THE government's decision to withdraw what it terms 'politically motivated' cases against political leaders including a graft case against the former president Ershad cannot but raise questions.

Dismissing by a broad stroke of the pen the graft case pending prosecution for long 18 years in the court, the government has given the due process of law a short shrift. This is a glaring instance of the government's disinterest in pursuing the cases of corruption. A few thousand cases have been struck out of the list on the plea of those having been politically motivated. Ershad's exoneration only brings to a bold relief the executive's interference in matters falling within the ambit of the court.

The former president Ershad, for example, was cleared of 18 of the 21 cases lodged against him through court after his ouster from power. Of the remaining three, the High Court had already made the graft case on radar purchase ready for adjudication. But the government committee concerned has decided to withdraw the case on the pretext of its being motivated as it was filed during the four-party alliance rule.

What strikes the average person is how does the executive arrogate to itself the jurisdiction of the court to decide if the corruption charges against Ershad were motivated or not? And if the executive becomes the ultimate arbiter, one wonders what remains of the function ofthe judiciary.

The way the government is withdrawing one case after another on the presumed ground of their being motivated, it has the potential to create 'immunity culture' in society. And such practice by the government, will only encourage the tendency to commit more crime by people in high places.

What is further worrying is the state minister for law Qamrul Islam's reference to withdrawal of many cases by the BNP-led four-party alliance government under a similar pretext of their being politically motivated. Should one then draw the inference that the incumbent administration is justifying their action, as BNP-led government did as such?

One wrong cannot be righted by another wrong. In fact, it has the multiplier effect adversely impacting the function of the judiciary.