3 secys apologise, one seeks exoneration

Three of the four top bureaucrats facing contempt rule for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's (SC) 12-point directive on separation of the judiciary yesterday apologised to the apex court for their 'unintended mistakes'.

All the four bureaucrats--Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister (PM) Dr Kamal Uddin Siddiqui, Law Secretary Alauddin Sarder, Finance Secretary Siddiqur Rahman and Establishment Secretary Dr Mahbubur Rahman--yesterday submitted their replies to the contempt rule.

Of the four, the establishment secretary appealed for exonerating him, saying that he had nothing to do with what has been done for separation of the judiciary as he had joined the post afterwards. The rest three offered unreserved apology to the court.

On receipt of the replies, the five-member full bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Syed JR Mudassir Husain fixed May 15 as the date for hearing on the rule.

The SC issued the rule on April 3, asking the four secretaries to explain in three weeks why a contempt charge should not be brought against them.

The court order followed an updated contempt petition filed by Chowdhury Munir Uddin Mahfuz, a judge of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal, Kishoreganj, on February 22.

Barrister Rafiqul Huq submitted the finance secretary's reply while Advocate TH Khan placed that for establishment secretary, Advocate Habibul Islam Bhuiyan for principal secretary to the PM and Barrister Abdur Razzak for the law secretary.

In their replies, the bureaucrats claimed they had not done anything that might constitute contempt of court.

They said they hope the court would still be merciful if there was any unintentional lapses on their part.

In his reply, the principal secretary to the PM said he never stood in any way whatsoever in the way of implementation of the 12-point SC directive since the court made those.

"....office record reveals that a file relating to two rules on judicial service, 2005 came to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) in December 2004 and it was duly forwarded to the authorities concerned," reads his reply.

Mentioning that the PMO files are placed before the competent authorities by the secretary to the prime minister and her private secretaries, the reply says: "So, the respondent petitioner in no way obstructed the decision-making in this regard."

He claimed to have never attended any official or unofficial meeting in this regard ever since he had joined the prime minister's secretariat in October 2001, adding that he was not in any way involved [either as a member or as a supporting officer] in the cabinet subcommittee on separation of the judiciary from the executive.

According to allocation of Business (Schedule 1 of Rules of Business 1996) of the Government, the respondent-petitioner's job description does not cover issues relating to separation of the judiciary, states the reply.

Citing article 48(3) of the constitution, it says in case of the prime minister tendering any advice to the president on the separation issue, the content is beyond jurisdiction of not only the respondent-petitioner but also of any court. So, except for placing the matter before the prime minister [which he did], the respondent-petitioner has no role to play in this regard.

Saying that he has not shown any wilful disregard or disobedience to the court or its orders and directives, the reply adds: "The respondent-petitioner, however, pleads for infinite mercy of this court and begs pardon for his unintentional mistakes and lapses, if there be any, in performing his official duty and undertakes to be more cautious and diligent in all his future dealings."

Briefing reporters about the finance secretary's reply, Barrister Rafiqul Huq said Siddiqur Rahman had no knowledge about the matter (separation of judiciary) before joining the ministry as finance secretary in October 2005.

He submitted that neither a file regarding separation of the judiciary is on his [Siddiqur's] table now nor has he received any such file since his joining.

"He received the file of Judicial Service Pay Commission on Saturday and his office sent it to the law ministry the same day for vetting. Still, he apologises [to the court] had he done any unintended mistakes," he said.

Barrister Abdur Razzak said his client Alauddin Sarder joined as the law secretary on June 3, 2004 and he should not shoulder the responsibilities for things done in the previous period.

"The law ministry has formed judicial service commission and formulated rules for it. The ministry has prepared other rules as well in line with the Supreme Court directives and placed a bill in the parliament for CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) amendment. After passage of the bill, the rules will be issued to separate the judiciary," Razzak said, quoting from his client's reply.

"In spite of these, I pray for mercy for any unintended mistakes," the law secretary said in his reply.

Establishment Secretary Dr Mahbubur Rahman in his reply explained in detail the proceedings of drafting service rules for separation of the judiciary, TH Khan yesterday told reporters.

The establishment secretary said he joined the post on November 30, 2005 while the Judicial Service Commission was formed on November 23, 2004.

Two rules regarding Bangladesh Judicial Service were sent to the PMO on February 16, 2005.

He said though all the developments in this regard took place before he had joined the ministry, he prays for acquittal on the charge.

Asked about progress in implementation of the SC directives, Attorney General AJ Mohammad Ali told the court, "I believe that the 12-point directive will be implemented during the tenure of the present government."

Meantime, TH Khan on behalf of nine senior government officials facing contempt rule for distorting the judgement of the Judiciary Separation case since November 2004 appealed to the court to relieve the officials from having to appear in person before the court.

But the court turned down the prayer.

Barrister Amir-Ul Islam, the counsel for contempt petitioner Chowdhury Munir Uddin Mahfuz, was present during yesterday's submission.