Bangladesh News

The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday stayed the High Court (HC) verdict ordering the Election Commission (EC) to collect and make public some vital information including income and wealth statements of the candidates for general elections.

The top court order came just over two days before the deadline for filing nominations for the upcoming election ends at 5:00pm tomorrow.

The HC verdict that had been greeted with popular acclamation has become invalid for now following a controversial move by barrister Azmalul Hossain yesterday.

Barrister Omar Sadat assisted Azmalul in moving for Abu Safa who had filed an appeal this year against the HC order. The SC stay shall be in effect till disposal of the appeal.

Former law minister Moudud Ahmed, also a prospective BNP candidate for Noakhali-5 constituency, was present during the hearing at the one-member vacation bench of Justice Joynul Abedin of the Appellate Division.

Disposing of a writ petition filed by three lawyers, the HC on May 24, 2005 ordered the EC to gather personal details like academic qualification, profession, source of income, criminal records and some other information about the aspirants to parliament and publish those to help voters choose their representatives properly.

The ruling had been welcomed by the cross-section of people including the EC as it required the commission to bring out the specifics like a candidate’s criminal records, involvement in corruption and owning black money and so on, if they had any.

Surprisingly, the apex court yesterday gave its decision without hearing any submission from the three petitioners.

Even more remarkable was that no sooner the SC order had been pronounced than the EC implemented it, according to an EC press release.

In line with the HC order, the EC had provided a three-page form for the candidates to give eight types of personal information. But this form is now of no use.

Previously, the same EC had delayed implementation of the HC directives on the voter list for several weeks on the grounds that it did not receive the copy of the order.

Abu Safa hailing from Swandip filed a petition against the 2005 HC verdict on July 3 the same year at the chamber judge’s court of the Appellate Division. But he could not take out any stay and instead was asked to file a regular appeal.

The regular one he filed on July 10 this year was granted but he did not get any stay order in this case as well.

“The appeal was pending for hearing at a regular bench of the Supreme Court,” noted KM Zabir, one of the three petitioners. “But they have taken this to the vacation bench to obtain an ad-interim order. This cannot be acceptable according to Supreme Court rules,” he added.

“Holding this sort of hearing without even informing us is quite mysterious,” observed Zabir after the stay order yesterday.

On the other hand, Omar Sadat said they had been expecting the hearing to take place in November. Had the vacation bench not stayed the HC order, the appeal would have become ineffective, given that the election is due in January.

Justice Joynul Abedin, who issued the stay order yesterday, headed the one-member judicial probe committee on the August 21 grenade attack on an Awami League Rally in 2004. The report he came up with was found to be vague.

He had been appointed to the Appellate Division superseding three senior HC judges a few months before the four-party alliance handed over power to the caretaker government.

Muzaffer Ahmad of Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik (Sujan), an organisation working for good governance, said that the Indian Supreme Court has described as a fundamental right the people’s access to particulars of the candidates standing for elections.

He said people vote to choose representatives and therefore they need to know about those they might elect.

Muzaffer noted that it is a part of the people’s right to expression and that right has been trampled because of this verdict.

He however said it rests with the judges and the jurists to see how fair it was to hold the hearing without giving the original petitioners any chance to participate [in it].

Former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association Mahbubey Alam said after the SC order, black money holders could now easily dominate the elections. It [the stay] will adversely affect the prospects for a transparent election.

“This move will discourage the honest candidates while encouraging the criminals, corrupt people, and all other bad elements to go to the polls,” said Zead-Al Malum, one of the counsels for the petitioners, making reference to the SC stay.

The petitioners said they knew nothing about Abu Safa.

Omar Sadat said Safa had attended school till class eight and still he wants to participate in election as a social worker. But he is afraid if his educational qualification is published, he might face a kind of discrimination, he added.

When the HC gave the verdict in May 2005, the EC did not file any appeal against it. The commission was already gathering information about the candidates. But the HC verdict brought the EC under compulsion to make public the candidates’ information so that the people can pick out right people to represent them.

Zabir yesterday said, “Abu Safa did not inform or gave us a copy of the civil petition he filed for a leave to appeal against the High Court order. On July 10, 2006, he filed a regular appeal and this time too he did not inform us. We came to know about it in November when we saw the appeal in the cause-list pending for regular hearing.”

“Then on December 10, 2006, we appointed Syed Mahbubur Rahman as an advocate on-record for the case, and completed other procedures so that when the hearing takes place, we can contest it,” Zabir pointed out.

“We were ready to participate in the hearing. The court went on vacation from last Friday. Meantime, we did not see Safa taking any move for an urgent hearing. So, we found no reason for this case to take place in the vacation bench. Had it followed the order of the cause-list, its hearing would not have taken place in the next six months.”

“This sudden unilateral hearing and the stay order indeed raises many questions,” Zabir added.

Meanwhile, the EC in a press release said the returning officers no longer need to compile eight types of personal information on candidates, as there was a stay order.

Besides the information about their educational background, profession, source of income, the candidates were required to report to the EC also about the amount of loans they had taken out from banks and financial institutions (personally, jointly or by dependent of the candidate or by the company where the candidate is the chairman or director).

They had also been obliged to inform the EC whether they had been a member of parliament before and the role they played individually and collectively in fulfilling commitment to the constituents.