The question is: Can the country afford to wait for that prolonged period, or should some cleansing process be started as soon as possible to save the image of the judiciary and, for that matter, the prestige of the country itself?

After the new caretaker government was catapulted to power by a tumultuous wave of political events, nobody questioned its role as a saviour of the nation from the horrendous bad management of the political parties.

The way the CTG has been cleansing the state apparatus of Bangladesh reminds one of the proverbial cleansing of the Augean stables. Regarding the legal position of the CTG, the reality is that it is backed by the armed forces of the country, but the real inspiration and the source of power comes from the spontaneous support of the people.

It appears that although Bangladesh has copied a lofty Westminster-style Constitution saturated with the Western values and ideas, it was drowned in the Bay of Bengal more than once. But the closing months of 2006 and the very beginning of the current year is a turning point in our political history.

During the three terms of administration by the political parties, covering a 15-year period, the two bosses of their respective political parties have proved themselves to be equally ruthless and indifferent to the interests and welfare of the ordinary citizens of this country.

Currently the CTG is busy arresting and prosecuting the offenders of high social standing who have been described as raghob boal (very large local fish). The CTG has succeeded in annulling the appointments in the coveted posts in the EC and the Anti-Corruption Commission.

The politicisation in all sectors by the previous governments is the curse, which befell Bangladesh. The CTG has asked everyone, including the judiciary, to show their allegiance only to Bangladesh, and not to any political party.

All incumbents of the organizations and institutions, including the public universities, which receive funds from the government, must not publicly show their political allegiance to any political party. Their allegiance should be to the people of Bangladesh first and last, and to no political party in between.

The caretaker government provision in our Constitution is unique, as we have copied the parliamentary or presidential style but have not learnt that the success of these democratic systems depends on tolerance of the views of the other political parties, and a responsible attitude adopted by the opposition in the parliament through keeping a check on the policies of the party in power.

As the Constitution provides that the last retired chief justice would be the head of the CTG, it has become a political game to determine who that person would be. It has been alleged that the last political government extended the retirement age for the judges of the Supreme Court so that it could pin its hope on getting favours from the person who would be the chief adviser of the CTG before the ninth parliamentary election.

It should be a matter of shame for any political party to expect that the chief adviser would side with the political party while holding the election because it appointed him as a judge in the Supreme Court. The high-water mark of this game dipped to the lowest level when Justice K. M. Hasan became a pawn in this political chess game.

It is true that in Western countries higher court judges are appointed and promoted by the government of the day. However, it needs to be noted that in all those countries, once appointed, the judges become truly non-political, without any bias towards the political party, which they once supported.

Possibly they remain true to their broad ideologies, in the sense that they are conservative, liberal or labour-oriented, or supporters of environment or capitalism. But in those countries no compromises are made in relation to the qualification and integrity of a judge whose only duty is to deliver judgements without being influenced by the policy of a political party, whether in power or in opposition.

Coming to the Supreme Court, we find that there are 67 judges in the High Court Division and 7 in the Appellate Division, including the chief justice. The last political regime confirmed 41 judges, even as it withheld the confirmation of the appointments of the majority of the judges made by the Awami League government.

It has been alleged that in the majority of these appointments, confirmations, withholding confirmations, the principal criteria were not observed in selecting legal eagles shining in brilliance, but in loyalty to the political party in power.

The principle of maintaining and honouring seniority in the case of elevation to the Appellate Division from the High Court Division was sacrificed by the Awami League government when, in 1999, it promoted two judges superseding two other senior judges. The BNP-led government played a tit for tat game when it appointed Justice K.M. Hasan to the post of chief justice, superseding two senior judges of the Appellate Division.

The Constitution provides that a legal practitioner of ten years standing in the Supreme Court, or one, who has performed judicial functions for ten years, is eligible for appointment a judge. It need not be said that it is the minimum technical qualification of a judge.

The president appoints a judge in the Supreme Court after being advised by the government of the day. In that sense, it is a political appointment like any other appointment for high position in the country. In the matter of appointment, confirmation and promotion of a judge, the role of the chief justice seems to be negligible.

In the current Constitution, there is no need on the part of the government for consultation with the chief justice when appointing judges to the Supreme Court or promoting judges from the High Court Division to the Appellate Division. The chief justice can only recommend confirmation of an additional judge of the High Court after the expiry of a two-year period. But it is up to the government to accept or override his recommendation.

After confirmation of a judge of the Supreme Court, he or she cannot be removed unless she/he voluntarily resigns, or the Supreme Judicial Council makes an enquiry and submits a report to the president, when he may pass an order removing the judge on grounds of gross misconduct.

In the past Justice Syed Shahidur Rahman was removed on April 20, 2004, based on the report of the Supreme Judicial Council. Since the current CTG came into power, the Supreme Judicial Council has been making an enquiry in the case of Justice Faisal Mahmud Faizee after Chittagong University cancelled his LL.B. degree. It may be noted that the outgoing government confirmed the appointment of Justice Faizee, although the chief justice did not recommend the confirmation.

It has been proved that, once appointed the judges are not invincible, and they can be removed if there are serious allegations against them. Under the current potentially harmful circumstances, it would be proper for the Supreme Judicial Council to conduct enquiries into suspected cases and inform the president accordingly.

The president may deem it fit to ask the Supreme Judicial Council to make enquiries in the appropriate cases and report its findings. The president, after getting advice from the government, may pass removal orders of the questionable judges on grounds of gross misconduct.

The day has come for an operation directed at a cleaning-up of the judiciary, for the judiciary is the last bastion of hope and the guardian of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.

How can it play the role of a guardian unless its human guardians do not have impeccable records of brilliance, integrity and high morality? It is an obligation upon the CTG to restore the loftiness of the judiciary to its proper height so that people of the country can be proud of its stature and dignity.

The administration of justice is a field where we need to prop up our own resources, particularly when the question comes of holding aloft our legal integrity and sagacity, and dispensing justice without fear or favour.

For that reason we need to have judiciary personnel of high calibre, both in morals and depth of knowledge, equal in dignity with their counterparts in other countries. Not only litigants but also all citizens of the country want to show their respect to an institution where the symbol is the scale of justice, determining right from wrong.

It needs to be remembered that ultimately a judge, and for that matter the prime minister or the president of the country, is in office only to serve the people and serve the nation.

Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed is a former Visiting Professor at the Law School, University of North Carolina, USA.