#Title

Turn candidates’ ‘halafnama’ into ‘amalnama’
It is heartening to see that the media has been preparing statements based on the information in affidavits submitted by the candidates who are running for parliament. This requirement of submitting affidavits came from a ruling by the high court bench led by Justice Abdul Matin in 2005. The judgement required the candidates running for parliament to submit eight kinds of information with their nomination papers. These include their educational qualifications, criminal records, and assets, income and liabilities of both themselves and their dependents.
The court also directed the Election Commission to disseminate this information so that the people could use it to make informed decisions in casting their votes. The EC, however, failed to disseminate that information. We, on behalf of SHUJAN, have been disseminating this information through the media by preparing comparative statements for each constituency. We also thwarted the sinister efforts by an imposter named Abu Safa who, using false information, tried to overturn the high court judgement.
This idea of disclosure of information about the candidates in the form of affidavits has a history. In 2002, in Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms [2002 (3) SCC], the Indian supreme court gave a seminal judgement in which it stated that the right to know about public officials is derived from the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
In a second case, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs Union of India [2003 (4) SCC], the Supreme Court of India further emphasised the importance of disclosure of antecedents. Using this information, the court opined, the voters could decide whether they would vote for A or B. The court further said that if you don’t want to turn democracy into a farce, you have to give the voters this right to have information about the background of the candidates. Bangladesh’s judgement of 2005 followed these seminal judgments of the Indian supreme court.
There have been numerous efforts in our country to thwart this judgement. For example, in 2013 there were four city corporation elections: Barisal, Khulna, Rajshahi, and Sylhet. In the previous election, held in 2007, the Awami League mayoral candidates won and the BNP candidates lost. The same candidates ran again in 2013. We compared the affidavits submitted by the same candidates in both elections to see what happened to their income and wealth. What we found was that the income and wealth of the incumbent mayors, who were elected in 2007, skyrocketed. And the wealth and income of those who didn’t win in 2007 either remained the same or declined. Thus, it became clear that getting elected was like getting an Aladdin’s lamp in one’s hands. In other words, anyone occupying an elected office is able to mint money and get rich. We held a press conference to disseminate our findings. In response, Awami League sent a letter to the EC saying that we had defamed them using concocted information. This allegation was totally false as we used the information disclosed by candidates in their affidavits sworn before a magistrate. It should be noted that including false information in an affidavit, sworn before a magistrate, is a criminal offence under section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Yet, we were accused of using misinformation with the intention of defaming the candidates.
The biggest attack came from Sayed Ashraful Islam, the general secretary of Awami League. In 2014, according to a Prothom Alo report, he said that the affidavits have become the tools of character assassination of politicians. Clearly, these were efforts to do away with the requirement of disclosing antecedents by candidates in the form of affidavits. But they forgot one extremely important detail. The demand for disclosures came from the Awami League itself. On July 15, 2005, Sheikh Hasina, the then leader of the opposition, said in a press conference that the candidates must submit her/his own and their dependants’ wealth information with their nomination papers. Additionally, they would have to declare if they have any personal stake in any economic activities of the government. She also demanded that those who lied or provided misinformation in their affidavit face strict legal consequences. However, this was not the only instance when Awami League reiterated the importance of disclosure of antecedents of powerful individuals including MPs.
Before the 2008 parliamentary election, Awami League published its famous election manifesto, Dinbodoler Sanad (Charter for Change), in which it promised to regularly disclose the wealth statements of all powerful people in the government. But unfortunately, the ruling party and the government didn’t keep their commitment.
The EC has also not been verifying the information submitted by the candidates. There are widespread allegations of concealing or providing concocted information in the affidavits. A recent newspaper report indicates that at least nine of the ministers didn’t declare their dependents’ wealth in their affidavits. Notwithstanding the hiding of information, the skyrocketing of income and wealth shown in the affidavits of candidates who are running for the upcoming election reflect an obscene display of riches when many citizens are struggling to make ends meet.
One prime example of a candidate hiding information is Barrister Shahjahan Omar, who went to jail as a senior leader of BNP, then got bail to join Awami League and run for the upcoming election with the boat symbol. He appears to have hidden information about his wealth. More seriously, he did not disclose information about the cases under which he was arrested and bailed. For such non-disclosure, his nomination paper should be declared invalid under section 12(3)(b) of The Representation of the People Order, 1972. However, both the returning officer and the EC cleared Barrister Omar’s nomination, allowing him to contest in the election to be held on January 7. Here didn’t both the returning officer and the EC violate the law in validating Barrister Omar’s nomination paper?
In the last few decades, a lot of people have become very rich in our country, mostly through illegal means. They are now trying to “buy” political power by becoming MPs using their ill-gotten money. As a result, over two-thirds of our MPs are now businessmen who have been trying to further their interests using government power. Many of them also hide information in their affidavits. Entry of many of these self-interested individuals to our electoral arena could be blocked if the EC would take the requirement of the submission of affidavits seriously and thoroughly scrutinise them. Unfortunately, despite our repeated efforts, we have not been able to convince the EC to scrutinise the affidavits and disqualify those who hide or submit false information in their affidavits. If the commission lacks capacity to scrutinise the affidavits, they can use the help of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the National Bureau of Revenue for this purpose.
The format for the affidavit developed before the 2008 elections has some serious limitations. We updated the format and shared it with the EC, but received no positive response from the commission. We hope the EC will take it seriously and revise the format and apply it vigorously. We urge it to do its part to clean up our electoral arena by turning the halafnama into amalnama for candidates running for office.
In the last few decades, a lot of people have become very rich in our country, mostly through illegal means. They are now trying to “buy” political power by becoming MPs using their ill-gotten money. As a result, over two-thirds of our MPs are now businessmen who have been trying to further their interests using government power.