0

[🇧🇩] Everything about our constitution

Press space to scroll through posts
G Bangladesh Defense
[🇧🇩] Everything about our constitution
55
2K
More threads by Saif


Proposal to curtail prime minister’s absolute power
Riadul Karim
Dhaka
Published: 25 Jan 2025, 14: 51

1737851511542.png

The constitution reforms commission headed by Professor Ali Riaz handed over their report containing reform recommendations to the chief advisor Professor Muhammad Yunus at the chief advisor's office on Wednesday. Courtesy: Chief advisor's press wing

The constitution reform commission has recommended curtailing the prime minister’s absolute authority to increase the president’s power. The active political parties including the BNP and other stakeholders are in agreement on the question of re-establishing a balance of power between the president and prime minister. However, the discussions on how to establish the balance have not started yet.

Relevant sources say the interim government wants to hold dialogues with the political parties in February over the recommendations placed by the reform commissions. The government will try to find a way through these discussions.

Establishing a balance of power is also a key aspect of the 31-point reform proposal of the BNP. However, they have not elaborated the process of achieving that balance. The constitution reform commission has made several specific proposals to lessen the power of the prime minister and to extend the president’s authority.

Constitution reform commission sources say the issues have been specified in their reform proposal in detail. Work is underway to integrate the reforms. Detailed reports of the recommendations will be published after that. The president will hold more power as compared to the existing constitution if the recommendations made by the reform commission are implemented. It will curtail the absolute power of the prime minister.

Under the current system, the presidents have to do everything in consultation with the prime minister (PM) except the appointment of the PM and the chief justice. The commission has proposed to bring a change in this area. They recommended giving the president the authority to recruit some other constitutional posts in compliance with the specific procedures. The president would not be required to consult the prime minister in these cases as per the proposals.

Relevant persons say the implementation of the recommendations proposed by the constitution reform commission would reduce the absolute authority of the prime minister apparently. It will enhance the power of the president. Nevertheless, a question remains as to how far the president can act independently going beyond interference of the prime minister given the political culture of the country.

The constitution reform commission published a summary of the recommendations that they have come up with. It reads that the commission recommends some specific duties for the president. The president will consult the prime minister on all matters except these specific activities and issues mentioned in the constitution.

President’s power to be extended

Sources say there have been proposals to keep appointments of some constitutional posts such as the chief justice, Appellate Division and High Court justices and Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of Bangladesh, under the jurisdiction of the president who will appoint people in these posts following specific procedures. There will be no need of consulting the PM in this regard. It will enhance the opportunities for the judiciary to be free of interference of the executive. Besides, there could be a proposal to give the president the authority in case of recruitment to other posts specified by laws. The president would not need to consult the PM in these cases either.

Apart from that, the commission recommended formation of a ‘national constitutional council’ comprising representatives from the three branches of the state - judiciary, legislative and executive.

This council will propose names to the president for the posts of chief election commissioner (CEC) and other election commissioners, attorney general, Public Service Commission (PSC) chairman and its members, Human Rights Commission chief and other commissioners and chiefs of the defence forces. The president will have the authority to appoint people in these posts without the consent of the prime minister. The respective reform commissions have some proposals over the formation of constitutional institutions like the Election Commission and Anti-Corruption Commission and recruitment in the judiciary.

Proposal to curtail PM’s authority to declare emergency

According to the existing constitution, the president can declare a state of emergency for a maximum of 120 days. However, it needs approval from the prime minister before the declaration. The constitution reform commission says in its proposals that the president will have the authority to call an emergency only as per the decision of the proposed constitutional council. In other words, the PM will not have absolute power in this case too.

In the existing parliamentary structure, the prime minister, parliamentary leaders and chief of the ruling party are the same person. It was the same during the terms of both the Awami League and the BNP. It ensures an undisputed control of a single person in the parliament, government and the ruling party. The commission has proposed that a person serving as the prime minister will not be allowed to be the parliamentary leader or the chief of a political party at the same time.

Under the current constitution, the president has to do everything, except the appointment of the PM and chief justice, in consultation with the prime minister. That means it is the PM who actually holds an all-out authority in reality. There should be an arrangement which ensures that the prime minister does not hold absolute power. Making such proposals is a positive approach. MA Matin, Former justice

Speaking to Prothom Alo, constitution reform commission chief professor Ali Reaz said one of the main goals of their reform proposal is to bring a balance in the power between individuals (constitutional post holders) and institutions. The duties of the president have been elaborated in their recommendations.

Relevant persons say the implementation of the recommendations proposed by the constitution reform commission would reduce the absolute authority of the prime minister apparently. It will enhance the power of the president. Nevertheless, a question remains as to how far the president can act independently going beyond interference of the prime minister given the political culture of the country.

In the existing system, the president is elected as a person nominated by the ruling party. But, the process of presidential election as proposed by the commission makes it uncertain that the presidential candidate nominated by the ruling party will be elected.

The reform commission proposes that the president will be elected by the majority vote of the electoral college. Each member from both houses of the parliament, each district and city corporation coordination council will cast one vote each to elect the president. It makes it uncertain that a presidential candidate nominated by the party which has majority in both houses of the parliament will eventually get elected. The votes from the district and city corporation coordination councils will play a key role in this case.

Meanwhile, there has been a recommendation to amend the Article 70 of the constitution which will enable the lawmakers to veto against the party except issues related to financial bills. As a consequence, there will be scopes for a presidential candidate outside the ruling party to be elected. There is no such opportunity in the existing constitution.

Retired justice MA Matin told Prothom Alo, “Under the current constitution, the president has to do everything, except the appointment of the PM and chief justice, in consultation with the prime minister. That means it is the PM who actually holds all authority in reality. There should be an arrangement which ensures that the prime minister does not hold an all-out power. Making such proposals is a positive approach.”

Wait for dialogue

Of the six reform commissions formed by the interim government initially, the constitution, electoral, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and police reform commissions submitted their reports to chief adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus on 15 January. These commissions are now working to prepare a unified set of recommendations. The reform commissions on public administration and the judiciary are scheduled to submit their reports by 31 January.

Different political parties, including the BNP, Ganatantra Mancha, Jamaat-e-Islami and the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) have taken the submission of the reform commission report positively. However, the parties refrained from issuing any official statement in this regard as the commissions have not published the complete reports.

BNP secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and other key political leaders of the country say they are reviewing the summary of the reports published by the reform commission within their parties.

The interim government said chief adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus, along with the chiefs of the reform commissions will hold dialogue with the political parties in February. They will endeavour to reach consensus through discussions over the recommendations made by the reform commissions. BNP and other parties say they are waiting for that.

*This report appeared on the print and online versions of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten in English by Ashish Basu​
 

Can pluralism replace secularism in Bangladesh?

1738709597720.png

VISUAL: ANWAR SOHEL

The proposal to replace secularism with pluralism in Bangladesh's constitution has sparked significant debate, touching on issues of governance, social harmony, and the state's commitment to equality. While pluralism as a concept offers a promising framework for fostering inclusivity and mutual respect in a diverse society, the practical implications of this shift warrant careful scrutiny. Without clear and enforceable measures, such a transition could jeopardise the country's religious harmony and undermine the principles of equality that have long been embedded in its constitutional framework.

Pluralism, by definition, emphasises the recognition and celebration of diversity, promoting coexistence among different religious, cultural and ethnic communities. In a country like Bangladesh, where multiple religions and cultures coexist, the adoption of pluralism could theoretically enhance social cohesion and inclusivity. It acknowledges the diversity of the nation and seeks to create a society where all groups feel respected and represented. Unlike secularism, which often connotes a strict separation of religion and state functions, pluralism actively embraces the presence of diverse beliefs and traditions within the public sphere. This could pave the way for policies and practices that reflect the multicultural realities of Bangladesh, strengthening the social fabric and fostering a sense of belonging among all citizens.

However, this vision of pluralism faces significant challenges in the context of Bangladesh. One issue is the constitutional recognition of Islam as the state religion. While this provision reflects the demographic reality of Bangladesh, where the majority of the population identifies as Muslim, it creates an inherent contradiction with the principles of pluralism. Pluralism requires equal respect and treatment for all religions, yet the designation of a state religion can be perceived as privileging one faith over others. This tension risks alienating religious minorities and undermining the very inclusivity that pluralism seeks to promote.

Bangladesh's historical context further complicates the matter. The principle of secularism was enshrined in the country's constitution in the aftermath of the Liberation War, reflecting a commitment to religious equality and freedom. This ethos was seen as a rejection of the communalism that had plagued the region during the Partition. Over the years, secularism has been regarded by many as a cornerstone of Bangladesh's national identity, symbolising the aspiration to rise above religious divisions and ensure equal rights for all citizens. Replacing secularism with pluralism could therefore be perceived as a departure from this foundational principle, potentially alienating segments of society who view secularism as integral to the nation's identity.

Another significant challenge lies in the risk of misinterpreting or selectively implementing pluralism. Without clear constitutional safeguards and robust enforcement mechanisms, pluralism could become a vague idea rather than a practical reality. Ambiguity might allow the majority group to dominate the narrative, marginalising minorities under the guise of promoting diversity. For instance, policies or practices that ostensibly celebrate cultural diversity could end up favouring the majority religion or culture, perpetuating existing inequalities. Such outcomes would not only undermine the principles of pluralism, but also exacerbate social tensions and distrust among different communities.

Education and awareness are crucial to addressing these challenges. Schools and educational institutions should play a central role in promoting pluralistic values, challenging prejudices, and fostering empathy among students from an early age. By emphasising the importance of coexistence and mutual respect, education can lay the foundation for a more inclusive society. However, achieving this goal will require significant reforms in the education system, including the development of curricula that reflect the country's diversity and promote critical thinking about issues of identity and equality.

A strong legal framework is also essential for ensuring that pluralism translates into tangible protection for all citizens. Anti-discrimination laws must be strengthened to address inequalities and prevent hate speech, violence or other forms of bias based on religion, ethnicity or culture. These laws must be complemented by mechanisms for their effective enforcement, including independent institutions to investigate and address grievances. Moreover, the judiciary and law enforcement agencies must be trained to uphold these principles impartially, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their background, can access justice and feel protected by the state.

Equitable representation is another critical aspect of pluralism. To truly reflect the diversity of Bangladesh, minorities must be adequately represented in political institutions, public services, and decision-making processes. This includes not only ensuring their presence but also creating an environment where their voices are heard and their concerns are addressed. Such representation can help bridge divides, foster trust, and promote policies that benefit all communities. However, achieving this requires a sustained commitment to affirmative action and other measures that address structural inequalities.

The success of pluralism also hinges on the protection of religious freedom, which entails not only the right to practise and propagate one's religion but also the freedom to celebrate cultural traditions and beliefs without fear of discrimination or persecution. Bangladesh's commitment to international human rights standards provides a framework for upholding these principles, but their implementation requires political will and societal support. Public awareness campaigns, community dialogues, and other initiatives can help build consensus around the importance of religious freedom and its role in fostering a harmonious society.
Despite its potential benefits, replacing secularism with pluralism poses significant risks if not accompanied by clear and enforceable measures. Having a state religion, in particular, presents a paradox. Without addressing this issue, the transition risks becoming a symbolic gesture, rather than a transformative change.

Md Abbas is a journalist at The Daily Star.​
 

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS: Fundamental rights, freedom highlighted
Staff Correspondent 09 February, 2025, 01:00


1739058569255.png


The constitution reform commission has proposed several changes in the existing constitution, including widening citizens’ legal protection for life and overhauling judicial and governance structures.

The commission, in its full report published on Saturday afternoon, recommended replacing ‘equal rights under the law’ with ‘equal protection and benefits under the law’.

The commission also suggested revising article 145A, stating that the government would require approval from the National Assembly and the Senate for any treaty, agreement, or document related to defence and strategic partnerships, borders, national security, natural resources, energy, and food security.

It also proposed to make the Election Commission, Human Rights Commission, Public Service Commission, Local Government Commission, and Anti-Corruption Commission constitutional bodies.

Formed on October 7, 2024, the commission handed over the full report with recommendations to chief adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus on January 15. A summary of the report was made public then.

According to the full report, a proposal was made to include separate articles on the protection of the right to life and child rights. Additionally, there were proposals for provisions against slavery, trafficking, sexual trafficking, and punishment for torture, cruelty and disgrace.

A separate chapter was proposed for constitutional protection against extrajudicial killings and forced abductions. The commission recommended that the constitution must explicitly state provisions for the protection of physical integrity and the safeguarding of body parts.

The recommendations also include provisions for free and compulsory education up to a certain level, the inclusion of higher education and specially abled children, and guidelines to prevent the government from monopolising access to information and communication systems.

The commission also recommended abolishing several articles, including 13, 15, 17, 18, 18A, 19, 20, 23, 23A, 24, and 25, which cover principles of ownership, basic necessities, free and compulsory education, public health and morality, environmental and biodiversity protection, equality of opportunity, work as a right and duty, national culture, tribal and ethnic communities, and national monuments.

These articles were proposed to be included in the fundamental rights and freedoms part of the constitution.

The commission also recommended substituting ‘Janaganatantri Bangladesh’ for ‘Ganaprajatantri Bangladesh’ as the constitutional name of the state and replacing the term ‘projatantra’ with ‘nagariktantra’ in the Bangla text of the constitution.

According to the report, the commission suggested the abolition of secularism and socialism, terming those irrelevant in the present context of Bangladesh.

The establishment of a bicameral legislature was proposed, consisting of a 400-member National Assembly, with 10 per cent of seats reserved for the youths, and a 100-member Senate elected through a proportional representation system, with five additional members appointed by the president.

As per the proposals, any amendment to the constitution would require the approval of two-thirds of the members from both the National Assembly and the Senate, followed by a referendum.

The commission also recommended the establishment of a National Constitution Council.

It proposed that the president be elected by an electoral college comprising 505 votes from the National Assembly and the Senate, 64 votes from district coordination councils, and one vote from each city corporation coordination council.

The commission suggested that any individual would not be able to hold the office of the president or the prime minister for more than two terms.

To promote judicial decentralisation, it recommended the establishment of permanent benches with equal authority to the High Court in every division.

It also proposed the formation of an independent judicial appointment commission and a permanent attorney service, and renaming lower courts as local courts.​
 

Constitutional Reform Commission
86pc people seek national elections under non-party govt

Staff Correspondent
Dhaka
Updated: 12 Feb 2025, 10: 28

1739345014190.png


As many as 86 per cent of people in the country think parliamentary elections should be held under a non-party government while a very few of them support a proportional electoral system. Most of the people want reserved seats from women in parliament with a direct voting system.

This was found in a survey, the National Public Opinion Survey on Constitutional Reform-2024, conducted by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) on behalf of the Constitutional Reform Commission.

The survey results were published along with the Commission report.

The BBS interviewed people aged between 18 and 75 at households in 64 districts in the country between 5 and 10 December 2024 for the survey.

The commission said data was collected from 45,925 households through sampling and a respondent was selected among family members aged 18 to 75 through the Kish Grid method.

Responses were collected from the selected individuals through specific questionnaires, and thus, 45,925 people participated in the survey.

The commission further said they also collected opinions of various stakeholders, but they decided to conduct the survey to reflect the opinions of people from all strata.

Regarding the election-time government, 86 per cent of respondents said elections should be conducted under the non-party government while six per cent opined for the partisan government, a little over 6 per cent said they are not aware of it and 2 per cent of the respondent declined answering.

All the elections that were held under a caretaker government were credible since democracy was restored in Bangladesh in 1991. But the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court declared the 13th amendment of constitution on caretaker government system void in 2011.

The Awami League government then amended the constitution and cancelled the caretaker government system.

Three national elections were held under the Awami League governments in 2014, 2018 and 2024 and those were one-sided, rigged and farce.

The July mass-uprising ousted the Awami League government on 5 August, followed by the formation of the interim government on 8 August.

The High Court on 18 December cancelled two articles of the 15th amendment of the constitution on abolishing the caretaker government system, saying that those articles contradict the constitution.

Talks are making a round at the country’s political domain on the inclusion of articles on elections under neutral governments in future. The constitution reform commission also recommended including an interim government system in the constitution.

Prime minister for 2 terms

Regarding the check and balance on the power of the president and prime minister, 37 per cent of respondents opined handing power to the president while 45 per cent said the prime minister should exercise it.

As many as 64 per cent of respondents supported a maximum two terms for prime minister, 10 per cent opposed it and 15 per cent thought there is no need to fix the term for prime minister.

Some 49 per cent of respondents think an individual should not hold the positions of the prime minister and the head of the ruling party simultaneously while 37 per cent opined a person can hold both positions at the same time.​
 

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM COMMISSION: Contradictions in justifying the removal of secularism
Golam Rasul 17 February, 2025, 23:14

THE interim government formed a 7-member Constitutional Reform Commission on October 7, 2024, led by Professor Ali Riaz, to review and evaluate the existing constitution of Bangladesh and to recommend necessary amendments. This commission submitted its recommendations to the chief adviser, professor Muhammad Yunus, on January 15, 2025. The full report of the recommendations made by the Constitutional Reform Commission was made public on February 8, 2025. Upon reviewing this report, it was observed that the Commission has recommended extensive and fundamental changes to the existing constitution, including its preamble and basic principles. Notably, the Commission has suggested removing secularism from the constitution while simultaneously proposing to retain Islam as the state religion.

Although these recommendations currently stand only as proposals, they will be finalised based on discussions with political parties and national consensus. Nevertheless, these recommendations will serve as the main foundation for dialogue and in building consensus. Therefore, it is necessary to review and analyse these recommendations. I will limit my discussion on the recommendation to remove secularism.

Secularism and its relevance

SECULARISM means that the state does not give special status to any religion, and state laws and policies are not based on religious principles. Secularism is intrinsically linked to the spirit of Bangladesh’s Liberation War and independence struggle. The Constitution of Bangladesh in 1972 included secularism as one of its fundamental principles. However, during military rule in 1977, secularism was removed and replaced with ‘absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah.’ In 1988, Islam was recognised as the state religion. Later, in 2011, the principle of secularism was reinstated in the constitution, although Islam remained the state religion.

The State of Pakistan was created based on the two-nation theory — a separate state for the Muslim population. The communal nature of the Pakistani state and its discriminatory behaviour towards religious minorities angered the majority population of East Pakistan. During the 1971 Liberation War, people of all religions, castes, and ethnicities fought together against the Pakistani occupation forces with the aim of establishing a non-communal and inclusive state and society. Therefore, removing secularism means abandoning the spirit of the Liberation War. Furthermore, one of the state’s primary responsibilities is to protect the rights of religious minorities. Secularism in the constitution acts as a legal safeguard for religious minorities. Many countries’ constitutions provide legal protection for religious minorities; even our neighbouring countries, India and Nepal, have such legal protections in their constitutions. Removing secularism would destroy the fundamental structure of the constitution.

Pre-constitutional concept of secularism

THE weak argument for removing secularism is that there was no mention of secularism in any pre-constitutional documents, such as the 1970 Legal Framework Order, the 1970 election manifesto of the Awami League, or the draft constitution of Pakistan proposed by the Awami League in 1971. Any mass uprising or revolution is a dynamic process through which people’s thoughts, consciousness, and aspirations evolve. A bloody revolution like the Liberation War brought people of all religions and castes together and fostered their consciousness, as clearly stated in professor Rehman Sobhan’s speech. According to professor Sobhan, after the 1969 mass uprising, the demands for regional autonomy, democracy, social justice, and secularism in East Pakistan were united in a broader movement. This statement by professor Sobhan is supported by professor Ali Riaz’s PhD research. In his research book published in 1993 by the University of Hawaii, professor Riaz mentions that, consistent with the spirit of the independence struggle, the Awami League proclaimed the high ideals of nationalism, socialism, democracy, and secularism as fundamental principles in the constitution.

As a result, secularism became an integral part of the spirit of the Liberation War. Professor Asif Nazrul mentions in several of his speeches that there were extensive discussions on secularism in the Constituent Assembly, and the most vigorous arguments in favour of secularism were made by Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed, a leader of the right-wing faction of the Awami League.

Pre-independence concept of secularism

IN FACT, right after the creation of the State of Pakistan, in 1950, Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani demanded secularism. During the movement of 1950, he raised two demands: one was the right of self-determination for the Bengali nation, and the other was secularism — keeping the state separate from religion. This was reflected in the removal of the word “Muslim” from the Awami Muslim League’s name in 1955. The concept of secularism existed in Bangladesh even before the creation of Pakistan. Sher-e-Bangla A K Fazlul Huq said at the All India Muslim League Conference in 1918 that there was no difference in the exploitation and oppression by Hindu landlords and Muslim landlords, Hindu moneylenders, and Muslim moneylenders. All poor farmers, regardless of being Hindu or Muslim, were similarly victims of exploitation and oppression. Therefore, the issue of exploitation of Muslim farmers was not communal; at its root were the zamindari (landlord) and mahajani (moneylender) systems. Hence, both Hindu and Muslim communities should reject communalism and work towards abolishing the zamindari and mahajani systems.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, realised the importance of secularism immediately after the creation of Pakistan. In the first session of the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, he firmly stated that Pakistan would be a state where every citizen, irrespective of religion or caste, would enjoy equal rights and freedom. He clearly declared, ‘You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste — it is no concern of the State.’ State decisions would be made on political grounds, not religious ones. However, after Jinnah’s death, the then leaders of Pakistan deviated from his ideals and integrated religion intstatete governance.

Pluralism and secularism

ANOTHER argument for removing secularism as a fundamental principle of the state is that ‘secularism is not consistent with the concept of a pluralistic society in Bangladesh and is essentially anti-democratic’. Pluralism is a modern concept that is relatively new to the culture and politics of Bangladesh, and its essence is still not understood by many. However, secularism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Secularism ensures the freedom for followers of all religions to practice their respective faiths freely, which in turn supports the coexistence of all religious believers and aids pluralism. In many countries, such as Canada, France, and the United States, secularism and democracy coexist. Furthermore, secularism is a fundamental human right, while pluralism is an ideal, a desired goal. We certainly aspire to achieve pluralism, but not at the cost of fundamental human rights like religious freedom.

Inherent contradictions in justifying the removal of secularism

ONE of the major self-contradictions in this report is that it recommends removing secularism on one hand, while on the other hand, it suggests retaining the current constitutional provision of the state religion, i.e., Islam. It also recommends including ‘Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim / In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful’ in the preamble of the constitution. They propose removing secularism under the guise of pluralism while simultaneously recommending a state religion, which contradicts the Commission’s stated principles of pluralism and equality and goes against democratic values. Notably, professor Riaz, in his book on the political history of Bangladesh, described the inclusion of ‘Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim’ in the constitution through the Fifth Amendment in 1977 as ‘‘Islamisation of the constitution and the State’ and described it as a severe blow to secular politics in Bangladesh and a pathway for the rise of religious forces in politics.

Professor Riaz was a staunch critic of the Eighth Amendment to the constitution during H M Ershad’s regime, which declared Islam as the state religion. Naturally, the question arises as to why there is such self-contradiction in the Reform Commission’s recommendations on secularism. From the above discussion, it is clear that the arguments for removing secularism from the constitution are extremely weak, self-contradictory, and contrary to the spirit of the anti-discrimination student movement and the July 2024 mass uprising. Just like the Liberation War, the July 2024 mass uprising also saw people of various religions and beliefs unite against the autocratic government with the goal of establishing a non-discriminatory state. The introduction of Islam as the state religion has profoundly affected the character of Bangladesh’s constitution and created a division between Muslim and non-Muslim citizens in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is a multi-religious and multi-cultural country, where, besides Muslims, the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and indigenous communities reside. The recommendation to remove secularism from the constitution could increase divisions among political parties, weakening national unity and negatively affecting social harmony.

Golam Rosul is a professor and the chairperson of the Department of Economics at the International University of Business Agriculture and Technology.​
 

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: Political, civic groups least concerned about language
Sadiqur Rahman 19 February, 2025, 23:48

Among the 28 political parties and alliances that submitted their respective proposals to the constitution reform commission, only two proposed that Bangla should remain as the state language and other mother tongues should be given constitutional recognition.

Civic and professional groups also showed minimal concern over language, as only eight out of 55 recommended that the mother tongues of all ethnic communities be recognised alongside Bangla as the state language.

However, most of the responding parties and groups recommended to the constitution reform commission that ‘Bangalee and ‘Bangalee nationalism’ should be replaced with ‘Bangladeshi’ and “Bangladeshi nationalism” in Articles 6 and 9 of the existing constitution respectively.

The constitution reform commission, along with three other reform commissions on police, electoral matters and the Anti-Corruption Commission, submitted their reports to interim government chief adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus on 15 January.

The full reports of the commissions were made public on February 8.

The constitution reform commission recommends that the state language be Bangla and that the constitution recognises as mother tongues all the native languages spoken by its citizens as mother tongues.

‘There is a bad sore in the constitution regarding the recognition of mother tongues and national identity. We have considered this matter with great importance,’ said Firoz Ahmed, a member of the constitution reform commission.

The Article 3 of the existing constitution states that Bangla is the state language and the Article 23 states that the state shall adopt measures to conserve the cultural traditions and heritage of the people and foster and improve the national language, literature and arts.

According to the third part of the constitution reform commission’s full report, at least 28 political parties and alliances submitted their respective suggestions with only Jamaat-e-Islami and the United Peoples Democratic Front providing specific suggestions on language.

Jamaat-e-Islami recommended Bangla as the state language and advocated for the protection of other languages within the state’s boundaries.

Meanwhile, the UPDF recommended that Bangla be the language of the republic. It also proposed that the state, alongside Bangla, equally supports the preservation and development of the languages of the ethnic communities.

Among the 55 civic and professional groups providing suggestions on constitutional reforms, only eight organisations, including the Bangladesh Adivasi Forum, the CHT Working Group for National Reform, the Uttarbanga Adivasi Forum, the Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples’ Network, Naripokkho, and the Bangladesh Law Alliance, submitted suggestions on language issues.

These organisations advocated for the recognition of the mother tongues of all ethnic communities.

Most political parties and civil society organisations, however, recommended abolishing Articles 6 and 9 of the existing constitution which broadly recognise the Bangla language as a key factor in determining the national identity.

Article 6(2) of the existing constitution states that the people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangalees as a nation and that the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshis.

Moreover, the Article 9 states that Bangalee nationalism shall be based on the unity and solidarity of the Bangalee nation which, deriving its identity from its language and culture, attained sovereign and independent Bangladesh through a united and determined struggle in the War of Independence.​
 

Amendments must not serve any group
Says Dr Kamal about constitution

1740698386707.png


Eminent jurist Dr Kamal Hossain yesterday said that steps must be taken to ensure that the constitution cannot be manipulated to benefit any particular person or group.

"We must ensure that any change or amendment to the constitution properly reflects the aspirations of the people of the country. It must also be ensured that the constitution is not manipulated for the benefit of any individual or group."

"No initiative to amend the constitution should be driven by narrow interests. Any amendment should be pursued through extensive consultation and national consensus. Otherwise, these changes will fail to bring about national welfare," he said.

Kamal Hossain, one of the framers of Bangladesh's constitution, was speaking as the chief guest at a discussion titled The 1972 Constitution and Proposed Reforms, organised by the Bangladesh Gonotantrik Ainjibi Samity at the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) auditorium yesterday afternoon.

Bangladesh's constitution reflects the nation's struggle, he said.

"It is not merely a legal document but a reflection of our dreams, aspirations, and struggles. Discussions on reviewing and reforming the constitution as per the needs of the time are not new, but the question remains -- how much these changes will reflect the will of the people?"

He said if the amendments truly reflect the people's aspirations, this would be the appropriate way to move forward.

"We have witnessed the events of 2024. In particular, the experience of August 5 reminded us that people's aspirations can never be ignored. The student movement is part of our historical continuity, where a generation has taken to the streets for its just demands -- just as we saw in 1952, 1969, and 1971. This movement is not limited to a specific time frame; it is an integral part of our national consciousness."

He added, "The Liberation War of 1971 gave us the dream of an exploitation-free, just, and democratic state. The 1972 constitution was promulgated to realise that dream."

The event, presided over by Senior Advocate Subrata Chowdhury, president of Bangladesh Gonotantrik Ainjibi Samity, was also addressed by former state minister for Information Prof Abu Sayeed, Bangla Academy President Prof Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque, Bangladesh Mahila Parishad President Fouzia Moslem, senior journalist Sohrab Hasan, and Bangladesh Gonotantrik Ainjibi Samity General Secretary Senior Advocate Zahidul Bari, among others.​
 

Major parties oppose MPs’ freedom to vote against their own party in parliament

BNP has proposed this position after carefully reviewing the region’s long-standing political culture and history. The party believes that ensuring the government’s stability is crucial.

Riadul Karim
Dhaka
Updated: 02 Apr 2025, 15: 20

1743641275146.png


The major political parties do not want to give members of parliament (MPs) the freedom to vote against their own party in a no-confidence motion.

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, and the National Citizen Party (NCP) do not fully agree with the recommendation of the Constitutional Reform Commission, which proposes that members of the lower house of parliament should have full authority to vote against their party on any issue except the finance bill.

All three parties insist that MPs should not have freedom in confidence votes, just as with the finance bill. In such cases, MPs must strictly follow their party’s position.

According to Article 70 of the existing constitution, MPs cannot vote against their own party. The article states that if an MP elected as a party candidate resigns from that party or votes against it in parliament, their seat will be vacated.

Due to this provision, no law or proposal can pass in parliament without the government’s approval. It also prevents the possibility of a no-confidence motion being brought against the Prime Minister or any other official.

The debate over Article 70 has been ongoing for decades. It began when the constitution was first drafted in 1972. Opponents of the article argue that it limits the freedom of MPs and concentrates excessive power in the hands of the Prime Minister.

On the other hand, those in favour of keeping it claim that removing this provision would destabilise the government, potentially causing parliament to collapse within days.

They also argue that its removal could lead to illegal financial transactions aimed at buying votes and influencing MPs to overthrow governments.

The Constitutional Reform Commission, led by Professor Ali Riaz, has proposed changes to this article. It has recommended introducing a bicameral legislature and allowing MPs in the lower house to vote against their party’s stance on any issue except finance bills.

The country’s political culture has not yet matured to a level where MPs can be granted full freedom in confidence votes. If such freedom is allowed, no government will last more than one or two months, leading to instability.

The National Consensus Commission has sought the views of political parties on 166 key recommendations made by five reform commissions, including this one. Several parties, including BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, and NCP, have already expressed their opinions.

The National Consensus Commission is set to hold separate discussions with the three parties soon.

Validity of the commission’s recommendations

In its report, the Constitutional Reform Commission explained the rationale behind expanding MPs’ voting rights. It stated that Article 70 compels MPs to accept party decisions without asking any question. Although they are allowed to express their opinions within party meetings, they lack the freedom to vote against their party’s proposals. As a result, the Constitution enforces strict party loyalty at the cost of MPs’ ability to represent their constituencies effectively.

The Commission further argued that while Article 70 was originally intended to prevent floor-crossing, its impact has gone far beyond that purpose.

The provision, it noted, contradicts democratic principles. While designed to ensure stability, it has instead weakened political deliberation and party accountability. The restriction limits MPs’ ability to advocate for their constituencies and exercise their independent judgment.

Different Positions of Parties

According to relevant sources, in its written opinion submitted to the National Consensus Commission regarding the power of MPs to vote against their party, BNP stated that voting against the party should not be allowed in matters involving confidence votes, finance bills, constitutional amendment bills, and national security issues. However, on other issues, MPs should be free to express their opinions.

Explaining the reasoning behind restricting freedom in confidence votes, BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed told Prothom Alo that before the creation of Bangladesh, governments in the subcontinent changed almost daily after 1954.

BNP has proposed this position after carefully reviewing the region’s long-standing political culture and history. The party believes that ensuring the government’s stability is crucial.

According to them, the country’s political culture has not yet matured to a level where MPs can be granted full freedom in confidence votes. If such freedom is allowed, no government will last more than one or two months, leading to instability.

When the Constitutional Reform Commission sought opinions from political parties, Jamaat-e-Islami stated in its proposal that the restriction on floor crossing should not be lifted as yet.

They argued that Article 70 was originally introduced to stabilise the parliamentary system and should remain in place for at least two more terms.

Jamaat-e-Islami reiterated this stance in its opinion submitted to the National Consensus Commission. The party’s Secretary General, Mia Golam Parwar, told Prothom Alo that their submission explained the importance of maintaining restrictions in certain cases, including finance bills and confidence votes.

He stated that a vote of confidence is a matter of party policy, and an MP represents their party in parliament. Therefore, MPs must align with their party’s policy. If MPs do not follow the party’s stance in a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister or the President, it could lead to a breakdown in party discipline.

When the Constitutional Reform Commission sought opinions from political parties, Jamaat-e-Islami stated in its proposal that the restriction on floor crossing should not be lifted as yet.
The NCP, which led the July uprising, has also expressed the opinion that restrictions should remain on no-confidence votes, similar to finance bills.

NCP Joint Convener and Reform Coordination Committee Coordinator Sarwar Tusher told Prothom Alo that without such provisions, there is a risk of MPs being bought and sold. For the stability of parliament and the government, the party advocates for allowing MPs to freely express their opinions on all issues except money bills and confidence votes.

How Article 70 was added

The origins of Article 70 of the Constitution, added in 1972, are described in the book Bipula Prithibi by the late Professor Anisuzzaman. Professor Anisuzzaman, who was responsible for translating the 1972 Constitution into Bengali, wrote:

“Bangabandhu summoned Kamal twice to advise him on the constitution - I was also with him.… He said that during the Pakistan period, governments became unstable mainly because members of the council frequently changed parties or voted against their own party, violating party discipline. This needed to be stopped. A rule should be established stating that if an elected member disagrees with a party decision or votes against the party, they must resign, or their parliamentary membership should be forfeited. However, there should also be a provision ensuring that in such cases, they are not disqualified from contesting by-elections or future elections. This intention was reflected in Article 70 of the Constitution.”

Despite this, Article 70 was debated within the Constituent Assembly itself. Anisuzzaman noted in his book that National Assembly members AKM Mosharraf Hossain Akand, Asaduzzaman Khan, Abdul Muntakim Chowdhury, and Hafez Habibur Rahman opposed the article.

He wrote, “Hafez Habibur Rahman objected to Article 70 in the strongest terms. In his view, it would lead to party dictatorship and excessive control by party leaders.”

* The report, originally published in the Bangla edition of Prothom Alo, has been rewritten in English by Farjana Liakat​
 

A ‘new constitution’ and my discontents

1744336913271.png

FILE VISUAL: ANWAR SOHEL

Since the fall of the Awami League government, we have been debating prospects of transitioning into a new republic with a new constitution. With the inception of the Jatiyo Nagorik Party (JNP), the debates and discussions are now taking a definite shape. We now have several concrete arguments with time—and alongside, the discontents too.

One argument is that the 1972 constitution-making episode was elitist and dominated by one party. It is quite a fair criticism that resonates with many feminist, Marxist scholars about virtually any constitution of the world. However, it is not clear whether any constitution-making episode can stand blameless on this count.

Studies on constitutionalism have always been saturated with discussions on how dominant political parties' ideologies influence constitution building—be it a one-party, authoritarian, or a liberal-democratic state. In appraising the one-party dominance over the 1972 constitution-making episode, we must consider the historical contingencies too, characterised by the Liberation War, its antecedents and political aftermath, the need for post-war reconstruction and solidification of a constitutional identity. Some say that the constituent assembly members were elected under the Legal Framework Order (LFO) 1970 of the erstwhile Pakistan, and hence, the constitution they drafted needs to be replaced with a new one. However, it must be noted that following the constitutional subversion facilitated by Ayub Khan, the LFO came as a remarkable political win, posing one concrete opportunity for democratic transition. Therefore, the significance of the moment within which the LFO came into being cannot be overstated.

Pertinently, the Proclamation of Independence (which we all agree to be our first constitution) as adopted on April 10, 1971 (with retrospective effect from the March 26, 1971), the representatives elected in the 1970 elections constituted themselves into a "Constituent Assembly" for drafting a constitution for an independent Bangladesh. Following the war, the Provisional Constitution of Bangladesh Order of 1972 further defined the same elected representatives as the "Constituent Assembly" who, in fact, later drafted and adopted the existing constitution of Bangladesh. While the JNP vows to protect the ideals of shammo, manobik morjada, and shamajik shubichar (that were categorically enshrined in the Proclamation of Independence), the process of adopting a new constitution as laid down in the same document cannot be ignored. If we adopt historiographical lenses, then the immense political significance of 1970 elections and its aftermath can also not be downplayed as that would undermine both the wartime and post-war politico-constitutional consensus. Against this backdrop, the dominance of the Awami League among the elected representatives in the 1970 elections must be seen as rather a historical fact, which cannot be accounted for through myopic presentist lenses.

In any case, constitution-making is invariably an "elitist" chore, as scholars rightly call it "equitable elite bargaining." Whoever makes the constitution at a given point of time are always, invariably, the political elites, impersonating "we, the people" at times through "elections", through "eliciting opinions from the people" or at other times, through "referenda". Now that the JNP is asking for a new constitution, and as the idea of a new constitution seemingly stems from their political vision for a "second republic", won't claims about their dominance, at least in terms of steering the process, be legitimate too?

To simplify matters, some propose having a parliament act as a constituent assembly (put in place through simultaneous elections). Such an arrangement will be all the more "exclusive" and "elitist," potentially rendering the parliament cum constituent assembly authoritarian as virtually subservient-to-none. Similar experience in Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro provides a cautionary tale in this regard. Alternatively, such an arrangement can usher in major political instability and long-term disunity too, particularly amid a rapidly shifting political landscape like ours.

Interestingly, I may say, based on questionable lack of women's representation and lack of an explicit feminist methodological approach to drafting constitutions, that virtually all constitutions are unfairly dominated by men (e.g., one "sex") and their exclusionary ideologies. This argument will not be tenable because of the systemic inequalities that exist and because women as a group do not have the political capital as such. Indeed, for those who are left out of the process, a constitution-making episode will always look "exclusionary," "elitist," and dominated by "others," and because constitutions are only imperfect ideological settlements that only a sustainable culture of democracy can carry forward.

Another key argument is that the existing constitution is "fascistic." Authoritarianism or fascism is an indefensible political vision, a conscious governance choice, and an inanimate constitution cannot be blamed for that unless it explicitly provides for one-party rule or authoritarianism. In many authoritarian or paternalist countries, apparently good reading constitutions are kept simply as tools of window dressing. The democratic subversion in the post-independence Bangladesh was facilitated by a series of constitutional amendments, which irreparably whittled down constitutional checks and balances (e.g. fourth constitutional amendment), subverted the constitutional mandate of democratic rule (e.g. fifth and seventh constitutional amendments), and monopolised a static constitutional narrative and thereby contributed to democratic backsliding (e.g., fifteenth constitutional amendment). But these were but amendments—not the constitution itself. The Awami League government, time and again, co-opted constitution-based rhetorics while remaining authoritarian, but that is a classic example of abusing the constitution, not of "using" one. Instances of abusing the constitution were prominent during other military and non-military regimes too. Indeed, blaming the constitution for explaining the political follies and calling for its replacement without addressing its political understructure is quite enervated and does not align with the vigour and acumen that our youth shows otherwise.

While arguing for a new republic, the JNP often refers to France, which I do not think offers a useful, appropriable example for our context. A cardinal yet uncomplicated rule of adopting constitutional experiences is that we cannot transplant an idea without accounting for the overarching politico-cultural contexts. Indeed, transplanting an 1852 idea into a 2025 postcolonial independent country sounds perversely counterintuitive as there are literally no parallels that we can draw to begin a sensical comparison (other than the fact that France opted for a second republic).

Pertinently, contemporary instances only show how new constitution-making episodes can potentially bring in disunity, violence, and instabilities. We do have the inspiring instance of South Africa, which chose to undo its constitutional order rooted in apartheid, racialised political and governance structure, and explicit electoral discrimination against the non-Whites. What do we seek to undo? Persistent culture of rights violations, authoritarian governance, and democratic deficit? But the existing constitution permits/endorses none of these. Certainly, state powers could be better organised and less concentrated in the existing constitution, but that does not make the entire constitution expendable and does not necessitate making an entirely new one. Finally, any new constitution will not be entirely "new" as such unless we opt for something other than a liberal democratic constitutional order. In fact, some scholars suggest that the very idea of replacing an old constitution with a new one is a "myth" and is only possible in theory. In practice, there will always be constitutional/legal continuity. A so-called new constitution will perhaps only arrange things in a different order, expand on or restrict certain rights, and may dilute some commitments. What troubles me is the idea of going over the entire process all over again, of deepening and entrenching divisions, producing new binaries, reinforcing the existing ones, and so on. And the people who lie in the fringes and the margins will not be able to withstand that.

Psymhe Wadud teaches law at the University of Dhaka and is in charge of Law & Our Rights at The Daily Star.​
 

Advisor Asif Nazrul says it may take 2-3 years to draft a new constitution
bdnews24.com
Published :
May 11, 2025 20:21
Updated :
May 11, 2025 21:49

1747007664989.png

Law Advisor Asif Nazrul

Law Advisor Asif Nazrul has said it may take “two to three years” to draft a new constitution, cautioning against the assumption that the July Charter could be adopted swiftly or without significant debate.

Speaking at an event in Dhaka on Sunday, he also indicated that the current parliament will need to continue amending the 1972 Constitution in the interim.

Addressing concerns about what would happen if the new constitution is not completed on time, he said: “If they can’t do it within 90 days, will the existing constitution continue? This is where I object. In our neighbouring countries, we’ve seen it take eight or nine years for a constituent assembly to finalise a new constitution through parliamentary amendments.”

Asif estimated that it could take two to three years to finalise the new constitution. He added that the current parliament will have to make amendments to the 1972 Constitution until a new one is adopted.

He made these remarks on Sunday at an event hosted at the International Mother Language Institute in Dhaka. The discussion was organised by the Citizens' Coalition on the group’s seven-point proposal for constitutional reform.

During his speech, Asif pointed to precedents in Bangladesh’s political history, and said that while drafting a constitution, a parliament cannot devote all of its time to the task. It can only afford to spend two days a week on the constitution, making it an unrealistic expectation for an assembly to draft a new constitution within 90 days.

He also weighed in on the Charter of the July Uprising, saying it is receiving “too much emphasis.”

“We seem to be assuming that everyone will agree on every aspect of the July Charter. That won’t be so easy. Perhaps only the most fundamental parts of it can be retained. This needs careful consideration, though the idea itself is a very good one,” he said.​
 

MPs may enjoy freedom in parliament except on no confidence motions, finance bills
Staff Correspondent Dhaka
Published: 18 Jun 2025, 21: 38

1750292454130.png

MPs may enjoy freedom in parliament except on no confidence motions, finance bills PID

Political parties have reached a consensus on amending Article 70 of the constitution, appointing opposition party members as heads of several parliamentary standing committees, and reforming the process of appointing the chief justice.

This consensus was reached during discussions between political parties and the National Consensus Commission on Tuesday. However, further talks will be held on what the new process for appointing the chief justice should be.

The meeting reached decisions, and these are: members of parliament (MPs) will enjoy full freedom to vote against their own party in parliament on any issue except finance bills and no confidence motions.

The positions of committee chairpersons of four key standing committees— Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Committee on Estimates, Committee on Public Undertakings, and Standing Committee of Privileges — will be distributed to opposition parties in proportion to the number of seats they hold in parliament.

The meeting began at the Foreign Service Academy’s Doyel Hall in Dhaka around 11:45 am and ended at 5:30 pm with a one-hour lunch break. After the meeting, commission vice-chairman Professor Ali Riaz briefed the journalists on the day's decisions. Talks would continue with the political parties on Wednesday.

Representatives from 29 political parties and alliances, including BNP, National Citizen Party (NCP), Islami Andolon, Nagorik Oikya, Gono Odhikar Parishad, and Ganosamhati Andolan, participated in Tuesday’s talks. Jamaat-e-Islami, however, did not take part.

On the other hand, the NCP raised questions on how the process of reaching consensus. Senior joint convener Ariful Islam Adib also alleged that discussions are being centered around one individual from a particular party.

He also questioned the method by which parties were invited. Gono Odhikar Parishad president Nurul Haque echoed similar concerns. The discussion was broadcast live on BTV News.

Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus inaugurated second phase of discussion on 2 June to address key reforms that lacked agreement in the first phase of talks. Topic-based talks resumed on 3 June, focusing on Article 70, committee chair appointments, and reserved women's seats—but no consensus was reached. That adjourned discussion resumed yesterday, Tuesday. The agenda included these three issues plus the formation of a bicameral legislature and reforming the chief justice appointment process.

No consensus was reached yesterday on the proposal to increase the number of reserved women's seats to 100 and elect them through direct votes. Due to differing views among the parties, this topic will be revisited next week. Although there was some general agreement on formation of a bicameral parliament, several parties disagreed in principle. No consensus has yet been reached regarding how upper house elections would work or what powers it would hold.

Article 70 of Constitution

The Article 70 of Constitution does not allow sitting MPs to vote against their own party. If a person elected as an MP from a political party resigns from the party or votes against it in parliament, their seats is declared vacant.

The Constitutional Reform Commission had proposed changing this clause. According to their proposal, lawmakers would be free to vote against their party on any matter except the finance bill. After lengthy discussion, it was decided that MPs would have the freedom to vote against their own party except on finance bills and no confidence motions.

During the discussion, BNP standing committee member Salahuddin Ahmed proposed adding two more exceptions: constitutional amendment bills and bills related to national security.

He said everyone could agree on finance bills and no confidence motions, but other than this, if a party has any commitment, they will remain independent on that.

NCP joint convener Javed Rasin disagreed with adding more exceptions, arguing that in the past, national security had been used as a pretext to enact draconian laws, as well as constitution was amended to serve personal or party interests.

At one point in the talks, commission vicec chairman Ali Riaz said consensus was reached on two issues—finance bills and no confidence motions. If any party disagrees when the draft of the National Charter will be prepared, their dissent can be noted in the appendix.

Later in the press conference, Ali Riaz said, “We have agreed to amend the existing Article 70 so that MPs will be bound to vote in favour of their party only on finance bills and no confidence motions. For all other matters, they will enjoy freedom to vote as they choose.”

Reserved seats for women and appointment of chief justice


At present, the constitution reserves 50 seats for women in parliament, and that are allocated to the parties proportionally based on their 300 directly elected seats. A proposal was made to increase this to 100 seats and elect them through direct voting. However, no decision was reached even after discussions on 3 June and again on Tuesday.

Ali Riaz told journalists that they had long discussions on women’s representation in parliament. There was a consensus on permanently reserving 100 seats for women, but discussions will continue on the method and process. There are various proposals, and the commission hopes to reach a consensus next week.

According to the constitution, the president appoints the chief justice, but constitution does not specify who should be chosen. Some changes were proposed recommending that the president appoints the senior-most judge from the Appellate Division as chief justice.

Several parties argued for keeping alternatives, or choosing the chief justice among the top two or three senior-most judges in the Appellate Division.

Ali Riaz said there is a general consensus on amending Articles 95(1) and 48(3) of Constitution related to the chief justice’s appointment. Except for two parties, most have agreed. Further discussions will be held next week. However, an agreement has been reached on the reform of existing system of appointing the chief justice.

Bicameral parliament

The existing national parliament is unicameral. The Constitution and Electoral Reform Commissions have proposed the bicameral legislature. The lower house would be elected as it is now, while the upper house would have 100 seats, and that would be distributed based on the percentage of total votes a party receives across the country in the lower house election.

NCP agreed with the proposed voting system for the upper house and but they want candidate lists to be published in advance. BNP also supported the idea of a bicameral legislature but disagreed with the proposed election system. They want upper house seats to be allocated based on the number of seats a party wins in the lower house.

However, some parties opposed the idea, arguing that a bicameral system would be too heavy. If implemented, 200 MPs—including 100 indirectly elected women MPs—would not be directly elected, which contradicts the spirit of the constitution.

At the end of yesterday’s discussions, Ali Riaz told the journalists that several parties expressed objections to the idea of a bicameral legislature, but the majority supported forming a 100-member upper house. Talks on its formation, including the election process and powers, are still underway.

“The discussion is progressing. We hope to finalise the National Charter by July, and reach consensus on many important issues,” Ali Riaz said.

Consensus Commission members Badiul Alam Majumdar, Justice Md Emdadul Haque, Safar Raj Hossain, Iftekharuzzaman, and Md Ayub Miah were present at the discussion, while Monir Haidar, special assistant to the chief adviser on consensus, moderated the event.​
 

Why it is essential to formulate a constitutional framework
Badiul Alam Majumdar
Published: 09 Jul 2025, 08: 34

1752109982513.png


In the meeting between political parties and the National Consensus Commission, discussions are underway regarding the appointment of honest, competent, reputable and non-partisan individuals to statutory bodies established by the Constitution and law, based on political consensus and transparency. To this end, the commission has proposed the formation of a constitutional body named the National Constitutional Council (NCC).

The proposed members of the NCC would be: 1. The President; 2. The Prime Minister; 3. The Leader of the Opposition; 4. The Speaker of the Lower House; 5. The Speaker of the Upper House; 6. The Chief Justice; 7. The Deputy Speaker of the Lower House; 8. The Deputy Speaker of the Upper House; 9. One member from outside the ruling and opposition parties of both houses of parliament, to be elected by a vote of members from both houses.

At the outset, the Consensus Commission proposed that appointments to key bodies -- including the Election Commission, Human Rights Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission, Public Service Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General, Information Commission, and the proposed Local Government Commission along with the chiefs of the three armed forces and the Attorney General, be made through the National Constitutional Council (NCC).

However, following initial discussions with political parties, it was decided to rename the proposed body as the “Appointment Committee for Constitutional and Statutory Institutions,” replacing the NCC title. It was also decided that the appointments of the chiefs of the armed forces and the Attorney General would be excluded from the committee’s purview.

While most parties supported the revised proposal, a few objected. They argued that forming such a constitutional structure for appointments to constitutional and statutory bodies would undermine the authority of the executive branch. Instead, they proposed that separate search committees be formed under the law to make appointments to each institution. This reasoning, however, is not only flawed. It has already had disastrous consequences, which we have all experienced firsthand.

Past experience has also clearly shown that despite widespread public desire to make the Election Commission truly independent and strong, and despite the President’s repeated initiatives for all-party dialogues, these efforts have failed.
Take the Election Commission, for instance. The commission is constitutionally an independent body, not part of the executive branch. Part IV of the current Constitution of Bangladesh deals with the executive, covering the President, Prime Minister and Cabinet, local government, the armed forces division, and the Attorney General.

In contrast, Part VII deals with elections, and Article 118 falls under this part, detailing the appointment of the Election Commission. That the Election Commission is not part of the executive branch is further clarified by Article 126, which states that “it shall be the duty of all executive authorities to assist the Election Commission in the discharge of its functions.” Thus, any new provision for appointments to the Election Commission would in no way infringe upon the powers of the executive because the Commission does not fall under it in the first place.

Despite this, the executive branch has historically appointed chief election commissioners, many of whom have been deeply controversial. For example, Justice MA Aziz, a former judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, was appointed Chief Election Commissioner on 25 May 2005 but had to resign due to controversies surrounding the voter list.

Later, the higher courts declared his appointment unconstitutional.

In light of such controversies, and under pressure to establish an independent and robust Election Commission, then-President held dialogues with registered political parties in December 2011 and January 2022. These dialogues involved 23 political parties, including the BNP, Awami League, Jatiya Party, and the Communist Party.

Following the dialogue, a four-member “search committee” was formed on 24 January 2012 by presidential order, consisting of Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain of the Appellate Division, Justice Md. Nuruzzaman of the High Court, Comptroller and Auditor General Ahmed Ataul Hakim, and Public Service Commission Chairman ATM Ahmedul Haque Chowdhury.

Unfortunately, the search committee itself included controversial and biased members, defeating its very purpose..

Many readers may recall that former Justice Nuruzzaman had previously been elected general secretary and later president of the Dhaka Bar Association from the ruling Awami League panel. He was appointed Deputy Attorney General in January 2009 and a High Court judge in June that same year. There is even debate over whether he had the required ten years of practice at the High Court prior to his appointment as judge. Based on the recommendations of this search committee, the controversial “Rakib Commission” was appointed in 2012, which paved the way for the one-sided 2014 election and the “election” of 153 members of parliament without contest.

Perhaps the most blatant example of partisan appointments via a search committee is the Nurul Huda Commission. Again, aiming to establish an independent and powerful Election Commission, former President Abdul Hamid conducted dialogues with 31 registered political parties. The process began on 17 December 2016 with discussions with the main opposition party, the BNP.

As a result of the dialogue, another search committee was formed through official notification, headed by former Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain. Based on this committee’s recommendation, a rigged Election Commission was appointed under Nurul Huda, who had once participated in BNP-era protest platforms and was forced into compulsory retirement as a joint secretary during BNP’s rule. This commission went on to deliver the infamous “midnight election” of 2018. Incredibly, 100 per cent voter turnout was reported in 213 polling centers; the BNP received zero votes in 1,177 centers, and even the Awami League got zero votes in two centers.

Similarly, in 2022, a controversial law titled Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Appointment Act, 2022 was enacted. Under this law, a search committee was formed, headed by Justice Obaidul Hassan, and based on its recommendations, the highly controversial Awal Commission was appointed. Under this commission’s leadership, a one-sided and so-called “I vs. Dummies” election was held on 7 January 2024. Once again, the search committee included openly biased individuals such as former Election Commissioner Sohul Hossain, who had sought an Awami League nomination in the 2018 elections.

It is abundantly clear that the Election Commission, as a constitutionally independent institution, is not part of the executive branch. Therefore, appointments made through a constitutional body like the NCC would in no way undermine executive authority. On the contrary, if appointments to such institutions are made based on political consensus, it could open the door to a new possibility of inter-party harmony. As a result, a new political culture may develop in our country, one that seeks resolution through dialogue at the table rather than agitation on the streets.

Past experience has also clearly shown that despite widespread public desire to make the Election Commission truly independent and strong, and despite the President’s repeated initiatives for all-party dialogues, these efforts have failed. Even forming search committees through legislation did not stop the executive branch’s disgraceful behavior.

This is precisely why the Consensus Commission has proposed that appointments to key bodies like the Election Commission be made through a constitutional structure such as the Appointment Committee for Constitutional and Statutory Institutions. We believe such a mechanism would serve as a safeguard for the independence and impartiality of these institutions because appointments would be made with the consensus of senior representatives from all branches of the state and through political agreement, and because such a constitutional framework cannot be overturned or amended by a mere parliamentary majority as is the case with ordinary laws.

* Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar, Secretary, Citizens for Good Governance (Shujan)​
 

Challenging the Fifteenth Amendment through legal doctrine

1752195324209.png


The book, titled Revolutionary Constitutionalism and Why it was Essential to Declare the Fifteenth Amendment Unconstitutional, by Dr Sharif Bhuiyan, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, is inspired by the July Revolution. It highlights some of the most pressing constitutional questions of the time—namely, the constitutionality, legitimacy, and tenure of the current interim government led by Professor Muhammad Yunus. Drawing on the author's oral and written arguments in Badiul Alam Majumder v Bangladesh, the Fifteenth Amendment case (Writ Petition No 9935 of 2024), the book presents, in its fourth chapter, a compelling case for declaring the Fifteenth Amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution illegal.

Since its formation in August 2024, the constitutionality, legitimacy, and tenure of the present government have been subject to persistent scrutiny. Various political parties and civil society actors have demanded that the government step down in favour of an elected one as soon as possible. The first three chapters of the book counter this claim, arguing that the government is both constitutional and legitimate and should remain in office for a reasonable period to implement necessary reforms, including constitutional reform. Bhuiyan supports this stance through a detailed analysis of constitutional provisions, established doctrines, and the theory of revolutionary constitutionalism, set against the backdrop of the political crisis that followed the ouster of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on August 5, 2024.

The book outlines how the government's formation through revolution, its replacement of an authoritarian regime, its "performance" in managing the disorder that followed the Hasina administration's collapse, and the popular demand for change all lend legitimacy to its rule. On the question of constitutionality, Bhuiyan argues that the "constitutional vacuum and crisis" caused by Hasina's flight created a robust legal foundation for recognising the new government as constitutional beyond question. He invokes the "doctrine of necessity"—a principle established in Bangladeshi jurisprudence despite its absence from the text of the constitution—along with Article 7 of the constitution, which affirms that "all powers in the Republic belong to the people." These, he contends, offer a legal rationale for recognising the Yunus-led government as constitutional. Chapter 3 further demonstrates how this doctrine and Article 7 could have been used to address potential vacancies, such as those that would have occurred had the president and speaker resigned after the revolution.

As with questions of constitutionality and legitimacy, the tenure of the current government has sparked ongoing debate, which the book addresses in Chapter 2. By applying constitutional principles and the idea of constitutionalism, Bhuiyan argues that a three-year term would be a reasonable timeframe to allow the government to implement its revolutionary mandate. He also clarifies that the constitutional provision concerning the tenure of the non-party caretaker government (NPCG) is inapplicable to the current government, as the two differ fundamentally in terms of their political context, formation, purpose, operations, and other critical aspects.

Beyond its analysis of the government's constitutional status and tenure, the book offers discussion on constitutional developments following the July uprising. Emphasising the interpretive principles used by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh—notably in the Eighth Amendment case—as well as broader social, political, and historical factors, Bhuiyan argues that the Fifteenth Amendment should be declared unconstitutional. He highlights how the Thirteenth Amendment introduced the NPCG to safeguard democracy and how the Fifteenth Amendment's abolition of this provision has led to "evil consequences," thereby justifying a judicial reversal.

The book also engages with the basic structure doctrine and its origins in Bangladeshi judicial decisions. It examines both substantive and procedural conditions necessary for a valid constitutional amendment. Building on this, Bhuiyan contends that the Fifteenth Amendment amounted to a wholesale rewriting of the constitution, thereby dismantling its core features—including democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights. He presents the argument he made in the Fifteenth Amendment case: that the amendment not only undermined these constitutional pillars but also fundamentally altered the democratic and republican character of the state. He concludes that the Supreme Court must declare the amendment unconstitutional to restore democracy, uphold the rule of law, protect people's rights, and prevent further encroachments on the constitution.

While the book serves as a valuable guide to understanding the legal status of the current government, it would have benefited from the inclusion of a few additional topics. For example, it does not delve into the ongoing debate between the concepts of an interim government and a revolutionary government—a tension that frequently emerges in the current administration. However, towards the end of Chapter 4, the book does provide a clear explanation of how the present government differs from the NPCG. Despite this shortcoming, the book stands out as a pioneering intellectual work on the critical constitutional questions surrounding the formation, nature, and function of the current government, as well as on the legality of past constitutional amendments. It offers essential insights for students, academics, and researchers working in the fields of constitutional law, democracy, and legal reform in Bangladesh.

Asma Bint Shafiq is professor at the Department of Law in the University of Chittagong.​
 

New constitution will ensure constitutional recognition for all ethnic groups: Nahid

1752975401013.png

Photo: Star

Nahid Islam, convener of the National Citizen Party, today said all ethnic communities would be recognised in the new constitution, aiming to build an inclusive and equitable Bangladesh.

"The new constitution of the future will ensure constitutional recognition for all ethnic groups in the country. Proper leadership and rightful representation for the people of Bandarban and the hill districts will be ensured in both the upper and lower house," he said at a rally in Bandarban last night.

The rally was organised as part of the NCP's month-long "July March to Rebuild the Nation" programme at the Bandarban Mukti Mancha.

Nahid said, "Reforming the state system, reconstructing the country, strengthening the bonds of harmony in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, implementing the historical July Charter, and creating an equitable Bangladesh are our primary goals. The active participation of the people in the hill areas is essential to achieve this."

He further said, "The July mass uprising was not just a movement for changing the government -- it was a reflection of the people's aspirations for a new system of governance. Through this uprising, we want to build a Bangladesh where the rules, laws, and constitution of the state genuinely work in favour of the people."

Nahid said, "The constitution of 1972 created a division between freedom fighters, hill people, and Bangalis after the Liberation War in 1971. A new constitution is needed to eliminate that division and ensure the rights of the people."

He said, "Bangladesh is a country of many ethnic groups. Various ethnic communities have been living here for ages. The NCP respects the cultural and religious rights of all communities. Therefore, it is essential to enact a new constitution to protect the integrity of everyone's culture."

The rally was chaired by Shahidur Rahman Sohel, chief coordinator of NCP's Bandarban chapter.

Other speakers included Hasnat Abdullah, chief coordinator (South); Nasir Uddin Patwary, central coordinator; Akhtar Hossain, member secretary of the central committee; Tasnim Jara, Anik Roy, and Khan Talat Mahmud.​
 
’72 constitution divided nation through Bengali nationalism, says NCP
Staff Correspondent 21 July, 2025, 00:05

1753061272083.png

The National Citizen Party holds a street rally at Banroopa in Rangamati district headquarters on Sunday. | Focus Bangla photo

The National Citizen Party on Sunday said that divisions were created among people in Bangladesh in the name of Bengali nationalism and secularism.

NCP convener Nahid Islam made the remarks at a rally in Rangamati as part of the party’s ongoing programme marking the first anniversary of the July uprising.

Nahid termed the 1972 constitution a Mujib-made constitution and stated that the constitution failed to include all communities living in the country.

‘A conflict between Bengali-speaking people and non-Bengali communities has been created in the country in the name of Bengali nationalism. A division has been created between the followers of Islam and those of other religions here in the name of secularism. We want to create a constitution to ensure dignity for all communities, going beyond all the divisions,’ said Nahid.

Addressing the rally in the district town’s Banorupa CNG Stand area, Nahid said that a third party wanted to maintain the divisions and conflicts in the Chittagong Hill Tracts for their own interest.

On the 20th day of the party’s countrywide march, Nahid stressed the need for the unity of people of different communities to solve any issue by themselves so that no third party could take advantage of the divisions.

The NCP began its national-level march on July 1 from Rangpur by offering prayers for uprising martyr Abu Sayed as part of its July 1- August 5 countrywide programme to mark the first anniversary of the uprising.

A group of student and youth leaders who led the uprising formed the NCP on February 28.

Addressing the Rangamati rally, the NCP chief organiser for north, Sarjis Alam offered an apology for his controversial remarks regarding Bandarban.

He offered the apology amid protests by different quarters over his remarks.

‘A few days ago, I also unintentionally said something about Bandarban. Later, I felt that I should not have said that. I would like to express my regret to you about this,’ said Sarjis after a group of students in Bandarban announced the party as ‘unwanted’ till he expresses regret.

NCP leaders, activists and supporters brought out a procession from the District Shilpakala Academy area of the town and the procession met in the rally.

NCP leaders and activists, including the party chief organiser for south, Hasnat Abdullah, chief coordinator Nasiruddin Patwary, senior joint convener Samanta Shermeen and senior joint member secretary Tasnim Jara, among others, participated in the programmes.

They also held a rally and a march in Chattogram city in the evening, reported New Age Staff Correspondent in Chattogram.New age services

Nahid said, ‘Our chief coordinator Nasiruddin Patwary exposed some truths in Cox’s Bazar. And now, we are being attacked for it. In Banshkhali, our NCP organiser was assaulted. He is suffering from a head injury.’

Referring to Chattogram’s crumbling urban infrastructure, he said, ‘This historic city has been pushed into disarray through years of negligence and plundering in the grip of mafias.’

Nahid further said, ‘We consider Chattogram the most crucial region for Bangladesh’s national security and sovereignty. It must be developed into a new economic zone. To strengthen our maritime and naval capabilities, we must first strengthen Chattogram. NCP is committed to doing that.’

The NCP is scheduled to hold marches in all districts till July 30, demanding trial of the Awami League and its leaders for the massacres during the mass uprising, reforms in various sectors, and a new constitution aiming at building a discrimination-free Bangladesh.​
 

High Court to rule on the validity of Article 116 of the Constitution on Sept 2

bdnews24.com
Published :
Aug 13, 2025 21:25
Updated :
Aug 13, 2025 21:25

1755132985543.png


The High Court has concluded the final hearing on a petition challenging the validity of Article 116 of the Constitution, which governs the control and discipline of the judiciary, and will deliver its verdict on Sept 2.

The bench, comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury, scheduled the ruling for that date on Wednesday.

The writ petition, filed by 10 lawyers on behalf of advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir on Aug 25, 2024, seeks reinstatement of the original Article 116, under which judicial officers and magistrates were under the control and discipline of the Supreme Court.

The petitioners argue that the current amended article places authority over appointments, transfers, promotions, leave, and disciplinary matters of subordinate courts under the executive branch, specifically the president, via the law ministry.

Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman represented the state, while lawyer Ahsanul Karim appeared as intervener.

The case had originally been heard by a bench led by Justice Farah Mahbub but was reassigned after her Mar 24 appointment to the Appellate Division.

The High Court had issued a rule during preliminary hearings in April 2024, questioning why the amended Article 116 should not be declared unconstitutional.

Under the amended provision, the president is responsible for controlling and disciplining magistrates, including transfers, promotions, leave approvals, and other administrative matters, a function previously under the Supreme Court in the 1972 Constitution.​
 

Latest Posts

Latest Posts

Back
PKDefense - Recommended Toggle
⬆️ Top
Read Watch Wars