Editorial
The case of Sohel Taj
Failure in governance process
It is not so much Sohel Taj's resignation both as state minister and member of parliament, that took place with a time lag of almost three years, which concerns us, rather it is the principles and circumstances centering around government's handling of the affair that evokes some very pertinent comments.
The reasons behind Mr. Taj's resignation as a state minister are not on debate but what raises a question in the public mind is the procrastination in handling a matter that admitted of prompt disposal according to set down constitutional principles. The fact remains that once a minister has tendered his resignation under Article 58(1)(a) of the Constitution which states the office of a minister other than the prime minister shall become vacant "if he resigns from office by placing his resignation in the hands of the prime minister for submission to the president".
Hence, with such provisions of the constitution in hand, his resignation should have been ipso facto effective. We are perplexed over the hanging state of his resignation as state minister for so long. What is even more inexplicable is the crediting of his salary to his account for these years reportedly as minister without portfolio. All this is clearly illustrative of governance lapses.
Sohel Taj, for his part, took nearly four years to step down as MP. That means his constituency remained largely unrepresented in the parliament.
During his long absence abroad, he is reported to have taken up a job. That smacks of impropriety. On the whole the matter has been dealt with rather casually, that is not what norms of governance are all about.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments