Nations Supreme court just dismissed two leave-to-appeal petitions against the high court verdict declaring certain portions of fifth amendment illegal. While supporting views are available in powerful media, no clear analysis is available to discuss the potential negative side of the verdict. As this verdict deals with constitution and extremely political nature of the verdict, it is very important to discuss the pros as well as cons of the verdict and potential implication of such verdict as a precedence for future judicial actions. When judiciary decides to take on such a contentious political matter, it is expected that they would subject the verdict to public scrutiny rather than using ‘contempt of court’ protection. In the following post, published in “In The Middle of Nowhere”, tacitaerno dissects the supreme court’s rejection to allow an appeal process and analyzes justice Khairul Haq’s original verdict.
***********************************
Supreme Court Decides the fate of the Fifth Amendment
In 2005, a High Court bench led by Justice Khairul Huq declared the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh illegal. The full judgment is available at Unheard Voice. It is a fascinating read. Justice Khairul Huq’s portion is slightly longer than Justice A. T. M. Fazle Kabir’s. Page 336-337 contains the reasons that the Fifth Amendment was found to be invalid.
This case is worth thinking about, because it does not deal with legal technicality, or arcane judicial procedure. This case is about the design, the blueprint if you will, of the State of Bangladesh. It is also about whether we, the people of Bangladesh, tell our government what to do, or whether they turn around and tell us what to do. Who gets the last word, the people or the government?
The Constitution of Bangladesh is the supreme law of Bangladesh. The First Parliament of independent Bangladesh, as elected representatives of a sovereign people, approved it. This constitution is a written contract between us, the people of Bangladesh, and the government, whom we allow the exercise of state power on our behalf. This contract is binding upon all organs of this government: the parliament, the president, the Supreme Court and all lower courts, the military, the police, and our local representatives, all must abide by it….


