Why the judiciary can be subject to the US visa policy too
The United States in May this year declared a new visa policy for Bangladesh in order to ensure a free, fair and peaceful national election here. The country has said that the visa restrictions have already started to be put into effect against certain members of the law enforcement as well as members of the ruling party and the political opposition. Apparently, the judiciary can also be subject to these restrictions of the US policy. Including the judiciary in this regard is quite a significant matter.
In Bangladesh, according to the constitution, the election commission is the institution responsible for all national and local elections. The election commission carries out this responsibility with assistance from the administration or bureaucracy and the law enforcement agencies including the police. If the election commission deems it necessary, it can recommend deployment of the army too. The police, administration and the security forces are directly involved in the election. As the government has direct control over them, there is ample scope for them to influence the election. There are allegations that this happened in the 2018 election and this was reported in the local and international media too.
The relationship between the judiciary or the court with the election is ‘indirect’. This can involve appeals against rejection of nomination papers or decision in cases of the election tribunal. It is expected that the judiciary, if it is independent and impartial, will resolve these matters correctly. So why then does the US visa policy include the judiciary as well? An attempt can be made to find the answer to this question.
In August this year, over a hundred Nobel laureates wrote an open letter addressed to prime minister Sheikh Hasina. In the letter they expressed concern over the case filed against another Nobel laureate Dr Yunus, in which he was accused of violating the labour law and resorting to corruption. They said that Dr Yunus was being subject to continuous judicial harassment. The recently dismissed deputy attorney general Imran Ahmed Bhuiyan more or less admitted to the judicial harassment of Yunus. He refused to sign the counter statement written in protest against the letter that supported Yunus. The government sacked him with a matter of days because of this stand that he took.
On 14 September this year, a Dhaka court sentenced the secretary of human rights organisation Odhikar, Adilur Rahman Khan, and the organisation’s director ASM Nasir Uddin to two years’ imprisonment under Section 57 of the ICT Act. Eminent citizens of the country, over a fifty international human rights organisations as well as countries like the US, France and Germany, expressed concern at this conviction. Their concern must be viewed as their lack of confidence in this country’s judicial system.
On 22 September, the US stated that it had begun applying the visa policy. Following this, various political parties, the spokespersons of the police and representatives of the business community expressed their reactions. It was former Chief Justice Hasan Fayez Siddiqui’s last working day on 25 September. He spoke to the media on that day about a variety of issues. Concerning the US visa policy, he said, “I do not worry over the US visa policy. This is an independent sovereign state. This state won independence in 1971 through a sea of blood. Those who had threatened then, were opposed to independence. I am not concerned. And if you ask me personally, I have never been to America and will never go either.” (Ajker Patrika, 25 September 2023).
This statement of the Chief Justice also gave rise to debate. His words held no self-criticism of the judiciary, no message of hope for a free, fair and credible election or any guideline to overcoming the present political crisis. His words, in fact, simply echoes the stand of the government regarding the US visa policy.
The opposition BNP has long been sternly criticising the activities of the judiciary. They have termed many of the court rulings against their leaders as mere obedience to orders. The BNP secretary general has alleged that the government uses the judiciary as its strongest weapon to establish its fascist rule by repressing and oppressing the opposition. (The Daily Star, 3 August 2023)
Meanwhile, in a report published by the New York Times on 2 September, serious questions were raised about the role of the judiciary in repressing the opposition. The report, ‘Quietly crashing a democracy: Millions on Trial in Bangladesh’ said that multiparty democracy was systemically being suffocated in the overcrowded courtrooms of the Bangladesh. Almost every day, thousands of opposition party leaders, members and supporters stood in front of the judges. The charges against them were general vague with very little evidence. It is clear that there is an effort to wipe out the opposition a few months before the election. (Manabzamin, 3 September 2023).
The allegations of the judiciary being used to suppress the opposition and dissenting views cannot be dismissed. Even if these allegations contain an iota of truth, this will definitely obstruct the democratic process. It would not them be unnatural for the judiciary to also fall under the US visa policy restrictions, though this would be unfortunate and shameful.
The judiciary, or the court, is seen as the people’s last retort. That is why no matter how much the role of the other institutions of the state are questioned, the judiciary is generally above question and controversy. But over the past few years, all sorts of questions and controversies have arisen about the judiciary. Over the last few months in particular, such questions and controversies have increased due to certain incidents. Under the circumstances, it has become a challenge for the judiciary to retain people’s trust. How far the judiciary will be successful in facing this challenge, only time will tell.
* Monzurul Islam is senior sub-editor, Prothom Alo