Legal experts on Saturday welcomed the law ministry鈥檚 initiative to promulgate the Supreme Court Judge Appointment Ordinance 2024, emphasising its potential to enhance transparency and depoliticise judicial appointments.
At a discussion, politicians, retired judges, academics and lawyers discussed the proposed ordinance, which proposed the establishment of an eight-member Supreme Court Judicial Appointment Council led by the chief justice.聽
The council would also include the most senior Appellate Division judge, two High Court judges鈥撯�搕he most senior judge and another judge elevated from judicial service鈥撯��, the attorney general, the Supreme Court Bar Association president, a retired Appellate Division judge nominated by the chief justice and a public university law professor nominated by the chief justice.
The draft ordinance was prepared based on proposals made by the Supreme Court and the Judicial Reform Commission. The law ministry hosted the discussion to gather feedback and refine the draft before its finalisation.
The ordinance proposes empowering the council to identify and recommend people for Supreme Court聽 judgeship and send a final list to the president in consultation with the chief justice.
Concerns were, however, raised over the inclusion of the Supreme Court Bar Association president and the attorney general in the council as they held political posts.聽
The experts debated several issues, including 45-year minimum age requirement, equal representations of lawyers and judicial service officials and the selection process proposed in the ordinance for the appointment of HC judges.
The ordinance proposes a minimum age of 45 years for lawyers seeking appointment as additional High Court judges, which a number of discussants viewed as restrictive to find out candidates from practising lawyers.
Concerns were raised about balancing representation between members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and subordinate court judges in the appointment.
Experts questioned whether lawyers should formally apply and undergo interviews to qualify for judicial appointments.
Dhaka University law professor Borhan Uddin Khan criticised the proposed ordinance, arguing that it disproportionately proposed increasing the powers of the president and the council while limiting the chief justice鈥檚 authority, contrary to the constitutional mandate.聽
He highlighted concerns over the inclusion of temporary High Court judges, stating that the constitution did not recognise such positions.聽
He further noted that regularising High Court judges after two years was unnecessary, as they could be confirmed anytime once appointed.
Former High Court judges Shamim Hasnain and Miftah Uddin Choudhury doubted if any experienced lawyer would formally apply for judgeship.
Supreme Court lawyer Sara Hossain, however, supported the move as a step toward transparency.聽
Both former HC judges stressed that the proposed 45-year minimum age limit for High Court judges was essential to attract experienced candidates.
Supreme Court lawyer Jyotirmoy Barua opposed the inclusion of the attorney general, the bar president and a public university professor in the council, alleging potential conflicts of interest.
He also proposed lowering the age limit to 40 years and suggested a one-third lawyer-to-judicial officer ratio instead of an equal split in HC judge appointments.
Lawyer Ehsan A Siddique recommended appointing Appellate Division judges based on seniority. He strongly opposed the inclusion of the attorney general in the council, arguing that the current attorney general might go for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party nomination in the next general election.聽
Bangladesh Bar Council vice-chairman Zainul Abedin and senior lawyer Nitai Roy Chowdhury supported the inclusion of the attorney general.聽
Bangladesh Judicial Service Association president Amirul Islam defended the association鈥檚 recent statement opposing the SCBA president鈥檚 inclusion in the council.聽
He advocated for appointing 70 per cent of Supreme Court judges from amongst the subordinate court judges and proposed disqualifying candidates with third-class in any academic results.
Supreme Court Bar Association president AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon, however, supported the inclusion of the bar president, arguing that it would enable the council to assess the qualifications of judges and lawyers.聽
Attorney general Md Asaduzzaman emphasised the interim government鈥檚 mandate to legislate on judicial appointments and suggested the inclusion of the Bar Council vice-chairman in the council.聽
Environment adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan expressed confidence in the ordinance鈥檚 intent to ensure transparency in judge appointments and prevent partisan influence. She emphasised that the ordinance should prevent politically aligned appointments to the Supreme Court.聽
The discussion, moderated by law adviser Asif Nazrul, concluded with diverse recommendations and highlighted the need for transparency and meritocracy in judicial appointments.