If UNO can assume all kinds of credits, why not the blames, too?

The owner of a four storied building and a hosiery factory mischievously asked for government aid meant for the poor, which prompted the UNO Arifa Zahura to take prompt action against him. He was given the choice of feeding 100 helpless people or getting jailed for three months. Initially, the news was just like that. 

When the social media was getting flooded by congratulatory and thankful posts due to this instantaneous and wise decision of the UNO, nowhere, even for once, the name of the UP member and panel mayor Ayub Ali came up.  UNO Arifa Zahur enjoyed hundred percent of the 'credit'. Neither the UNO nor the administration ever mentioned that actually all 'credits' should go to UP member Ayub Ali.

Then the real truth came out; we found out the tear jerking tale of Farid Ahmed's helplessness. Thankful and congratulating phrases got replaced by reprimands, and at that very moment, UNO Arifa Zahura went behind the curtains. UP Member Ayub Ali was brought forward in her stead.

An investigation report published by a three member probe committee headed by Narayanganj Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) Shameem Bepari has convicted Ayub Ali. According to the report, his wrongful and or falsified account was the reason behind the incident of the UNO's punishing of the helpless Farid Ahmed. 

Regarding this investigation and the punishment, a few questions arise:

a. Let us assume that the UP member Ayub Ali has provided the UNO with wrong and or false information. How is it possible for a government employee to use the mobile court authority to indict a person to three month's jail, solely based on one man's unverified verbal account (even if it is true)?

b. Isn't it a requirement to have some fact based, documented proofs in order to book a citizen in to the lockup? How can a person face the possibility of getting jailed without getting an opportunity to defend himself? Can he or she be fined, even, without a documented proof of misdeed?

c. Can it be true that a person complained and a government employee arbitrarily thought that it was a valid complaint, and accordingly, she doled out the punishment of jailing and fining towards the accused?

Unfortunately, the truth is that the mobile court is actually handing out jail sentences and fines in this very manner. The norms and regulations of the common judiciary system is totally ignored in these circumstances. Most importantly, the accused never gets the opportunity to deploy a lawyer on their behalf, which is essential in self-defense. This mobile court, that has been in play since 2009, clashes with the constitution—such a belief has existed from its inception. A writ petition was filed with the high court, challenging the legality of the mobile court. Accordingly, the high court declared the mobile court as illegal. However, that verdict is now being challenged in the appellate division.

Arif Khan, a supreme court lawyer said, 'The mobile court takes instant action in few public interest areas like counterfeit food, pricing issues, etc. Thanks to the media, these incidents get a lot of coverage, too. These actions are also backed by popular support. However, many limitations of the mobile court are omnipresent. Although they don the name of 'court', in actuality, they do not deliver justice in the manner of a court. For these limitations and controversies, almost all countries, including India has abolished mobile courts. Apart from a few specialized areas, mobile courts are not active in India at all.'

Can the mobile courts actually convict people and punish them with jail sentences or fines as per their 'whims'? UNO is not taking the blame for the erroneous information. The investigation report says accordingly. On this topic, lawyer Arif Khan said, 'Anyone can provide a piece of information. That information can be wrong or even be a lie. In this circumstances, it was the UNO's duty to verify the accuracy of this information. She did not do it. The biggest criticism of the mobile court is simply the fact that they can punish-jail-fine anyone based on their 'whims'. And for all these reasons, the high court has declared the mobile court as illegal. Maybe we will get a full-fledged way forward once the decision of the appellate division is upon our hands'.

Nowadays, one of the most vivid public perceptions in Bangladesh is that the government employees never take the blame for any kind of mishap. They are not to be held accountable for the repercussions of their actions. Whatever action they take, they take it in 'good faith'.

It appears that the Narayanganj incident is one such example. Even if a journalist is tortured within the confines of the secretariat, a 100 taka worth article gets procured at the price of 10 thousand taka, people are sent abroad to learn how to cook hotchpotch or to learn how to dig a pond—none of these actions deem any kind of accountability. The way elections are being conducted and the government is being run has given them utmost importance. This extra bit of importance has empowered them so much that no matter what the level of acceptance and image they have in the public's perception, they don't need to pay heed to it. Such a mindset has resulted in a rapid loosening of the connection between the countrymen and the government's administrative body. A culture of non-accountability and avoiding responsibility for any action paves the path for self-absorption.

Which is something that has already been established in Bangladesh, to a great extent.

 Translated from Bangla by Mohammed Ishtiaque Khan