Rahman, who piloted the bill, promptly responded to his predecessor's observations. "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 of cases against the World Bank, except in Bangladesh."

The minister said the ADB, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (Ifad), and the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) enjoy such immunity.

On the day the bill was placed before the House, WB Country Director Christine I Wallich told the BBC radio that Bangladesh was the only country where the move to give immunity to the Bank had been questioned. She dismissed the notion that immunity will hinder good governance.

Critics, however, point out that the Articles of Agreement the Bank signs with every member country already provide the Bank with adequate immunity from legal process.

The Bank formally asked the government for legal immunity about three and a half years ago, after it was sued by its discharged staff member Ismet Zerin Khan.

The government subsequently sought legal opinion from the attorney general and the law ministry. Two former attorneys general, Mahmudul Islam and AF Hassan Ariff, said in their opinions that as a body, the World Bank is not eligible for immunity under the existing legal provisions.

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