SCBA flouts own constitution in cubicles allotmentM Moneruzzaman
The Supreme Court Bar Association continues with violating its constitution in allotment of cubicles to the members.
Article 43 of the constitution stipulates the principles for allotment of cubicles to the members.
It says, ‘A senior member who has no chamber or residence with a chamber within a radius of two miles from the court shall have preference over a junior with same disadvantage.’
Members having their residence far away from the court will have preference over whose residences are near the court, it says.
The article also says that members who do not have car will have preference over those who have, if other factors remain equal or both.
According to the article, if a senior member has been allotted a cubicle, the junior generally working with/under him will not be entitled to separate allotment.
A number of Supreme Court lawyers said that a number of senior lawyers, including Kamal Hossain, Rafique-ul Huq and Rokanuddin Mahmud, who have their house or chamber within a radius of two miles and possess car, were allotted cubicles, while lawyers having their house and chamber far away were deprived of cubicles.
They also alleged politicisation of the allotment process.
Md Khurshid Alam Khan, who was enrolled as a High Court lawyer in 1992, said he was yet to get a cubicle although he had applied ten years ago.
Since I belong to neither the Awami League nor the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and I do not lobby, I have got no allotment,’ he said.
Besides, the association is charging Tk 1 lakh for allotment of a cubicle which is also a violation of its constitution, the lawyers alleged.
The bar association secretary Momtazuddin and former secretary Bodruddoza also admitted that the association’s constitution was not being followed in the allotment of cubicles.
If the constitution is followed, the cubicles of many senior and high-profile lawyers have to be cancelled, they said.
Senior lawyer Rafique-ul Huq, also former attorney general, however, said, ‘Whatever there in the constitution must be followed.’
‘The provisions on allotment of cubicles have never ever been followed since formation of the bar association in 1972, Bodruddoza said.
Momtazuddin and Bodruddoza, however, denied the allegation of allotment on political considerations.
About charging money for the allotment of cubicles, Bodruddoza said that they had charged the money as they had constructed an extended tin shade building on the roof-top of the main building of the bar association for more accommodations.
Momtazuddin said that the present executive committee was charging the money as they were also extending the bar association building on own funding.
comments powered by Disqus