een 1977 and 1978. The 350-strong parliament passed the bill by a division vote of 327-0 after over a two-and-half-hour discussion, ignoring the opposition’s motion for taking further public opinion. Law, Justice and Parliament Affairs Minister Anisul Haque placed the bill in parliament, seeking its immediate passage. Speaker Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury was in the chair. After the division vote, the Speaker announced the result amid thumping of desks by the lawmakers. Although the bill has been passed, it will not come into effect unless a law in light with the latest amendment to the constitution is enacted within three months. The law will mention in details every steps for removing a judge from the office. In the division vote, not a single vote was cast against the amendment to Article 96 that replaced the clauses, including clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, with clauses 2, 3 and 4. Article 96 of the 1972 Constitution had the provision to impeach any SC judges with a majority of two-third votes of the total members of parliament in case of their misconduct or incapacity. Opposition lawmakers, including Jatiya Party chairman HM Ershad, opposition leader Raushan Ershad, JP secretary general Ziauddin Ahmed Bablu, Kazi Feroz Rashid, MA Hannan, Raushan Ara Mannan, Yahya Chowdhury, Nurul Islam Milon, Pir Fazlur Rahman, independent lawmakers, including Rustam Ali Farazi, Hajji Selim, Tahzib Alam Siddique and Abdul Matin, JSD lawmaker Mainuddin Khan Badal and Bangladesh Nationalist Front lawmaker Abul Kalam Azad moved with the amended motions for taking public opinion on the bill. Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which is outside the House, has been claiming that the government has made the move to cling to power. Supporting the move to restore parliament’s power, opposition lawmakers told the House not to pass the bill hurriedly as it would mislead the countrymen. Moving the bill, the law minister said that this proposed law may be called the Constitution (16th Amendment) Act 2014 and the following article 96 shall be substituted, namely (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, a judge shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-seven years (2) A judge shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed pursuant to a resolution of Parliament supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of parliament, on the ground of proved misconduct or incapacity. (3) Parliament shall by law regulate the procedure in relation to a resolution under clause (2) and for investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge. (4) A judge may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the President. The annulled Article 96(2) says, ‘A judge shall not be removed from his office except in accordance with the following provisions of this article. (3) There shall be Supreme Judicial Council, in this article referred to as the council, which shall consist of the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and the two next senior judges.’ The president under the constitutional provision may direct the council to inquire into the matter of gross misconduct and report its findings. After the discussion in the House, the Speaker put the amendment motions to vote. The House rejected the motions by a voice vote. Then the lawmakers went out from the House and entered the secret booth to sign on the ballots either in favour of the bill or against it during the division vote. The latest amendment to the Article 96 replaced the clauses, including clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, with clauses 2, 3 and 4. The amendment keeps the clause 1: a judge shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-seven years, unchanged. The objective of the bill says that in accordance with the Article 7 and 11 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, all powers in the republic belong to the people and their exercise on behalf of the people shall be only under and by the authority of this Constitution. On its reflection, in the Article 96 of the Constitution enacted in 1972, there were provisions relating to a removal of a judge of the Supreme Court pursuant to a resolution of parliament supported by a majority not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of parliament but later this provision was dropped instituting a new mechanism – the Supreme Judicial Commission, headed by the chief justice and two other senior judges. The mechanism was against the spirit of democracy, the main spirit of the Constitution. In most of the democratic countries in the world, the principle of accountability of the judges of the superior court, like other organs of the State, lies in parliament, consisting of the elected representatives of the people. Law minister Anisul Hoque on September 7 placed the bill before the House. The bill was sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee for further scrutiny, giving it a time of seven days. The committee headed by Suranjit Sengupta on September 14 placed the report before the House after finalising it with two sittings. The issue of empowering parliament appeared on the table during the Awami League-led grand-alliance tenure over a ruling by the then Speaker and incumbent President Abdul Hamid. Raising the issue in parliament, some senior lawmakers batted for empowering parliament to impeach judges. The issue was also discussed during the 15th amendment to the constitution. Though no amendment was brought in this regard that time, the Law Commission on June 26 placed a recommendation before the parliamentary standing committee on law, justice and parliamentary affairs to bring an amendment to empower parliament in impeaching the judges. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which scrapped the much-talked-about caretaker government system, was passed on June 30 in 2011 by division vote. Some 291 ‘Yes’ votes were cast in favour of that amendment while a single ‘No’ vote was against the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The lone independent lawmaker, Fazlul Azim, cast the No vote.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
JS gets back power to impeach judges:Daily Sun
een 1977 and 1978. The 350-strong parliament passed the bill by a division vote of 327-0 after over a two-and-half-hour discussion, ignoring the opposition’s motion for taking further public opinion. Law, Justice and Parliament Affairs Minister Anisul Haque placed the bill in parliament, seeking its immediate passage. Speaker Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury was in the chair. After the division vote, the Speaker announced the result amid thumping of desks by the lawmakers. Although the bill has been passed, it will not come into effect unless a law in light with the latest amendment to the constitution is enacted within three months. The law will mention in details every steps for removing a judge from the office. In the division vote, not a single vote was cast against the amendment to Article 96 that replaced the clauses, including clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, with clauses 2, 3 and 4. Article 96 of the 1972 Constitution had the provision to impeach any SC judges with a majority of two-third votes of the total members of parliament in case of their misconduct or incapacity. Opposition lawmakers, including Jatiya Party chairman HM Ershad, opposition leader Raushan Ershad, JP secretary general Ziauddin Ahmed Bablu, Kazi Feroz Rashid, MA Hannan, Raushan Ara Mannan, Yahya Chowdhury, Nurul Islam Milon, Pir Fazlur Rahman, independent lawmakers, including Rustam Ali Farazi, Hajji Selim, Tahzib Alam Siddique and Abdul Matin, JSD lawmaker Mainuddin Khan Badal and Bangladesh Nationalist Front lawmaker Abul Kalam Azad moved with the amended motions for taking public opinion on the bill. Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which is outside the House, has been claiming that the government has made the move to cling to power. Supporting the move to restore parliament’s power, opposition lawmakers told the House not to pass the bill hurriedly as it would mislead the countrymen. Moving the bill, the law minister said that this proposed law may be called the Constitution (16th Amendment) Act 2014 and the following article 96 shall be substituted, namely (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, a judge shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-seven years (2) A judge shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed pursuant to a resolution of Parliament supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of parliament, on the ground of proved misconduct or incapacity. (3) Parliament shall by law regulate the procedure in relation to a resolution under clause (2) and for investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge. (4) A judge may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the President. The annulled Article 96(2) says, ‘A judge shall not be removed from his office except in accordance with the following provisions of this article. (3) There shall be Supreme Judicial Council, in this article referred to as the council, which shall consist of the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and the two next senior judges.’ The president under the constitutional provision may direct the council to inquire into the matter of gross misconduct and report its findings. After the discussion in the House, the Speaker put the amendment motions to vote. The House rejected the motions by a voice vote. Then the lawmakers went out from the House and entered the secret booth to sign on the ballots either in favour of the bill or against it during the division vote. The latest amendment to the Article 96 replaced the clauses, including clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, with clauses 2, 3 and 4. The amendment keeps the clause 1: a judge shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-seven years, unchanged. The objective of the bill says that in accordance with the Article 7 and 11 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, all powers in the republic belong to the people and their exercise on behalf of the people shall be only under and by the authority of this Constitution. On its reflection, in the Article 96 of the Constitution enacted in 1972, there were provisions relating to a removal of a judge of the Supreme Court pursuant to a resolution of parliament supported by a majority not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of parliament but later this provision was dropped instituting a new mechanism – the Supreme Judicial Commission, headed by the chief justice and two other senior judges. The mechanism was against the spirit of democracy, the main spirit of the Constitution. In most of the democratic countries in the world, the principle of accountability of the judges of the superior court, like other organs of the State, lies in parliament, consisting of the elected representatives of the people. Law minister Anisul Hoque on September 7 placed the bill before the House. The bill was sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee for further scrutiny, giving it a time of seven days. The committee headed by Suranjit Sengupta on September 14 placed the report before the House after finalising it with two sittings. The issue of empowering parliament appeared on the table during the Awami League-led grand-alliance tenure over a ruling by the then Speaker and incumbent President Abdul Hamid. Raising the issue in parliament, some senior lawmakers batted for empowering parliament to impeach judges. The issue was also discussed during the 15th amendment to the constitution. Though no amendment was brought in this regard that time, the Law Commission on June 26 placed a recommendation before the parliamentary standing committee on law, justice and parliamentary affairs to bring an amendment to empower parliament in impeaching the judges. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which scrapped the much-talked-about caretaker government system, was passed on June 30 in 2011 by division vote. Some 291 ‘Yes’ votes were cast in favour of that amendment while a single ‘No’ vote was against the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The lone independent lawmaker, Fazlul Azim, cast the No vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment