& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Move to put WB above the law

Bill seeking immunity for the multilateral organisation may be placed in parliament today

STAFF CORRESPONDENT
Amidst stiff opposition from the civil society, left politicians and human rights groups, a bill proposing unprecedented blanket immunity to the World Bank in its operations in Bangladesh is likely to be placed in parliament today.
Once the bill is passed, it will put the Bretoon Woods institution
beyond any legal action, a privilege that the organisation enjoys probably in no other country of operations.
This move has already put the World Bank and the government before many questions including that of why the Bank opted for such immunity in Bangladesh alone instead of going for similar facilities in other countries too. The ethos of the proposed law also goes against the very basics of the fundamental rights of the country's citizens, critics have pointed out.
The bill proposes that "The Bank shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process, except in cases arising out of or in connection with the exercise of its powers to borrow money, to guarantee obligations, or to buy and sell or underwrite the sale of securities, in which cases, actions may be brought against the Bank in a court of competent jurisdiction..."
It also says that "no action shall be brought against the Bank, by any agency, or by any entity or person, and there shall be recourse to such special procedures for the settlement of controversies between the Bank and the government or the agency or entity or person as the case may be."
"Property and assets of the Bank shall wheresoever located and by whomsoever held be immune from all forms of seizure, attachment or execution, before the delivery of final judgement against the Bank."
However, critics have pointed out that the Articles of Agreement that the Bank gets signed with every member country already provided it with adequate immunity from legal process.
Such coverage includes immunity from actions brought by members or persons acting for or deriving claims by members. Its assets and property are also immune from all forms of seizure, attachment or execution before the delivery of final judgement against the Bank. The Bank's archives are also inviolable and its property shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.
No legal action is allowed against the activities of any employee if he
or she does so at the directive of the Bank. No immigration related rules are applicable against the foreign staff of the Bank in Bangladesh.
The Bank formally asked the government for legal immunity about three years back, after being sued by its discharged staff member Ismet Zerin Khan.
The government subsequently sought legal opinion from the attorney general and the law ministry.
Two attorneys general, Mahmudul Islam and AF Hassan Ariff, in their opinions, said as a body the World Bank is not eligible for immunity under the existing legal provisions.
The late Barrister Syed Ishtiaq Ahmed gave a similar opinion when he was advisor to the law ministry in the caretaker government of 2001.
However, Law Minister Moudud Ahmed in initiating the extended immunity argued that UN organisations and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) enjoys similar privileges.
But the fact is no UN organisation enjoys such immunity. Critics argue that the ADB has this standard agreement with all its members and the facilities it enjoys are not country specific.
The privileges the WB is demanding of Bangladesh and which will be granted if the law is passed is country specific and does not apply to other member states of the Bank. They question why Bangladesh should put the WB above the law of the land, which no other country does.
Observers also pointed out that it is quite difficult to comprehend why the coalition government, which seems quite sensitive about the country's sovereignty, is so easily giving it up for a multilateral body which no other country, big or small, provides to the Bank.