AMBASSADOR HOLZMAN'S REMARKS TO THE BANGLADESH BAR COUNCIL

DHAKA, OCTOBER 15, 1998

DHAKA, OCTOBER 16 (U.S.I.S.) -- Following is the text of remarks made by U.S. Ambassador John C. Holzman in Dhaka on Thursday, October 15 honoring the graduates of the Bangladesh Bar Council's Continuing Legal Education Programme (CLEP).

I am delighted to be here today to honor the graduates of the Bangladesh Bar Council's Continuing Legal Education Programme (CLEP). As current and future members of the Bar, you are the first line of defense that protects the fundamental rights of all members of society. This is an extremely important role, and I am confident that the practical knowledge you have gained from the CLEP will serve you and you clients well. I would also like to salute the members of the Bangladesh Bar Council, all of them distinguished jurists, who have served on a pro bono basis as your instructors in the CLEP. In sharing their wisdom with you, they have performed a noble service, helping to ensure that the Bar's next generation will also strengthen Bangladesh's legal institutions and improve the access of the common person to a fair and transparent judicial system. I understand that the CLEP is conducted by the Bar from its own resources and at this time does not benefit from outside donor support. My Embassy would be honored to examine with the Bar Council ways it could contribute to this program or other Bar Council endeavors to strengthen Bangladesh's legal system.

Bangladesh is a young country, still in the process of developing the institutions that will serve society in the decades to come. No institution is more important than an independent and respected judiciary. However, there is evidence that many Bangladeshis have less confidence than they should that the police and judiciary are protecting the rights of the common person. The respected international NGO, Transparency International, commissioned a survey last year of 2,500 households in Bangladesh that in part focused on perceptions of corruption in the legal system. The results were disturbing indeed.

• Ninety-six percent of the respondents completely or generally agreed with the assertion that "it was almost impossible to get help from the police without money or influence."

• Almost 10 percent of the respondents were involved in court cases, more than half of which related to land and property disputes. Over three-fifths of those involved in court cases reported that they had had to bribe court officials.

• Eighty-eight percent of the respondents generally agreed or completely agreed with the assertion that "it was almost impossible to get quick and fair judgments from the courts without money or influence."

Based on my own still limited experience in Bangladesh, I would say that these survey results are consistent with a popular impression, often expressed in the press, that Bangladesh's legal institutions have deteriorated over the past years. We can debate whether these survey results and press assertions are justified or accurately depict reality. But one conclusion is inescapable: The Bar should be concerned when such large numbers of Bangladeshi men and women express such little confidence that the police and the judiciary will protect their rights and deliver fair and understandable judicial decisions.

I would hypothesize that this lack of confidence--indeed, if the survey is accurate, crisis of confidence--may in part be due to the lack of transparency in Bangladesh's law enforcement and judicial institutions. I have learned, for example, that almost any legal action brought against a prominent individual immediately results in a stream of counter allegations that the charges were politically motivated and, almost as an afterthought, are without substance. And then such cases often languish in the courts for years, and in fact may never be prosecuted or adjudicated, raising doubts about their initial intent. On occasion, the American Embassy has tried to determine the facts behind some of these cases, usually without success, because it is virtually impossible to untangle and make sense of the welter of charges and counter charges. I suspect that is also true for many Bangladeshis who follow such cases.

Beyond the lack of transparency, there are specific problems that undermine confidence and which warrant attention and corrective action. For example, too many individuals are abused while in police custody and too few of the perpetrators are prosecuted and punished. In the view of the U.S. Government, preventive detention is another problem. Many of you may be aware that my Government has consistently taken exception to the Special Powers Act and Section 54 of the Criminal Code, arguing that they are open to abuse and can infringe basic human rights. Just as staunchly, successive Bangladesh Governments have insisted that these provisions are essential to maintaining law and order. Even if that is so, there should be some means to assure transparency in their application as a check on possible abuse.

The upper courts are willing to scrutinize specific cases under the SPA and Section 54, and that is welcome, but there is still room for reform. One possibility would be the establishment of a truly independent human rights commission with investigatory powers. Such a commission could investigate specific cases of police abuse and detention. It could oversee the government's use of its general law enforcement powers, including the SPA and Section 54, and report periodically to the public. It could determine, for example, if the many charges that are some times brought against political leaders are indeed politically motivated, as is often alleged. In my view, such a commission would be a constructive check on possible abuses and introduce greater clarity to a murky area of government action.

A few weeks ago at a seminar I listened with great interest to several of Bangladesh's most respected jurists, including President Shahabuddin, discuss the role of civil society in a democracy. There seemed to be a consensus that civil society, especially a free press, should function as a watchdog, acting as a check on the abuse of power. I agree wholeheartedly. But civil society also can be a catalyst for reform in its broadest and truest sense. That has certainly been the case in Bangladesh where civil society developed a national consensus on the language movement, the liberation struggle, and the restoration of democracy the need to install caretaker government to administer national elections.

I would submit that civil society now should debate and build a consensus to strengthen Bangladesh's law enforcement and legal systems and render them more transparent. I understand that the Bar Council has already had such discussions and will be holding further discussions in the future. That is welcome. The Council must have a vital role this process. The new graduates of the Continuing Legal Education Program should also participate, infusing the debate with their youthful vigor and idealism. The major political parties, for their part, should place the national interest over partisan gain and work to advance, not block, consensus on reform. I am confident that the United States and other development partners of Bangladesh, will strongly support such forward movement, since we too have a stake in seeing Bangladesh succeed as a liberal democracy.

Graduates, once again I congratulate you on your hard work during this course. Instructors, I thank you for the generous donation of your time to the CLEP. I wish all of you every success in your private legal practices and especially in providing your clients with the best possible legal counsel.