The National Citizens Party (NCP) is not backing down from the allegations leveled against some of the advisers of the interim government about the ‘safe exit’.
So far, they have not even expressed regret. Not even they have given any amendments.
There is a commotion over this. The buzz of discussion and criticism is also at its peak.
There are many whispers about what is going on behind the scenes. There is a lot of news in the media. There are endless narratives on social media.
Despite rumors and gossip, the advisers are largely silent. And they keep quiet may be for fear of getting caught? NCP leader Nahid Islam, who made this allegation, did not name anyone.
So, responding means risking. Amidst this situation, Environment and Water Resources Adviseer Syeda Rizwana Hasan said, “Nahid Islam will have to prove his statement. The allegations are not just any allegations.”
NCP convener Nahid Islam recently dropped this verbal bombshell in an interview with a television channel. There is a lot of talk on Facebook about his statement.
During the July uprising, Nahid Islam was the coordinator of the anti-discrimination student movement.
When the interim government was formed after the uprising, he became an adviser as a student representative.
Nahid resigned from the government last February and took over as the convener of the NCP.
Mahfuz Alam and Asif Mahmud Sajeeb Bhuiyan, who joined the government as student representatives, are still advisers.
Nahid Islam also told the television channel that, “None of them wanted to become advisers to the government.
Their demand was to form a national government. If that was the case, the students would not have to take responsibility.”
Even at a public event he said that the BNP-Jamaat had been hiring people in the administration by force.
Before making the appointments, they were in favor of giving the government as much time as it needed for reforms.
However, they started non-cooperation from December, immediately after the recruitment was completed.
Analysts say that these questions could create a new crisis before the vote, and the advisers should handle the issues in a systematic manner.
In that case, why would the question of safe or unsafe exit arise? If there is a failure to perform their duties or there are specific allegations of corruption, they can be brought to justice just like any other citizen.
Moreover, the question of why the student leadership, on whose advice this interim government was formed, is raising complaints about the advisers’ safe exit, is also coming to the fore.
