Play store
Attorney General Ruhul Quddus Kajal has said that any allegations surrounding the recent appointment of law officers to represent the state in the Supreme Court must be substantiated, stressing that there is no objection to a proper investigation if specific claims are raised.
Speaking to media at his office in the Supreme Court premises on Sunday, Kajal said baseless accusations should not be used to undermine what he described as a fair and structured recruitment process.
“I am not the appointing authority; I am also an appointee. If allegations are made, the responsibility to prove them lies with those who raise them,” he said. “If the allegation is serious and specific, it should certainly be investigated, and legal steps can be taken if necessary. But unfounded claims should not question a sound process.”
Addressing concerns over the exclusion of many previously appointed law officers, Kajal noted that 337 law officers had been appointed during the interim government period. The current government may have deemed such a large number unnecessary, leading to a reduction and the non-renewal of some appointments.
He said the dissatisfaction expressed by those left out is understandable but suggested that recent allegations may stem from that frustration.
Responding to another question, Kajal said several experienced law officers have been retained in the new appointments. He explained that under the law, the President appoints law officers as needed.
To qualify as a Deputy Attorney General, a candidate must be eligible for appointment as a High Court Division judge, while an Assistant Attorney General must have at least five years of legal practice in the High Court Division.
“The government has certainly considered qualifications in appointing Deputy Attorney Generals,” he said, adding that around 80 percent of Assistant Attorney Generals were retained from previous appointments, alongside new recruits.
On whether performance evaluations were considered, Kajal said the government has access to relevant information on law officers’ competence, commitment, and professional conduct, which likely informed the appointment decisions.