Addition to Kibria's reply to Justice Latifur Rahman

The system of caretaker government has been introduced in our country to make the general election more acceptable to all political parties and to the people as a whole. So, it is expected that advisors should be selected in a manner that they can enjoy the maximum confidence of the participating parties and the people. In view of this, consultation with the political parties in selecting advisors may yield congenial atmosphere. But Justice Latifur Rahman expressed totally opposite view in this regard.

He said that the Chief advisor is fully empowered to appoint his advisors and he was not required to seek advice of any political party in appointing his advisors. Someone may term his attitude as authoritarian rather than democratic. We strongly believe that Justice Latifur Rahman is very much aware about statute law and convention.

Although in statute law, in this case in the constitution of Bangladesh, there is no compulsion for consultation with the parties to appoint advisors, but convention was there. President Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed told him that BNP and AL also sent lists in 1996. If he were respectful to conventions Justice Latifur could accommodate wishes of both the Parties. His disclosure of appointing two advisors from AL list is appreciable. It could be more appreciated if he could disclose how many advisors were taken from BNP list and how many were of his own choice.

This could help him to exhibit his transparent image. Justice Latifur Rahman has perhaps forgotten the procedures of functioning of the government machinery. He wrote that the President had forwarded those lists to him perhaps for the fact that he also received lists in his time, although there was no provision in the present constitution for sending such lists to the Chief Advisor. It might be the case that Justice Shahbuddin Ahmed had respect for convention for which he had forwarded them to the Chief Advisor. Moreover, in government offices if anything is felt necessary to be addressed it is sent to the concerned authority. President Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed might have felt that were be by the Chief Advisor needed to consider the lists and as such had forwarded it to him.

It seems that Justice Latifur Rahman pretends not to understand what Mr. Kibria means by "both sides." AL and BNP submitted their lists to him. President Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed also forwarded the same to him. Other parties did not submit any list, neither to him nor to the President.

On this ground reality, there was

scope for Justice Latifur Rahman to understand what Mr. Kibria meant by " both sides."