Special Correspondent
The so called Zia
orphanage trust corruption case, under which Khaleda Zia has been convicted and
sent to the prison, relates to a foreign donation of whatever amount, which got
transferred under a transparent manner from the PM’s orphanage fund to a
private charity called Zia orphanage trust. The transfer deems illegitimate,
prima facie; but taken into consideration the donator’s consent — which is the
government of Kuwait — the threshold of illegality appears blunted; especially
when money was not spent or misappropriated by a third party. Rather, it
increased doubly in the account of the Zia orphanage trust. Why then the
accusation of gobbling up orphans’ fund?
Yet, if the crime is
ascribed to, and emanated from, the transfer of the fund from the PM’s fund to
a private entity, it’s a mistake.
Then again, if the donor — the Kuwaiti Embassy in Dhaka —
had consented to that transfer in writing, and the intent of the transfer was
not to misappropriate, then the act itself doesn’t deserve to call for five
years’ of imprisonment of a three- time prime minister and the ‘vanguard
leader’ for the restoration of democracy in the country following nine years’
of autocratic military rule in the 1980s.
Judicial independence
As well, taking into
cognizance the realistic parameters within which the entire judicial processing
has revolved so far is equally pertinent. For no independent observers within
and outside Bangladesh find or found the country’s lower judicial organs
visibly, or substantively, independent. This is on record pursuant to the
researches and the findings published by national and international observers
and monitors.
Yet, a court is a
court; and it must be deemed to have operated based on fairness, plausibility
and equity, unless proven otherwise. Above all, this case still being under
another tier of judicial proceeding with the higher court, two seminal matters
must not get discounted or shelved aside.
First: Khaleda Zia is
not guilty until the highest court of the country attests to that fact and
upholds the trial court’s verdict. Second: obtaining bail is a matter of right,
not of discretion; especially when the accused person doesn’t pose any ‘flight
risk’ to get vanished, or whisked away, from the shackle of the laws.
Delay in bail
Hence, conspicuously
discernible from the weird politicking that has been storming the political
ambiance is that the government hirelings are up in arms to fracture the BNP in
the process; an effort that had failed miserably in the last nine years. And
that is why BNP lawyers are accused of professional negligence or misconduct,
and the government keeps propagating the offense as ‘heisting of orphan’s fund’
by a former PM who’s ‘thoroughly corrupt and immoral.’
In all fairness, the bail of Khaleda Zia — based on her
social stature, age, physical condition and the dubious nature of the crime —
should have been instant. Fact is: Those who are adept in delving into the
intricacies of the laws are aware how difficult it’s to obtain a favourable
judgement on any matter splattered with ‘political toxicity.’
And, in the context of Bangladesh, the trial court that had
sentenced the former PM, at a time when the election is only months away, the
perception is getting more defiant and incongruent with the facts being
dissipated by the government. That’s the problem. Many even ask: why the
verdict had to come with a supersonic speed prior to the election when the
trial slogged over for nearly a decade?
Rule of law and democracy
The bottom line is:
Khaleda’s imprisonment had already dawned in bad omen for the nation. This
matter is now at the heart of the discourse centering the prevalence of rule of
law, which, by any calculation, is the bed rock of democracy. In a democracy,
people must have the right to choose their representations to formulate laws
that shall govern the governed.
Execution of the laws
being dependent on, and contingent upon, the fair play of the law enforcers and
the judiciary alike, none can vouch that the rule of law in Bangladesh is
moored on a footing that can be acknowledged, or attested to, as being fair; especially in those courts one
of which sentenced former PM Khaleda Zia. We say this based on the findings and
the observations; not to belittle, defy, or incur contempt of the court. For we
are no one to overlook facts that are empirically proven.
Last but not the
least, to conceptualize this dangerous ambiance, one must learn to digest the
existentially perceptible, precarious situation which has begun to intrude into
the electoral equation at a time when the surviving parliament is bereft of
legal representation due to majority of the MPs having been elected
uncontested; the main opposition and over 20 other smaller parties being away
from parliamentary representations; and, the make shift opposition, the JP,
being a loose appendage of the regime by virtue of its members enjoying cabinet
portfolios and governing mandates. Accept or not, none of those scenarios and
realties are in jibe, or in conformity with, the rule of law and democratic
governance.
Cleanse the image first
It’s time these blots
and anomalies are rinsed up, spruced, and reformatted by the incumbent leaders
to leave behind a nation that not only is governed by rules of law, it’s also
construed to be so; perceptually and substantively.
Lest we forget, the
incumbent PM also had over a dozen of similar cases processed against her
before she boarded onto the mantle of the PM following the 2008 election, and
all of which got quashed by the same brand of judicial organs against which the
institution of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), or of the Attorney General
(AG), did not make moves to obfuscate the judicial review process in the manner
these two institutions have been doing with respect to Khaleda Zia. If the case
in concern was initiated by the ACC, the AG had no business to oppose the bail
proceedings in person at the court. That’s not how it’s done in civilized
societies.
Being Bangladeshis,
we do feel helpless to the incapacitation to steer things to the desired,
justifiable direction. Yet, as hard working, conscious citizen of the country,
we want rule of law and democracy to shine and shower the depth and breadth of
this nation. Let’s not get befooled, and, none should think we will compromise
on anything less. Because, that is the way of the predecessors who had gifted
us this beautiful nation to savour, sustain and succour.
