While it is not clear what Mr. Saifur Rahman meant by "issuing fatwa" to the Bank, the cause for his "embarrassment in the international arena" is all the more obtuse. Why should the Finance Minister or anybody else feel embarrassed when a citizen - an aggrieved senior professional staff member - merely sought justice in the Courts of Bangladesh for her unfair and unjust termination as the External Affairs Officer of the Bank's Dhaka office? It is rather embarrassing for the nation that a Finance Minister overlooks his own responsibilities and the fundamental rights of a "citizen" guaranteed under the Constitution to satisfy the demands of a multilateral institution which has harmed a citizen. One is taken aghast by the incredible and unsympathetic remarks of the Finance Minister, which not only exposes his lack of moral obligations and responsibilities for protecting a citizen, but also demonstrates a sense of disregard for the rule of law and the judiciary. His remarks also exhibit the vulnerability of the nation in the face of threats and coercion by multilateral organizations in extorting illegitimate advantages to their own self-interest. It is disheartening and a pity that Bangladesh still remain subservient to foreign pressure and desires even after almost thirty-three years of its independence.

The Finance Minister should also have done his homework and got the statistics correct before making a public statement in the BBC that "there is no incident of filing a case against the World Bank, excepting in Bangladesh". He is totally unaware, that there are more than one instance, if not more, that the World Bank has been sued in the United States of America, India and elsewhere. The case Mendaro v. The World Bank of the USA (Case No.82-2247) was filed against the World Bank in the United States Court of Appeals (USCA) for the District of Columbia in 1983. It relates to the World Bank's Articles of Agreement permitting actions to be brought against the Bank in a court of competent jurisdiction in territories of a member state in which the Bank has office. Although the Mendaro v. The World Bank case has no relevance in the context of immunity to the case in Bangladesh, the fact remains that there was a litigation against the World Bank in the United States for some wrong done against a staff member.

It again remains a mystery why the Finance Minister should be obsessed with the World Bank or choose to advocate for World Bank immunity instead of fulfilling his obligation towards the "citizen" he has chosen to blame. To be an advocate, one must be fully conversant with facts of the matter and contention of both the parties. Unfortunately, despite several attempts to meet with the Finance Minister to apprise him of the details and seek his assistance for an out of court resolution of the dispute which could have saved all from "embarrassment", the staff member was denied an audience on the matter. Paradoxically, Mr. Saifur Rahman spared no pain to press the Honourable Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs to defend the Bank in the court case and amend the law to provide immunity to the World Bank.

The question that has now arisen in the minds of conscious citizens is why the sudden compulsion to amend the law and extend the ambit of legal immunity to the World Bank after more than thirty years of it's operations in Bangladesh when the International Financial Organizations Order 1972 (PO 1986) and the Articles of Agreement between the Bank and Bangladesh already provides limited immunity to Bank officials in discharge of duties in their official capacity? The World Bank is propagating a misguiding statement that it enjoys immunity in 183 member countries and Bangladesh is the only exception where the Articles of Agreement has been interpreted differently. In fact, Bangladesh will be the only exception if it provides institutional immunity to the Bank. Nowhere does the World Bank have institutional immunity which it is trying to extort from Bangladesh.

In the name of "clarifying" the scope of immunity, the Bank is compelling the government to take the matter to the parliament and amend laws – a matter unheard in any other country of the world.

Mr. Saifur Rahman is known to be a staunch supporter of the World Bank. But he certainly does not enjoy the privilege of making a citizen the sacrificial lamb for whimsical decisions that strike at the roots of democracy and infringes on the sovereignty and dignity of our nation and fundamental rights of citizens. The Finance Minister is perhaps ignorant of the fact that the World Bank's own Administrative Tribunal admitted that injustice was done to the External Affairs officer for which a token compensation was awarded. The Tribunal upheld that the "staff member has been denied fair procedures by the Bank. The staff rules were not followed in her case... [and that] the treatment of the Applicant fell short of appropriate standards of justice which has effectively caused her harm... " The Report further observed that the actions of the Bank "were not compatible with the guarantees of due process... [and that] ... the Bank did not act with the fairness and impartiality which is called for in the Principles of Staff Employment...". The inconsequential compensation recommended by the Tribunal was totally incompatible with the nature and extent of damage and harm that was caused to the "citizen" of Bangladesh.

It is now confirmed that the World Bank is trying to hide behind a cloak of immunity and does not want to be held accountable for any wrong done. Instead of mending fences as is to be expected from a leading multilateral Bretton Wood's financial institution, it began a ploy and arm-twisting tactics from their position of strength as an important development partner. The arrogance of the World Bank is reflected in the Country Director, Ms. Christine Wallich's statement to the BBC on the same day, when she stated that the government of Bangladesh is not bound to take financial assistance from the World Bank if it thinks that the conditions framed by the World Bank are not suitable for the country. It is no less disgraceful that a leading global financial lending institution like the World Bank is trying to extort blanket immunity from Bangladesh after being sued for arbitrary and unjust action against a staff member.

Immunity to the World Bank has now emerged as a much broader issue in Bangladesh. At stake is the sovereignty and security of the nation and fundamental rights of its citizens. It appears that the Finance Minister has played the pivotal role in drawing up the controversial bill on immunity. The move has instigated a rebellious uprising against the World Bank and the government of Bangladesh from all strata of the society – including intellectuals, academics and distinguished members of the civil society, parliamentarians, NGOs and a host of conscious citizens. The World Bank is a lending financial institution providing loan to recipient countries which are paid back sometimes with high rates of interest. It does not possess the characteristics of UN bodies, which are humanitarian in nature and granted immunity under the UN Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the UN passed by resolution in the UN General Assembly. Neither is the Bank entitled to diplomatic immunity and privileges provided to diplomatic missions under the Vienna Convention. The Bank can thus in no way be equated with the UN organization, diplomatic missions or compelled to follow the agreement with the ADB.

Whereas there are many borrowing member countries which require parliamentary approval or ratification of lending instruments (loans, credits, IDA grants) with the Bank and IDA, and countries where parliament sets a ceiling within which the executive branch can conclude individual agreements without further approval or ratification, it is a disgrace that Bangladesh is driven by threats and unfair demands by the World Bank. It is hoped that good sense prevails and the Finance Minister realizes that he has compromised the rights of Bangladeshi citizens through his undemocratic attitude and comments.

(The commentator is the former External Affairs Officer of the World Bank, and a former official of the UNDP and the Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs, BILIA).