Staff Reporter :
Bangabandhu himself would not have claimed that he alone built the nation or the country. Chief Justice in his judgement only said no nation or a country was made by one man meaning collective efforts necessary, said Barrister Mainul Hosein at a talk-show called Tritio Matra in Channel-i on Tuesday while explaining the controversy over the judgement given by seven judges of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court declaring 16th Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional. Bangabandhu would not have denied the contributions of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Manik Mia or the freedom fighters. Mr Hosein was highly critical of those who were abusive about the judges of the highest court.
Other discussants were Advocate Muhammad Yousuf Hossain Humayun, former President, Supreme Court Bar Association and Dr. Zillur Rahman Khan, Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin, USA. The talk-show was moderated by Senior Journalist Mr Zillur Rahman.
Explaining himself Barrister Hosein added to say that this sentence was in a different context. Bangabandhu’s name was mentioned with due respect for his contribution in creation of Bangladesh. ‘I find nothing in the sentence showing even indirectly any disrespect to Bangabandhu.’
Barrister Hosein said the country’s acute flood situation has displaced more than 30 lakhs of people. The proper thing should have been to worry about the sufferings of the people and mismanagement in providing help to their inhuman miseries. The country is facing the problems all over like corruption, abuse of power and non-functioning of many government institutions. The government should be busy with helping the suffering people.
Barrister Hosein tried to make it clear that empowering the Parliament to try the judges of the Supreme Court will have the effect of not only depriving the independence of the judiciary, but also deny the supremacy of the Constitution. There will be no judiciary to protect the Constitution. He analysed to show that the people behind the change meant to establish one party rule like BKSAL. They are terribly upset and the Awami League should be careful.
He also clarified that the consequence of members of Parliament trying the judges of the Supreme Court will lead to ugly partisan fighting in the Parliament.
Mentioning the example in India and citing from the present judgement Barrister Hosein said the judges of the Supreme Court represent the conscience of the nation and in India also it is a committee of two judges and a jurist which decides if the judge has committed the offence. Only thereafter both the houses of the Parliament consider whether the judge deserves to be removed.
Barrister Mainul Hosein further elaborated the argument in respect of political observations to say that the Constitution also deals with the issues of good governance and the Supreme Court as protector of the Constitution can justifiably point out wrongs in the governance. His emphasis on proper functioning of the Parliament or the need of free and fair election were within the sphere of good governance.
Barrister Hosein advised that without crushing the Constitution if the government has any idea in line with the example in India or any other country, it can suggest that. The problem remains as ours is a one-house Parliament.
He was critical about fuming and shouting indecent words against the judges of the highest court.
Mr Yusuf Hossain Humayun remained steadfast to his argument that though not directly but indirectly belittled Bangabandhu. He was especially irritated for politicising the judgement by BNP and Jamaat. Professor Zillur Rahman Khan described fondly his relationship with Bangabandhu but strongly reminded the importance of the judiciary for democracy.
