<%-- Page Title--%> Law Letter <%-- End Page Title--%>

May 30, 2004 

Ombudsman: Still a far cry
The constitution of Bangladesh provides for the provision of ombudsman. This is very effective machinery to safeguard the rights of the citizens and is considered as one of the important organs in the changing world to polarise the society on equitable norms.

The concept of ombudsman traces back to the feeling of a vested quarter that a watchdog is needed to redress the outcry of the people arising from authoritarianism. Etymologically this word derives from a Swedish word, which means "representative of the government" The increasing convolution of modern states, omnipotence of the government and the clogging in the court procedure led to the emergence of ombudsman in 1960's. Denmark was the first country to set up ombudsman and many developed countries have made a remarkable headway in giving this state organ a concrete shape. According to the recent World Conference of the International Ombudsman Institute which took place in Argentina, presently ombudsman type offices are in vogue in 85 countries under different nomenclatures.

The ombudsman demonstrates a commitment to the rule of law and constitutional democracy. As it operates non-politically and the citizens enjoy easy access to this government machinery it can prevent infringement of human rights and maladministration. In the recent times Bangladeshi people witnessed the indiscriminate arrest of innocent people following the threat from the opposition to topple the government. Police crammed the prisons with the people who have no nexus with politics and they were given 3 day's imprisonment without producing them before the court. Even their relatives were not informed of their arrest. This tyrannical attitude of the government was a flagrant violation of constitution and it has reminded the mantle of ombudsman in Bangladesh once again. The value of democracy consists of making the constitutional norms sacrosanct.
Imran Ahmed ,Mohammadur, Dhaka

Fourteenth amendment and our superior judiciary
The Judiciary stands between the citizen and the State as a bulwark against executive excesses and misuse or abuse of power by the Executive and thereafter it is absolutely essential that the Judiciary must be free from Executive. Independence of Judiciary is the sine qua non of democracy. So long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive, the General Power of the people can never be endangered from any quarters.

Recently the parliament has passed a bill which provides a new provision that Judge of Supreme Court shall hold office until the attains the age of 67 years. Cause of such amendment as mentioned by our Hon'ble Law Minister is for want of experienced Judge in the Supreme Court. Opposition has said that such proposal for amendment has been brought only to hold next election under Mr. KM Hassan, the immediate passed Chief Justice, once who was associated with BNP politics and close relative of Colonel Faruque and Rashid.

Law Minister said that within 2 years about 25 experienced Judges will be retired from Supreme Court, consequently there would be a grate crisis. In order to avoid crises the Government has decided to amend the constitution. Question is who is responsible for creating such crises? This Government did not confirm 15 High Court Judges who got their appointment during tenure of Previous Government. They have not been confirmed only because they were appointed by previous Government inasmuch as their performance was better than that of the subsequent appointees. Throwing them out mercilessly and inhumanly present Government appointed some Judges. One of them has recently been removed on the allegation of corruption. Number of disposal of the cases particularly Criminal Appeals against conviction is shockingly low. People's confidence upon the Higher Judiciary is gradually decreasing day by day. The litigants expected quick disposal of Criminal Appeal against conviction, bail petitions, civil dispute, writs etc. One does not know after filing a case when the same will be disposed of. That is, there is a great crisis in superior judiciary and our Law Minister accepting the position decided to amend the Constitution.

After completion of 2 years probation period the government did not confirm 15 judges in spite of the recommendation of the Hon'ble Chief Justices. Now the Government is trying to resolve the crises by amending the Constitution. If service of the Judges depends upon the sweet will of the appointing authority the Principle of Judicial independence will be a mockery and public confidence will be shaken and that has been done.

Hon'ble Prime Minister please try to asses the depth of the crises and pulse of Learned Lawyers of the Supreme Court. They did not accept the Government's activities in the Supreme Court area. Consequently your candidates like Mr T H Khan and Dr Zahir lost in last two consecutive election. At the time of holding election your opponent group seriously raised issue of non-confirmation appointment of High Court Judges and other problems in Court area. Please try to find out the way to get rid of suffocation caused by the excessive dominance of the executive and allow enjoying the normal breathing of the unpolluted air of judicial independence.

The role of the judiciary under the Constitution is pious trust reposed by the people. The Constitution and the democratic polity thereunder shall not survive, the day judiciary fails to justify the said trust if the Judiciary fails, the Constitution fails and the people might opt for some other alternative. It is our expectation that both position and opposition will come forward to find out the root of crises and resolve the same for the interest of the Nation.

Anik Rohman, student, Dept. of Law, Dhaka University.