The pardon gate
Implementation of rule of law can not be a selective case….We revert back to a news story from a week ago and refer to ShadaKalo’s post after reading the PM’s quote from her speech couple of nights ago.
অন্যায়কে প্রশ্রয় দিলে অন্যায় করার প্রবণতা বাড়তেই থাকে। আর তাই এ অন্যায় যাতে কোনো মহল থেকে প্রশ্রয় না পায়, সেদিকে সতর্ক থাকতে হবে।
Action speaks louder than words.
President Pardon’s the son of the deputy leader of the parliament’s corruption conviction.
Read Mamma’s boy
If Mr. Akbar was innocent, he could have surrendered to the court, gone on bail, and appealed the process. Other AL homra-chomras have appealed their convictions and had them overturned. As BNP is not in power, and his mother is one of the most influential people in the country, Mr Akbar was at no risk of unfair treatment from the courts.
Then why was the pardon necessary?
The fact that he had to go the pardon-route firmly establishes his guilt. Prothom-Alo is also reporting that the assets previously seized by the government will not go back to him. That fact is another nail in the coffin of his guilt—surely an innocent person would have fought to clear his name and recover any asset unfairly/illegally seized from him.
Does the president have the authority to pardon an absconding criminal? As we are not constitutional lawyers, we will leave that to the pundits, who have opined on both sides of the argument. For this article, let us assume the president has unconditional authority to grant pardons.
So, the question becomes, why was this guilty parson pardoned? Has he rehabilitated himself? No—he has not expressed remorse or paid his debt to society.
Rer
Apparently, all fugitives must surrender to the law before they can use the legal system for the defense. But some fugitives are more equal than others.
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=115347
Attorney General Mahbubey Alam yesterday told The Daily Star that he (Akbar Sobhan) is a fugitive from the law, and he has no right to move such petition before the High Court.
Shah Alam was sentenced to a total of 10 years’ imprisonment in two cases filed on charges of money laundering and tax dodging during the caretaker government. He, however, did not surrender before the trial court in connection with any of the cases.
[Reply]
Syed Abul Maqsud in Prothom Alo:
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2009-11-24/news/21406
আদালতের দেওয়া রায়কে অত্যন্ত সংগত কারণ ছাড়া নাকচ করে দেওয়া অর্থাত্ শাস্তিপ্রাপ্ত দোষীকে ক্ষমা করা কি বিচারব্যবস্থার অবমাননা নয়? স্বজনপ্রীতি জিনিসটি খুবই নিন্দনীয়। এবং স্বজনপ্রীতিরও একটি স্তর থাকে। সেই স্তর অতিক্রম বাঞ্ছনীয় নয়।
আমরা স্বাধীনতা ও মুক্তিযুদ্ধের চেতনার কথা অনর্গল বলি। সে চেতনা হলো: আত্মসম্মানবোধ, আত্মনির্ভরশীলতা, গণতন্ত্র ও ন্যায়বিচার।
[Reply]
What exactly is the basis of the Presidential prerogative to pardon?
The simple answer is, the constitution gives the president this power. But is it that simple? Presumably it is not the individual Iajuddin or Zillur Rahman who decides ‘I am going to pardon X or Y’. Presumably the decision is taken by the office of the President.
But in our system, as President Shahabuddin once said, the president actually has nothing to do other than mazar visits. And as President B Chowdhury found out, failing to visit the right mazar on the right day is ground enough for being fired from presidency. Therefore, it seems to me that the President just pardons whoever the government (read: the PM) tells him to pardon.
But then that gets even trickier. Any first year political science student can tell you that a modern democratic state has to separate powers between executive, legislative and judicial arms of the state. If the executive (even if elected) can call rough shots over the other branches, then the state isn’t really democratic. And yet, that’s exactly what we have here. Courts can find someone guilty, and the government (read: the Prime Minister) can tell the president to pardon them. That can’t be democratic!
Why even bother with courts? Why not simply ask the Prime Minister to declare ABC guilty of XYZ crimes, and pronounce PQR innocent of everything?
[Reply]
Jyoti Bhai, this is a hold-over from our colonial times. The Imperial Viceroy had the power to overturn court decisions, completely at will, just to show us natives the extent of his awesome powers. Unfortunately, we never tried hard enough to get rid of those colonial hangovers.
I think how this power is exercised depends solely on the personality of the president. Zillur “My netri can do no wrong” Rahman will obviously act in collaboration with the PMO. But if you get a president strong-willed enough, then it really depends on individual whims about how he would exercise his powers.
[Reply]
jyoti Reply:
November 26th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Tacit, if you get a president strong-willed enough, he will meet the fate of Badruddoza “what have I done wrong” Chowdhury.
[Reply]
tacit Reply:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:28 am
IMHO, a strong-willed president would have stuck around to actually have the Parliament impeach and remove him. That would have forced BNP to figure out what impeachable offence Badruddoza had actually commited (Answer: none). Resigning didn’t help anyone.
[Reply]
jyoti Reply:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Valid point. Agree. I wonder if Shahabuddin Ahmed pardoned anyone. He seems to be the last strongwilled president we’ve had.
What was in Shahdab’s application asking for pardon ? Admission of guilt or appealing against wrongful conviction ? It’s sad to see that Honourable President is getting involved in kind of corruption !!! Our President is an advocate , and I am sure he could have found a more deserving candidate than Shahdab for pardon if he could look beyond AL gharana ! A President with such limited and impared vision is detrimental to Rule of Justice . Is it a form of “Shoirachar” ?
[Reply]
kgazi Reply:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Because judiciary is such sham, and because the power of PM so one-sided, the ‘ruling’ party is basically the judge, jury & executioner, in any legal issue, whether its the impeachment & selection of president, or pardoning and verdict of accused.
It IS total shoirachar,
a) because there is NO balance, division or separation of power, which is lop-sided in favor of existing ‘ruling’ party al or bnp, and
b) because law itself is decided by the ‘ruling party’, its PM, judges (who are scared of being fired or retired ! ), and “law minister” (who has more power to judge than judges ! ).
c) because of such dictatorial power of ‘ruling’ party, all mechanisms of opposition are cut off, and no-one can take corrective action, against shoirachar.
Perhaps this is how the nawabs and colonials kept crime down, by keeping the other half in fear of unlawful persecution!! And so the rule continues
[Reply]