Non-engagement on merits makes criticisms facile

Introduction

The government of Bangladesh has been subjected to relentless criticisms from various quarters, including human rights organizations, international bodies, and self-proclaimed global leaders. These criticisms mainly revolve around two legal processes: the ongoing actions against Dr. Muhammad Yunus and the conviction of two officials from the human rights organization Odhikar, Adilur Rahman Khan and Nasiruddin Elan, for spreading misinformation/disinformation.

The Flawed Criticisms

Many statements and letters have demanded that Bangladesh halt the legal proceedings against Dr. Yunus and overturn the convictions of the Odhikar officials. However, these criticisms share a common flaw—they fail to engage with the merits of the processes. While it can be argued that the merit alone justifies such strong interest, these critics show a conspicuous absence of interest in a country's sovereign and internal affairs.

Lack of Merit-based Engagement

Justifications provided for their demands range from Dr. Yunus being an inspirational force for social business to Adilur Rahman Khan receiving international awards. Yet, none of these justifications serve as legal defenses for their crimes and misconduct, even in the countries where these statements originated.

Regarding Dr. Yunus, the refusal to consider the factual and legal issues neglects the interests of the workers of Grameen Telecom, chaired by Dr. Yunus. These workers have brought legal actions against their own company and top officials for labor law violations. As for Adilur and Elan, the lack of interest has sidelined the disinformation-filled 2013 report at the core of the legal action against them.

Overlooking the Merits

By demanding the halting and overturning of these processes without considering their merits, these critics overlook several crucial factors:

The legitimate rights of Grameen Telecom workers

The critics fail to acknowledge the legitimate rights of Grameen Telecom workers who claim their dividends and leaves of absence have been deprived by Dr. Yunus and the company's bosses.

Previous out-of-court settlements

Similar cases were previously settled out-of-court between Dr. Yunus, Grameen Telecom, and 176 former workers, amounting to nearly US$ 40 million. This settlement indicates a recognition of wrongdoing on Dr. Yunus's part.

Dr. Yunus's history of neglecting legal compliance

Dr. Yunus's history of neglecting legal compliance is evident through an order from the Supreme Court of Bangladesh to pay over US$ 1.1 million in unpaid taxes. This demonstrates a pattern of disregarding legal obligations.

Constitutional limitations

The constitutional limitations in Bangladesh prevent the government from interfering in ongoing legal proceedings or overturning convictions. The demands of the critics go against the constitutional framework of the country.

Alignment with Grameen Telecom workers' cases

The cases filed by government authorities against Dr. Yunus relate to the same labor and financial law violations alleged by Grameen Telecom workers. The critics disregard this crucial connection.

Convictions of Adilur Rahman Khan and Nasiruddin Elan

The convictions of Adilur Rahman Khan and Nasiruddin Elan for spreading dangerous mis/disinformation during a politically sensitive year in Bangladesh cannot be dismissed lightly. The critics fail to recognize the significance of these convictions.

Lack of credible evidence

The failure of the Odhikar officials to provide credible evidence for their claims, despite contradicting police investigations and media reports, raises serious questions about the validity of their positions.

Neglecting Legal Compliance

Instead of engaging with these merits, supporters and friends of Dr. Yunus and Adilur Rahman Khan rely solely on their achievements, such as Dr. Yunus's Nobel Prize and contributions to poverty reduction through microfinance, and Khan's general contributions to human rights defense. While these discussions are relevant, they should be raised in court by their respective lawyers.

An impeccable reputation can only provide limited protection against the consequences of deviating from legal norms. Dr. Yunus and Adilur Rahman Khan could have avoided their legal predicaments by complying with applicable laws and regulations. However, they chose to neglect legal compliance, and their global friends and supporters have done them a disservice by failing to acknowledge this.

Conclusion

While legal actions against a Nobel laureate andthe convictions of officials from a human rights organization may not portray Bangladesh positively, it is important to note that the critics of the Government of Bangladesh do not hold a higher moral ground. By deliberately avoiding discussions on the merits of the processes, their criticisms become shallow and facile. It is imperative to consider the factual and legal issues at hand before making sweeping demands.