Is SCBA a political party?

In Bangladesh, if a statement of an individual pertaining to so-called public interest does not make any sense or cannot be defended, the individual must be a politician. In other words, politicians are not to be taken seriously; they must enjoy immunity from the consequence of whatever nonsense they deliver to "their" people. One such statement of the leader of the opposition created hue and cry across the nation. To express her utter annoyance with the recently enacted 15th Amendment to the Constitution she said: "The amended constitution is nothing but an AL manifesto which will be thrown away when her party returns to power."
The BNP chairperson committed a mistake on two counts, probably guided more by anger rather than cognisance, while making this assertion. On the one hand, the amendment, especially the contentious issue of the abrogation of the 13th Amendment was neither a part of AL manifesto nor a constituent of AL election platform. Had it been so, AL would have been within its mandated right to include it in the 15th Amendment.
On the other hand, BNP has the full right to include what changes it intends to make in the constitution in its future election platform if it is voted to power with the required majority to amend the charter instead of throwing away the whole of it. The throwing away of the constitution and the existence of a democratic government are mutually exclusive since a democratic government ceases to exist without a constitution.
Fazlul Haque Amini, of a so-called Islamist party, a component of BNP's political alliance, went further by specifying where the constitution would be thrown into -- a dustbin. The party in question does not have a seat in the legislature and hardly represents anyone but a handful of its own militant workers. Writer-columnist Shahriar Kabir filed a writ petition in the High Court against Amini, calling his comments seditious. In fact, after the writ was filed, questions surfaced in political discussions as to why the writ was filed against Amini alone, and not against the leader of the opposition when the connotations of the two statements are only complementary to each other?
In the hearing of the writ, a High Court bench, amid violent protests from the pro-BNP lawyers, observed that there was little difference between the statements made by Khaleda and Amini. Such remarks are tantamount to treason and are unpatriotic; no patriotic person can make such remarks, the Court observed, adding that criticism of constitution and throwing it away were not the same. "If she makes any such derogatory comments in the future, this Court, being a constitutional court and the guardian of the constitution, must take appropriate action," the court admonished. Although, the writ petitioner did not include the leader of the opposition as an accused, the court has suo motu power to take cognisance if the offenses are similar in nature. In fact, by including the BNP chairperson in the observation, the honourable judges have reaffirmed that all citizens are equal in the eyes of law.
The reaction of the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) vis-à-vis the HC observation is one to ponder about. In a press briefing following the HC bench order, the SCBA president urged the judges to retract the observation on Khaleda's statement. He said: "Justice Shamsuddin passed the observation with a political motive and he has to take all responsibilities if any dire situation arises out of this observation."
The following day, after the same bench banned 13 lawyers from entering any court in the country until further order for "showing disrespect to the HC judges," he went on further and said: "If the judge wants to do politics, he should resign and join politics full-time." On the contrary, views of the public about this particular HC bench, especially on a number of its rulings pertaining to public safety and interest, have been lauded by many members of the public so much so that they hardly subscribe to the accusations lodged by the SCBA chief. Even a columnist in DS (August 4), in the conclusion of his laudations, eulogised the judges by affirming: "It is my earnest belief that men like you have the conviction and the mental makeup capable of giving our judiciary and the system of justice the dignity and respect it deserves. May God bless both of you."
Does the intimidation of the HC judges by the SCBA chief fall within the purview of his mandated responsibility of the apex organisation of legal professionals? On July 4, in a meeting of the Jatiyatabadi Ainjibi Forum, he made the prophetic observation that the government might collapse at any time amid mass upsurge. In his words, "the country is passing through such a situation that a mass upsurge might take place at any time to topple the government." On the following day he urged Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to step down voluntarily. "Don't carry out excesses anymore, step down willingly, otherwise, face dire consequences for clinging on to power," he declared while speaking at a meeting of pro-BNP lawyers.
Do these statements sound like they were made by the chief of a body of legal professionals, whose "purpose and objective" contains some nine clauses, all of which but one relate to well-being of its members? The lone exception pertains to public interest "to provide scope for discussions of all matter of legal interest as also of great public importance."
Does this narrow mandate empower him to profess from the blue that the "toppling of the government is imminent?" As a lawyer, let alone as the chief of the body of legal professionals, does he have the mandate to ask for the resignation of a duly, freely and popularly elected prime minister, having all but 30 seats in the legislature, midway through her mandated tenure; and, as a "Nidhi Ram Sarder" threatens her of "dire consequence" if she does not comply with his demand? So, is SCBA a political party?

The writer is Convener, Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh.