Leaders, among many other qualities, must have two types of courage. One kind deals with the capacity to do things that are not only difficult but also controversial and even unpopular. The other kind deals with the capacity to realise that his or her decision was a mistake and to be able to change it before too much damage is done. One comes from wisdom, knowledge, farsightedness, commitment and self-confidence. The other comes from all the above qualities, plus a deep and genuine sense of humility and the realisation that 'to err is human'.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has exhibited courage ot the fonner type. We think that the Ganges Water Treaty and her-Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord were acts of vision and courage that challenged the conventional wisdom and made the intractable possible. She knew she would be open to criticism and that a deep contro-

versv would engulf her government And yet she did not shy away from taking steps that she felt and knew to De moves in the right direction.

Now time has come for her to show her courage of the latter type. We think that she should re-think the PSA all over and make a sincere and objective assessment of what the country and its people will gain and lose by Introducing this law. We think this is a mistaken step, and hope that Sheikh Hasina will have the courage to change her course of action.

Yesterday we ran a long article (In our weekly law page) showing that the existing penal code covers most of the special crimes - extortion, hijacking, snatching, damage to property, tender manipulation, obstructing traffic, etc - for which the PSA has been introduced. We have shown clause by clause that with a minimum of amendments to some existing provisions of the penal code all

the crime for which this new law has been promulgated can be dealt with. Therefore there Is NO NEED for PSA. Please examine carefully what we are saying.

Procurement of easy bail was one of the principal reasons that the government gave for promulgating this terrible law. But the real reason for easy bail - the failure of the police to file a case properly thereby leaving a Judge no alternative but to grant bail- has so far not been addressed. There are piles of evidence available to our lawyers which prove over and over again that our police suffer from inadequate legal training which results tn their framing cases in a manner which is weak, if not outright untenable, forcing the Judges to grant bail. After all If cases are not framed well then what can a presiding judge do.

There were implications in government pronouncements that the moral standards of a section of Judges leave much to be desired. The Issue of corruption In the lower Judiciary is now a genuine public concern. Several retired Judges of our Supreme Court have expressed this concern. Does the PSA address that? No. So without addressing the real reasons why criminals are not being brought to book, a whole new law has been introduced which ojJens up many new avenues for abuse and corruption.

The most Important objection that the public had to the PSA was the potential for its abuse. Everybody arrested under this law will have to be in Jail for the duration of the trail. The fundamental principal of our law is that a person is innocent till a court finds him or her guilty. That Is precisely why provision exists for bail so that a person ultimately found innocent Is not held In Jail during the period of trial. But under PSA. where no one can get ball during the trial, a person is assumed to be guilty before a Judge finds him so. Police arrest Is enough to ensure him to be In Jail for 75 to 120 days. What about the person who Is found NOT GUILTY at the end of the trial? He or she will have already suffered a Jail term being totally Innocent.

When we raised the above objection the government answered by saying that a provision exists in the PSA for punishment of a police officer if it is proven that an innocent person was deliberately Implicated in the case. This the government said would guarantee that no investigating officer or member of the law enforcement agency would abuse the law. This, the government said, was the major check against abuse. This check has now gone. In the amendments that nave been proposed last Sunday this provision has been withdrawn. WHY? Obviously under pressure from the police themselves. They gave clear signals to the government that if the PSA punishes the police for its wrong implementation then no police will enforce it. and as such this law will remain only in the statue books and will be of no avail to the government. To appease the police the government has withdrawn this particular provision. The result is that the ONLY check that existed against the abuse of the PSA has now been removed making it more dangerous to the public than it was before.

The Law Minister said that

the amendments have been brought to plea.se the President, as it was ne who insisted on amending the PSA when he put his signature to it. The truth Is that the President never asked for the deletion of the above provision He only asked for the inclusion of the provision of granting bail in the appeal stage of the trail. So why the most important check against abuse of the PSA been removed?

If the PSA was unacceptable before, with the withdrawal of the aforementioned provision It has become far more unacceptable. We request the Prime Minister to please, please re-examine the whole rationale for this law. Please look back and see how effective the BNP promulgated anti-terrorism law was. and how the public image of that party suffered because of it.

There Is no way you can prevent the abuse of PSA. Your own Initiated study on the situation of Students League (BCD at the district level showed that local AL leaders use BCL as their lathial bahlnl (armed gangs). In many areas factionalism is wife and often lead to armed clahses. If your party factions can Indulge in open gun-fight in spite your strictures, then can’t they abuse the PSA in spite of your best intentions ? If you add party factlonism to police corruption and local politics then you have a lethal mixture which, with PSA's strict provisions. can make citizens life hell. Please kindly reflect seriously on what we are saying.

Present situation calls upon you to show us the courage of the second type. In a lesser Instance you did set an example of such courage when you accepted public verdict about the NAM Conference site and shifted it. Your prestige did not go down because you bowed to public opinion. In fact it went up. Those who will tell you that If you move back from going through with the PSA you will appear weak. Indecisive and easily influenced by public reaction know NOTHING about the power of being HUMBLE. This moral trait has more power than the combmed force of millions of sycophants who only know how to stroke a fire and nothing about extinguishing them. Some of the biggest victories of some of the greatest leaders came when they changed their course of action realising that a mistake has been committed. This law will do more harm than good. Change it now that you have the chance.