Bangladesh caretaker government challenged in court

Dhaka, May 6 (UNI) The validity of Bangladesh's current caretaker government was challenged in the High Court today in the form of a public interest litigation.

Josne Ara Chowdhury, who is not publicly well known, filed the petition seeking a rule to ask the government to explain under what authority Chief Advisor Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed and other Advisors of the non-party caretaker government are holding office.

The petitioner also sought another rule to ask the government under what kind of authority the Election Commission has been neglecting to hold general elections to elect Members of Parliament.

The petition was moved by Advocate Syed Golam Mostafa, a junior to Speaker Barrister M Jamir Uddin Sircar.

The High Court Division bench comprising Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman and Justice Jobayer Rahman Chowdhury adjourned the hearing till May 16.

The petitioner made Chief Advisor Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed along with his 10 Advisors and Chief Election Commissioner Dr ATM Shamsul Huda respondents in the case.

Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed, a former bureaucrat of the World Bank, was appointed as Chief Advisor of the interim caretaker government on January 12 under a state of emergency promulgated to quell political violence.

The general elections which were earlier set for January 22 were postponed indefinitely under the emergency.

As per Bangladesh's Constitution, general elections must be held within 90 days of dissolution of the last parliament. The non-party caretaker government will assist the Election Commission to hold the elections within the 90-day time period.

In the petition, Josne Ara submitted that the Chief Advisor and members of the Council of Advisors are holding offices in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution.

She argued that the current caretaker government has acted beyond and in excess of its jurisdiction and has engaged in prolonging hold in public office indefinitely on the pretext of professing intentions, however pious they may appear to be.

Such actions are liable to be declared to have been without lawful authority, in violation of the Constitution and also being malafide, the petitioner told the bench.

The petitioner said the Constitution does not provide for, nor does even contemplate, the wholesale substitution of an existing caretaker government by a fresh set of non-party caretaker government nor does it authorise the grant of fresh lease of life to such non-party caretaker government.

It does come to direct conflict with the time limit within which the next general elections must have to be held as per Article 123 (3) of the Constitution.

The petitioner said even if it is assumed that a newly formed non-party caretaker government acquires a fresh lease of life, the time during which they can hold their office having already run out, they have no lawful authority to continue to hold the office.

She said the tenure of the non-party caretaker government is limited not only by its timeframe, but also as regard to its powers and functions since under the Constitution, they are entitled to carry on routine functions and are prohibited from making any policy decisions.

She said there were innumerable instances of transgressions made by them jointly and of constitutional limits in the name of catchy slogans of political reforms and national morality which belongs to the domain of politics and not to routine functions.

The petitioner said they are doing this in a calculated bid to hold on to the newly achieved power as long as possible, amounting to foiling of the constitutional process and democracy.

UNI