Md Abdul Matin is a retired justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. In an interview with Sohrab Hassan and Monzurul Islam, he talks on various issues including the 12th parliamentary election, the movement of the opposition parties, human rights and the judicial system. He also talks about geopolitics and global pressure on Bangladesh
Question: Bangladesh started 2023 with a political movement and struggle. This situation existed throughout the year. What are your observations at the end of the year?
Answer: Nothing has happened to make one optimistic. However, politics was more or less good in the beginning. The opposition, including BNP, peacefully held rallies and placed their demands before the people. The streets were vibrant with their non-violent movement throughout the year. Alongside that, the ruling party also organised rallies and meetings.
Question: BNP had a one-point demand seeking resignation of the government and organising elections under a neutral government. On the other hand, Awami League said they would not resign. A phase of the movement eventually ended in violence. How do you view the rigid stance of two parties?
Answer: Both the parties have tried to resolve the problems on the streets. But in a democratic system, political problems are to be resolved though discussion. Just as BNP was rigid about their one-point demand, the Awami League top leadership also said there would be no talk with BNP. The rigidity of the two sides pushed the country into uncertainty. We citizens expected the problem would be solved through discussions. This happens in all countries. The incident of 28 October destroyed all hope. The opposition rally was foiled by thousands of sound grenades and tear gas. Then there were also incidents of chief justice’s residence being attacked and a police official being killed. This was unfortunate. Before proving who were behind these incidents, many leaders including the BNP secretary general were arrested. As a result, the chance of discussions and negotiations came to an end. The country plunged into a deep crisis.
Question: The opposition parties enforced hartals and blockades in protest, but how much public support was there for these programmes?
Answer: When there was no scope to hold rallies and meetings, they enforced hartal and blockades. There were no alternative for them. Vehicles and even trains were set on fire at different places centering hartal and blockades. Both the parties blame each other for the incidents. The truth remains concealed amid these blame games and rumours.
Question: The government has chosen the path of mass arrests to tackle the movement of the opposition, which is bitterly criticised at home and abroad. But was there no alternative for BNP to backtrack from the one-point demand?
Answer: I think the opposition should have also kept scope for discussion. However, the intervention of the foreigners is no less liable for the situation getting out of hand and foiling a peaceful solution. Our neighbouring country stressed on the political stability in Bangladesh, meaning the current government’s stay in power rather than democracy. On the other hand, the people have a perception that the opposition party has depended on the western powers rather than the public in carrying out movements. The silence of the western counties has raised questions to the public mind after 28 October.
Question: The western countries which are vocal to establish democracy and human rights in Bangladesh, are seen silent about the Israeli invasion in Gaza. Israeli forces are killing women and children there.
Answer: These are double standards. The western countries have drop such double standards. The genocide the Israeli force is carrying out in Gaza has no precedence in civil history.
Question: After the beginning of the election process, 40 eminent citizens issued a statement calling for a fair election participated by all, and you are one of them. Do you think that is still possible?
Answer: I think it is possible. In accordance with Article 123 (3) (kha) of the constitution, we have said the election can be held within 90 days after dissolving the parliament in the third week of January and cancelling the election schedule.If this step is taken, time will be available for holding dialogue over the election-time government and reaching a consensus. The opposition leaders and activists can be freed or granted bail during the period. After the announcement of the new election schedule, a fair, neutral and competitive election can be arranged.The 7 January election is going to be held by the ruling party-nominated candidates, their dummy candidates and the candidates of allies. As a result, the citizens will be deprived of choosing their desired alternatives and it would be impossible to determine the real public representatives through the election.Ignoring the call, the government is going to hold a one-sided election. The crisis will deepen. The people have already learnt the result of the election and this cannot be acceptable. No one believes that any other party except Awami League will form the government. Awami League will even decide the composition of the opposition party. Meanwhile, Awami League has withdrawn candidates from 26 constituencies for Jatiya Party.
Question: How do you view the role of the election commission?
Answer: The law enforcing agencies should be placed under the commission after the declaration of the election schedule. The election commission is not playing its due role. After the declaration of the election schedule, the police are arresting the leaders and activists of the opposition parties. The commission has not made any statement. They could tell the government that none can be arrested after the declaration of the election schedule. They have no visible activities to apply the electoral law.
Question: Many think the cancellation of the caretaker government is the main reason for the political crisis. How do you assess this?
Answer: After the fall of autocracy in the nineties, under the outline of three alliances, the 5th national election was held under a caretaker government in 1991. Afterwards, parliamentary democracy was introduced again. Centering the by-election in Magura in 1994 under the BNP government, the political parties differed over the election-time government.As a result, the opposition parties under the leadership of Awami League launched a massive movement. In such a context, the caretaker government was included in the constitution through the thirteenth amendment in the 6th parliament. Although then the BNP government accepted the caretaker government system in the face of movement, it was a political consensus.
Question: Why didn’t that consensus sustain? Many things also happened before the caretaker system was scrapped.
Answer: Elections to seventh, eighth and ninth parliaments were held under the caretaker governments. These elections were hailed as fair and acceptable home and abroad. The debate over the system started over the increase of retirement age of judges in 2004 and later when the president assumed the role of chief adviser in 2006. Yet the caretaker system was largely acceptable mainly due to the success of holding three past elections where people could mostly exercise their franchise without any disruption.The grand alliance government led by Awami League scrapped the caretaker system unilaterally through the fifteenth amendment in 2015. The electoral system, as well as political arrangement, has collapsed as the system of election under partisan government reemerged.
Question: The ruling party maintains that the caretaker system was scrapped based on a court order. How would you explain?
Answer: The court declared the Fifth Amendment illegal in 2010. Then a special parliamentary committee was formed for amending the constitution. When the committee was about to finish its work, the Appellate Division declared the caretaker government system unconstitutional and illegal in a brief and split judgment on 10 May in 2011. But the verdict also stated that the system may be practiced in tenth and eleventh parliamentary elections. Notwithstanding the court order, the parliamentary committee unanimously recommended the caretaker system to remain in effect. But the parliamentary committee’s recommendation was changed dramatically. This is why the constitutional legitimacy and credibility of that amendment is questionable. Misinterpretation of the court verdict by the ruling party, change in the recommendation of the special parliamentary committee, not holding plebiscite, inconsistency between brief verdict and the full verdict, making almost one-third of the constitution unamendable made the fifteenth amendment questionable. Some legal experts and researchers even termed the amendment as ‘unconstitutional amendment of the constitution’.
Question: ‘Fictitious cases’ are a widely discussed issue in recent times. Allegations are that the opposition leaders and activists have been accused in such cases. What is your opinion on ‘fictitious cases’?
Answer: Different newspapers published a lot of news on ‘fictitious cases’. From this, such cases can be equated with ‘gayebana janaza’ (funeral rites without the body). That means these cases were filed even if no incident took place. This is misuse of the law and is unconstitutional. If the opposition leaders and activists are accused in cases this way, they wouldn’t be able to live their normal lives, meet their family members or stay home let alone participate in the election. That’s why these cases are against the rule of law.
Question: Many leaders and activists of opposition are being accused in lower courts before the election. Are these ‘coincidental’ or connected with the politics?
Answer: Any decision of court is supposed to be in line with the constitution and law. But we cannot say if such is happening in every case. Some inconsistencies in the process of trial against the opposition leaders and activists were reported in the local and international media. This has made the judiciary of the country questionable. People have a perception that the executive branch of the government in different ways is trying to control or influence the judiciary.
Question: The civil society used to play a strong role during any political crisis in the past. Why they cannot anymore?
Answer: Civil society is now divided. The professionals have lost their independent characteristic and dignity. This happened to lawyers, as well as teachers, journalists, engineers or agriculturists alike. Every professional community prioritise partisan allegiance over professional duty. They are going after various perks. You cannot expect desired role from the civil society in such a situation.
Question: Has Bangladesh become a target of geopolitical conflict? China, Russia and India are in one side while the US and European Union on the other.
Answer: We used to maintain balanced relations with all global powers. The way we are heading is boding something ominous. The country’s economy is already in a shaky state. Foreign reserves are depleting. A disaster would strike us if any sanction is imposed now. So, we have to be farsighted instead of focusing on immediate interests.
Question: Tomorrow is a new year. Do see any possibility of end of political crisis in the New Year?
Answer: I don’t foresee anything good given where we stand as a nation right now. But I have immense trust on the young generation. Our political history says that our youth can guide the nation to the right direction. I want to hope that the country would not run the way it is being run now, and a change must come.
Question: Thank you
Thank you
*This interview, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam and Galib Ashraf.
