Reform the Caretaker Government Law

However, Justice Rahman disclosed an interesting conversation of him with former President Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed. In quote, "….on 01 March, 2001 after I retired as Chief Justice of Bangladesh, Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed of his own accord told me that as per the constitution, I would be the Chief Adviser. The President of the Republic (a nominee of the Awami League) further told me that Awami League would be happy to see you as Chief Adviser. In the same breath, he let me know that BNP's acceptability may not be as cordial as that of Awami League".

What does this mean? It proves, once again, that the Awami League had good intention to nurture democracy by appointing a neutral President and a non-partisan Chief Adviser. Since Justice Rahman knew beforehand that the BNP and its allies likely to turn hostile to his appointment (there was an incident at the fag end of the AL regime when Chief Justice Latifur Rahman's office door was smacked by disgruntled opposition (BNP) lawyers at the HC/SC premise), obviously, subsequently, his so-called 'homework' was geared to gaining BNP's confidence. It is now clear that to make BNP and its allies happy, Justice Rahman went out of the way to appease them. In this regard, the four questions listed by AZM Abdul Ali on 20 December last, immediately come to mind.

Moreover, after the 2001 election, Justice Rahman published a memoir on his experience as Chief Adviser. I can remember, at one occasion, he went to see the newly elected Prime Minster to personally present a copy and let her know how well the job was done. After watching this, it immediately occurs, why on earth a non-partisan former Chief Adviser went to the Prime Minister instead of the President for such an occasion? The President of the Republic is, constitutionally, a neutral position and is head of the state (although BNP since 1991 nominated partisan candidates unlike AL). To celebrate with such a memoir the President would have been a correct choice. Why Justice Rahman did not share his achievements with the President is any body's guess. This reinforces the doubt against the former Chief Adviser's non-partisan role in the last election.

Finally, as far as the reform agenda is concerned, it should begin with examining the pros and cons of Justice Latifur Rahman's memoir and the lessons learnt from the last general election. Of course, Mr Kibria highlighted them in part on 23 November 2004.