CJ’s political remarks in 16th amendment verdict hurt, grieve, damage AL: Khasru

Ruling Bangladesh Awami League (AL) presidium member Abdul Matin Khasru has said the “political remarks” made by chief justice Surendra Kumar Sinha in the 16th amendment verdict hurt, damaged, and grieved the ruling party.

Also former law and justice affairs minister of a past AL government, Khasru said the party thinks that even the country’s opposition political partieshaven’t judged them so “cruelly”.

Khasru voiced the party’s dismay over the verdict while talking to daily Prothom Alo on Thursday.

The Supreme Court on 1 August released its full verdict that scrapped the 16th amendment of the constitution.

The verdict also made some remarks on the abolishment of the caretaker government provision, the electoral system, the formation of a strong and representative parliament, and thus its authority to sack a judge.

“Even the political parties which are in opposition to us haven’t shown such cruelty,” said the ruling party leader.

He, however, expressed a positive outlook towards some parts of the verdict -particularly those which stipulate formulation of a 39-point code of conduct and the publication of wealth statements of judges.

“The Supreme Court is the last resort for justice, but the verdict brought some issues which are totally irrelevant. We are aggrieved, hurt, and damaged by the verdict.

“Cruel and inhuman remarks were made about the leadership of the political party, AL, which led the liberation war. We think, that was not a matter for the judgement and had no relevance to the subject of judgement.

“We can in no way expect this from the head judge of the country. We are bound to follow the SC verdict as per Article 111 of the constitution, but we didn’t expect such irrelevant remarks in any way,” said Matin Khasru.

When his attention was drawn to the fact that some of the judges disagreed with with the chief justice and gave different opinions on Article 116 of the constitution and on legalising laws formulated during military regimes, he said all the judges but Nazmun Ara Sultana wrote the verdict differently.

When Matin was told that all of the six judges batted for the restoration of the Supreme Judicial Council, calling it the fundamental and unalterable structure of the constitution, Matin Khasru said parliament pragmatically sought the amendment itself .

“Parliament brought about no changes to other fundamental issues where it has no authority to do so. It [SC] can scrap any law ultra vires to the constitution, but it was not a general matter. A provision which was enshrined in the original constitution was brought back.

“So, why will that provision be ultra vires to the constitution? But our concern is the political remarks of the chief justice which have been very humiliating for us,” he added.

Asked if the government will file a review petition against the verdict, Khasru said they will take a decision in this regard later, after discussion and consultation.

“The prime minister will take a decision in this regard. There will be a detailed discussion of it in parliament. None of the state organs but the Supreme Court preserve the right to explain the constitution. And the role of parliament is to enact laws as per Article 65.

“According to Article 94(2) and 116(K), judges will remain independent in giving their judgement. We don’t know whether any chief justice of any country around the world makes such unilateral remarks. Those remarks are unwarranted and unjust, and not acceptable in any way.

When his attention was called to the opinion of the six judges--- of seven appellate division judges who gave the verdict--- that the fourth amendment curbed the independence of the judiciary and shifted parliament’s power to the president, Khasru said judges have the right to make such comments.

“We’ve no right to criticise the Supreme Court verdict. If they [SC] give any wrong judgement, they have the scope to correct it in the process of reviewing the verdict and there are many such precedents,” he noted.

Asked about the relations between the judiciary and the executive in the wake of the verdict on the 16th amendment that has apparently strained relations between the two state organs, he said conflict between the judiciary and the executive can in no way be expected.

“There should be supplementary, complementary, and conciliatory relations between the three state organs - the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive. Each of the organs will function independently in its own sphere and will not impinge upon the area of others. This is the instruction of the constitution.”

When the AL leader was told that the verdicts on the 5th and 13th amendments had made AL happy and the verdict on the 16th amendment made BNP happy, he called it unexpected. “There should be no disagreement on the constitution.”

When his attention was to drawn to the chief justice’s remarks that he is embarrassed at the way how as many as 81 laws framed during the two military regimes were accepted without any changes to them, Matin Khasru said, “We were compelled to do so to maintain continuity."

When his opinion was sought about the chief justice’s remarks that the judiciary is in a better position than that of other state organs, but is still grappling to survive, Khasru said the chief justice was right.

Asked whether the ruling party leader expects that the chief justice will expunge his political remarks from the verdict, Khasru said, “I strongly expect so. To err is human. It is one of his mistakes, too.”

*The article is rewritten in English by Abu Taib Ahmed, based on an interview of Abdul Matin Khasru that featured in Prothom Alo print edition