Editorial
The litigation game
Is it to root out corruption or subdue opponents?
We are all too conversant with the proclivity of party in power to involve its political opponents in litigation on corruption charges. The process commences, soon after a newly elected government has taken over the reins of power, sometimes with the issuing of what is euphemistically called a 'white paper' containing 'black deeds' of the past government, preceded by a period of witch hunting aided by various agencies. Interestingly, all such cases against the government ministers or stalwarts when they were in the opposition are inevitably quashed or are held up for a variety of reasons subsequently. We ask whether these cases are really motivated by the desire to root out corruption from public domain starting with the politicians or it is merely a ploy to wreak vendetta and reprisal on the political opponents? We are constrained to make the query, given the outcome of most of these cases we have seen all these years, that are either quashed by the court for lack of evidence or are set aside particularly in respect of those that were against the ruling party members, by the party in power. Regrettably, we are yet to see a juridical conclusion of or any conviction in, any of the cases. The government's recent decision to revive cases of corruption against the Awami League, on the eve of the next general election, with the proviso that conviction resulting in more than two years' imprisonment would consequently disqualify him/her from election has raised public eyebrows. It has also called to question the motivation behind the decision. While no one can contest the idea of rooting out corruption, the political motivations must be shunned and seeking political mileage in the name of fighting corruption must be eschewed. A holier-than-thou attitude towards the issue by the party in power tends to encourage rather than deter corruption from within. What is even more disconcerting is the fact that this approach, dubious because of the intention behind it, dilutes the focus on corruption, results in political instability and saps public trust in the political leadership. Corruption must be curbed at all costs and by all manner and means, and dishonest individuals must be called to account, whatever be the rank or political status, but such action must not be bereft of objectivity and transparency.
|
|
