Painful Resignations

Nazmul Huda

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has set a new precedent by sacking Abdul Latif Siddique from her cabinet, jumping the constitutional path. As per the constitution, she was supposed to request Latif, who hurt the sentiments of Muslims by making derogative remarks on hajj and Prophet Muhammad (SM), to resign as the minister from her cabinet. If Latif was requested to resign, he would have no alternative to retain the office. If he refused to comply with the request, he would have been removed from the cabinet through the president. The premier however did not explore the first option. Instead, she advised the president to terminate Latif as minister from her cabinet. The president acted upon the advice. It was not possible to know whether the president, before exercising this power, enquired if the premier had requested Latif to resign or not.

Granted, Latif doesn't deserve any sympathy for his outrageous remarks. But the way he was sacked has set a bad constitutional precedent for the first time in over the two decades since the restoration of the parliamentary democracy in 1991. It is an action that is usual during an autocratic rule.

If a government believes in the fundamental principles of democracy, this should not happen. A democratic government must honour and follow the constitutional path as it is none, but the constitution that provides the government with the legitimate power to govern the country. But when a government claiming to be democratic is disrespectful towards the constitution, it destroys the very power base of that government. What the prime minister did in the case of removal of Latif has opened a window to practice the autocratic practice of sacking a minister in a parliamentary form of the government.

Abdul Latif Siddique

Latif himself failed to demonstrate his courage by resigning as the minister though it was clear that he in no way would be able to retain his position in the cabinet. He did not dare to do so fearing the consequences. Democracy exists here only in name, but the norms and values of democracy remain absent. In a functional democracy, the resignation of a minister is considered a normal feature. But in Bangladesh, the situation has gradually deteriorated instead of improving since the restoration of parliamentary democracy.

There were some good practices in the first cabinet led by Khaleda Zia (1991-96) and Sheikh Hasina (1996-2001) respectively after 1991. In 1995 when Khaleda Zia was the prime minister, the then industries minister Zahiruddin Khan was caught in an awkward situation following the killing of more than a dozen farmers over a fertilizer crisis. He was not responsible for the situation that ensued after the price hike of fertilizer. His ministry's job was to produce fertilizer. The agriculture ministry and the finance ministry were responsible for fixing the price of fertilizer. But he took the responsibility of the incident and resigned from the cabinet.

But forcing the then information minister Nazmul Huda by the then PM Khaleda to resign from the cabinet after he commented in favour of introduction of caretaker government system, which at that time was against the policy decision of BNP, appeared as a setback to the precedent set by Zahiruddin. Huda himself should have resigned for opposing the then cabinet's stance over the caretaker government system. Huda had failed to demonstrate the courage to do so.

In the first term as the premier, Hasina initially was very careful to keep her cabinet free from controversy. Three ministers--Maj (retd) Rafiqul Islam, Afsaruddin Ahmad and Syed Abul Hossain--were forced to resign. But none of them resigned willingly though their activities and remarks triggered controversy. Taking responsibility, they should have resigned willingly to strengthen the practice of ministerial individual responsibility.

Maj Rafiq was removed from the home ministry apparently for his statement on the 1999 bomb blast at an Udichi programme in Jessore. He said the grenade used in the attack could not be in the hands of civilians as those were only used by the military. Afsaruddin was asked to resign following a slum eviction in the capital while Abul Hossain for possessing two passports and travelling with the green passport instead of the red one.

During the third term as the prime minister (2001-2006) Khaleda Zia forced the then commerce minister Amir Khasru Mahmud Chowdhury and state minister for energy AKM Mosharraf Hossain and state minister for power Iqbal Hassan Mahmood to step down. Amir Khasru resigned allegedly for allowing a syndicate to abnormally hike the prices of essentials and due to a conflict with then finance minister Saifur Rahman. Mosharraf Hossain was forced to resign for receiving an expensive vehicle as bribe from a Canadian exploration company NIKO and conflict with Hawa Bhaban while Iqbal Hassan resigned reportedly for his failure to manage the electricity crisis and conflict with Hawa Bhaban.

During her second term as the PM, Hasina set a new precedent by not allowing ministers to resign willingly. Sohel Taj, who was state minister for home, resigned in June 2009 and left the country. Yet his monthly salary as a state minister continued to be deposited into his bank account. This triggered huge controversy. In defence, the government said his resignation was not accepted. Sohel Taj finally got relief by resigning from parliament in July 2012, as his resignation disqualified him from holding the office of state minister.

In April 2012, Suranjit Sengupta tendered his resignation following allegations that he took bribes from applicants seeking jobs in the railway. Hasina announced that his resignation was not accepted and that he was made a minister without portfolio. Following the Padma bridge project scandal, Syed Abul Hossain was asked to resign and he tendered his resignation in July 2012 as minister. But his resignation letter was accepted by the president about a month later which was not supported by the constitution.

The writer is Senior Reporter, The Daily Star.