And now the judiciary?

The recent sedition case filed against eminent lawyers Dr Kamal Hossain, Barrister Rokonuddin Mahmud, and Barrister Amir-Ul Islam, among some 200 others, has left us perplexed and incredulous.

It seems to us that the incidents that took place at the Supreme Court premises on November 30 that led to the sedition charges being filed, while extremely regrettable and should be subject to investigation, and warranting action against those found culpable, hardly rise to the level of such a grave charge as sedition. Can it be possible that a man of Kamal Hossain's stature will do something seditious?

Now that a First Information Report (FIR) has been issued by the police, paving the way for arrest warrants to be issued, the matter takes on an even more serious tone, and once again raises the issue of the political use of the law enforcement mechanism. We are compelled to wonder how justifiable is the charge and to what extent this unfortunate episode is another example of the entire legal apparatus being made controversial.

Indeed, we would have hoped that such eminences as the justices of the Supreme Court would have acted in this situation with greater sagacity and temperance. It seems to us that to raise so inflammatory and questionable a charge as sedition is unnecessarily adding fuel to the fire, and will serve only to escalate the crisis when all should be working towards defusing the situation.

The last thing the country needs now is another crisis and another national institution dragged into controversy beyond functionality. Where have we come to that this is now the way things stand? Perhaps, when things have come to such a sorry pass, the time is here to re-examine the entire situation.

We sincerely and fervently hope that our higher judiciary still remains above all taints of controversy, but recent events suggest that we may be heading in that direction if we are not already there. The issue of what could be called the miscarriage of justice is no less important than the vandalism of the seat of justice. In fact, considerably more so.

The apparently political and certainly injudicious filing of cases, to say nothing of political decision-making, cannot continue if the Court is to retain its credibility and the position at the pinnacle of public esteem that it has enjoyed and must continue to do if it is to remain effective.