The mistakes were pointed out by him and his party and not necessarily the general people. Being an Awami League lawmaker his opinions could be biased. But, does that mean Mr. Latifur Rahman really made mistakes? No, so it was completely unnecessary for Mr. Rahman to reply in this way. His reply gave rise to new questions about his neutrality. His letter seemed to be a biased one and now the question is, was he really biased? If not, why did he criticise the Awami League government by saying they sponsored terrorism and corruption? Why did he attack Mr. Kibria's position as a bureaucrat? Nobody expected explanations from the former Chief Justice and also, nobody thought that he would reply in such a way.

Mr. Kibria is a member of a political party and it is natural for him to write something from his party's point of view. But, a former Chief Justice (who was also the Chief Advisor to the past caretaker govt.) should have not written something against a particular party.

He could have written a letter mentioning the ways he thinks the electoral system should be--what needs to be changed and what not. People like me who never doubted Mr. Rahman's neutrality, might now begin to question his role during the last election. His letter was an all-out attack on Mr. Kibria and the Awami league.

Why is he against the past Awami League government? A neutral person, that too a former Chief Justice, would not have written such a letter, no matter what allegations are brought against him.

If Mr. Latifur Rahman has nothing against the Awami League, why did he adopt such a harsh way to criticise the past Awami League government? Is this anti-Awami League stand of Mr. Rahman new, or was it there during his three month stay in office, remains the question to be answered.