Former CEC contradicts incumbent's views

The Election Commission has suddenly claimed to have powers, in addition to the ones under Article 91E of the RPO, to cancel candidacy for electoral offences in parliamentary polls.
The EC led by Kazi Rakibuddin Ahmad in a clarification sent to the media claimed to have such authority, something Ahmad's predecessor ATM Shamsul Huda has dismissed as incorrect.
The EC has cited the finding as a major defence in its latest move to defend its decision not to retain Article 91E that provides the commission with the authority to revoke candidature.
The commission's clarification, sent to the press on Monday night, claims that the deletion of 91E will not take away its powers to this effect because the EC enjoys such powers under Article 91A of The Representation of the People Order (RPO).
In its view, Article 91A empowers the EC to fine a candidate or a political party up to Tk 1 lakh or even cancel the candidature for violating the RPO.
But a reading of the article clearly shows that it empowers the commission only to fine a candidate or a party. It has no provision for cancelling a candidature.
Former chief election commissioner ATM Shamsul Huda, under whose leadership the EC made serious efforts to re-incorporate Article 91E in the RPO in 2008, has described the current EC's discovery as inaccurate.
Talking to reporters yesterday, he said Article 91A had nothing to do with the cancellation of candidature.
Under Article 91A, if a candidate is found involved in electoral irregularities he is first asked to put a stop to such activities. If he fails to do so, the EC may fine him up to Tk 1 lakh, starting from Tk 20,000, Huda said.
"But Article 91E is punitive in nature. One's candidacy will be cancelled if one is found guilty of serious electoral offences," the former CEC added.
A senior EC official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, echoed Huda's view.
The issue of Article 91E has recently been intensely debated, after the commission moved to abolish it. Critics and election experts have termed the decision suicidal.
In the face of such criticism, the EC has come up with the clarification to clear up "all confusion and misunderstanding" centring on its electoral reform proposal.
It said the proposal might be passed as it is or might be modified or even rejected by parliament. In the House, lawmakers will have the chance to express their opinions about the proposal.
Defending its position against Article 91E, the EC reiterated that this provision was not enforceable and was therefore meaningless due to some loopholes in the provisions.
On this, Shamsul Huda said in case of any loophole, the EC could have moved to bring in amendments to "plug the hole"
The current EC's discovery about Article 91A means that the two previous commissions led by MA Sayed and Shamsul Huda had failed to spot that authority and their efforts to incorporate an article for cancellation of candidature had been meaningless.
Under the leadership of the late MA Sayed, the EC for the first time moved to include such an article in the RPO. A former High Court judge then drafted the reform proposal in 2001.
The then caretaker government led by former chief justice Latifur Rahman at a council of advisors' meeting scrutinised and approved the proposal. Subsequently, the then president justice Shahabuddin Ahmed issued an ordinance to amend the RPO for bringing in the changes.
The EC was given this authority before the 2001 parliamentary polls. But it was abolished in the face of severe opposition from the political parties.
The Shamsul Huda-led EC again made the move to incorporate the article and eventually retained the powers ahead of the December 29, 2008, general election.
The commission's authority to cancel candidacies contributed much to the improvement of electioneering culture.
In its clarification, the current EC has justified its other proposals as well.