Reaction

In the third paragraph he wrote "In his (Mr. Shah AMS Kibria's) article he has used the name of Justice Habibur Rahman twice, the name of Justice Hasan three times and my name four times. Surprisingly, he has used the term 'Justice' before Habibur Rahman and Hasan, but before my name he has just written "Latifur Rahman". We three were former Chief Justices of Bangladesh."

I wish to let him know that respect comes from heart, not to abide by any law or to maintain any convention. His actions during his three months' tenure many people to reconsider whether he deserved the respect of a justice or not. During that period, his partiality to BNP was apparent. He did whatever the BNP leaders advised him to do. A Justice can not be that much partial to anything.

At one point he wrote "Thus the Chief Adviser is fully empowered to appoint his advisers provided the appointment satisfied provisions of article 7© (7) of our Constitution. It is the prerogative of the Chief Adviser and the President is to act on the advice of the Chief Adviser. As a matter of fact, on the basis of the Constitution, I was also not required to seek advice of any political party in appointing my advisers."

To me, this statement makes his wisdom as a justice questionable. When somebody is given power to do something, can/should he abuse it however ways he/she likes? Yes, the constitution gave him power to appoint the advisors. What does it mean? Does it mean that he could appoint whoever he liked? Could he appoint some one who is not acceptable by a major political party even though the appointees satisfy the provisions stated in the Constitution? Perhaps he does not know the Bangalees' mentality well.

He also mentioned that two members were selected as per the prescription of AL but he did not feel to mention how many members he happily selected being advised by the BNP leaders. It once again clears his position.

Just before concluding his article he revealed the truth that he had a stand against the AL. He wrote "After the frustrations from the election results in 2001, the Awami League adopted a political strategy of vilifying the caretaker government under me to mislead people at home and abroad about its popularity, veiling thereby its misdeeds (criminality, corruption and terrorism) which were intolerable to the well meaning voters."

If any "well meaning voter" reads this above mentioned sentence, it will not be hard for him/her to understand that, to him (the Justice) AL's said criminality, corruption and terrorism made him to take a position against the AL and he did whatever he needed to do to prevent AL in regaining the power.

I would like to put a question. What should a judge do when a said criminal is brought to him? Should he give verdict against the said criminal as he is said to be a criminal or he should perform his duties neutrally? The nation will be benefited if he answers the question.