The biggest controversy sparked by the law ministry under the leadership of Moudud Ahmed was increasing the retirement age limit of the justices from 65 years to 67 years. This was done in 2004 just to ensure that former chief justice KM Hasan becomes eligible to head the caretaker government as per the constitution.

KM Hasan who was active in BNP politics in 1979 expressed embarrassment and refrained from participating in the trial of the Bangabandhu murder case. This background made him unacceptable to the then main opposition Awami League as the chief of caretaker government. He, however, finally declined to be the caretaker chief.

The changing of retirement age is viewed as a dirty game of narrow politics, where the BNP-led alliance is being accused of fixing the election environment without touching the constitution. This tampering has resulted in the current political impasse.

The second biggest controversy is the deliberate defiance of the Supreme Court's 1999 order for separating the judiciary from the executive. The previous Awami League (1996-2001) government had delayed implementing this order, but for the good reason of undertaking many preparatory tasks related to this separation.

In case of the BNP-led alliance rule, there was no valid reason for the delay. While separation of the judiciary was one of the main issues in BNP's election manifesto in 2001, the government time and again sought time-extension for implementing the order using various pretexts. The government faced stiff criticism from the Supreme Court and even contempt charges, but it shamelessly made the court understand that the court is helpless if the government did not care.

In absence of an independent judiciary coupled with the 4-party government's arrogant manifestation of defiance of the SC order, the rule of law had been seriously undermined. As a result, the country saw many instances of politically influenced controversial verdicts or influences over the verdicts.

For instance, the High Court imposed a stay order on opposition parties' Dhaka-siege programme on the night before it took place. Again, when the High Court declared the regimes of Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed to General Ziaur Rahman illegal, the verdict was stayed overnight and it was never reinstated.

Besides, there was severe politicisation of the judiciary like never before. This politicisation has resulted in the recruitment of many controversial and incompetent persons loyal to the ruling alliance, as judges. These recruitments triggered protests at the Supreme Court and contributed to tarnishing of the neutral image of the judiciary.

Though the appointment of additional judges and confirmation of their services are supposed to be done in accordance with the recommendations of the chief justice, the government did not follow it. All recruitments followed its will, where some ministers having background as lawyers made the selections.

The alliance government appointed 45 additional High Court judges for two years in the last five years. Of them, the government confirmed the services of 37 and made sure that the next government does not have the scope to cancel their appointments.

In most of these appointments there had been allegations of politicisation and nepotism. There are allegations that some of these judges had been active leaders of BNP. One additional judge used to be a BNP lawmaker in the sixth parliament and there is at least one judge against whom there was specific allegation of corruption.

But the government took no action against these controversial judges --rather rewarded them with confirmation of their services.

When the 4-party alliance came to power, it did not confirm the services of 15 additional judges appointed during the previous Awami League rule, though most of these judges had the chief justice's recommendations in favour of them.

In addition to such recruitment, the government was also busy protecting a judge against whom the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) brought allegation of tampering with his law certificate. Though there had been all kinds of protests and boycotts on the High Court premises, the government was determined to protect the service of additional judge Faisal Mahmud Faizee. This went so deep that at one point in 2005, the High Court banned all kinds of demonstrations on the court premises.

Moreover, the government confirmed Faizee's services as a judge although the chief justice did not recommend him.

The BNP in its 2001 election manifesto promised establishment of a National Human Rights Commission and appointment of an ombudsman. But it failed to do so.

The law minister on September 19, 2004 at an international conference in Dhaka said that differences of opinion among ministers were blocking the efforts to set up the National Human Rights Commission.

"I had a great difficulty convincing my cabinet colleagues about the commission. We are committed to setting up the commission. I hope I will be able to convince my cabinet colleagues about its necessity," he told the conference.

The draft bill on the National Human Rights Commission, prepared in 2003, is now gathering dust in the Cabinet Division.

The government formed a cabinet committee headed by the then law minister on December 10, 2001 to prepare the draft bill. After a series of meetings, the committee finalised the draft and sent it to the Cabinet Division on January 23, 2003.

The bill was eventually placed at the cabinet meeting on January 29 the same year, but the cabinet sent the bill back to the law ministry for further scrutiny. Since then the draft bill is pending at the ministry.

In 1980, the government passed an act for installation of an ombudsman, and after 22 years, on January 6, 2002, the coalition government brought the act into force through a gazette notification.

On February 11, 2002, the law ministry proposed amendments of some provisions of the act. Then a cabinet committee was formed to make recommendations after further scrutiny of the bill. But the committee is yet to make any recommendations.

The BNP also promised to set up an independent Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), which it did, but kept it totally ineffective. Formed in November 2004, the ACC remains organisationally incomplete and incapable of performing its assigned tasks. The three top members of the commission were appointed on the basis of their loyalty to the BNP-led alliance and they have failed to prove that they are independent.

The additional judges, the ACC chairman and commissioners were selected on the basis of personal choices of the ministers -- Moudud Ahmed, Nazmul Huda and Aminul Haq -- and Khandker Mahbub Uddin Ahmed MP who have lawyer's background.

Politicisation and weakening of the judiciary and an ineffective ACC directly contributed to the drastic rise of corruption in the government. Corruption remained unbridled, while officials or politicians accused of corruption went unpunished. There was not a single instance of any verdict in any noteworthy corruption case.

But, the nation witnessed how the government used the lower courts for its petty political gains and acquitted former military autocrat HM Ershad from a number of corruption cases. The deal with Ershad is that the former autocrat will join the BNP-led alliance to contest the upcoming election, in exchange for the acquittal.

In another instance of blatant politicisation of the judiciary, Dhaka divisional special judge Rezaul Karim Chunnu was seen addressing BNP's rally in Kishoreganj while he was a sitting judge. But no action was taken against him. The High Court took a move against him, which prompted Chunnu to resign recently and formally join BNP.

The government played another dirty game with the Bangabandhu murder case at the Appellate Division. This case was not heard for a single day in the last five years because of 'lack of judges' in the Appellate Division. At one point, former chief justice Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury suggested appointment of a judge on ad hoc basis for the hearing of the case, but the government took no move.

There are over six lakh civil cases, mostly related with land disputes, pending with the courts for many years and this number is increasing every year. The government has failed to improve this scenario.

LAWS AND VARIOUS REFORMS
The Law Ministry in the last five years got 185 laws passed in parliament. The law ministry itself drafted 55 laws while other ministries placed the remaining 130.

The promulgation of the Joint Drive Indemnity Act 2003 was severely criticised by all quarters as a "black law" that condones killing of 56 persons in custody during the Operation Clean Heart of the joint forces.

Under this law, the families of the victims cannot seek justice from the court, though the then law minister Moudud Ahmed, before framing of this law, categorically said that there would be no indemnity for custodial deaths.

This is the second indemnity law of the country. The first such act was promulgated in 1975 to protect the killers of Bangabandhu.

Before the 2001 election, the BNP had pledged direct election for reserved women seats in parliament. But when the BNP-led alliance government dealt with the issue in 2005 and amended the constitution, it did not create the provision for direct election.

The BNP has been a staunch critic of the Special Powers Act (SPA), 1974. But during its 1991-96 rule, it did not repeal it and did not do so this time. Interestingly, BNP has always referred to the SPA as a proof of how anti-people the Awami League can be. BNP has used this law again and again in the 1990s and during this term as well.

The BNP repealed an anti-terrorism law "Public Safety Act" promulgated by the AL government in the late '90s, but enacted a similar law titled "Speedy Trial Act (Law and Order Disruption)" spelling harder punishments for the guilty.

But unlike the Public Safety Act that gave a clear cut direction about which cases would fall under its jurisdiction, the speedy trial acts allowed the government to discriminate which case should be forwarded to the speedy trial courts and which should go to the conventional courts.

The government also failed to implement another good move to set up civil and criminal courts at three hill districts of the country.

The government for the first time made a separate law to deal with money laundering crimes titled "Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2002". But this did not achieve much success due to poor governance.

The government claims success in its dealing with the money loan courts. By amending some relevant laws, the government made it very effective in recovering Tk 3,700 crore default loans in five years. Before that this court was not very effective.

Some legal reforms generated good results. The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programme introduced in 2003 evoked good response in handling cases.

The government also took a legal move to modernise the land system through the Registration (Amendment) Act, 2004. The government claims that this has reduced pubic harassment related to land issues, which is a dominant conflict issue with the courts.