Bangladesh overnight issued an ordinance following a proposal by interim government chief Professor Muhammad Yunus to hold a referendum on a political charter, prompting immediate criticism from jurists who deemed it ‘unconstitutional’.
Bangladesh Ordinance for Charter Referendum Sparks ‘Unconstitutional’ Claims
Bangladesh has overnight issued the “July Charter Implementation Order,” pushing for a referendum on a political charter proposed by interim Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus.The move has drawn immediate criticism from constitutional experts, who argue it violates the Constitution.
Late Thursday, President Muhammad Shahabuddin signed the “July Charter Implementation Order” into law. The ordinance was drafted by the Yunus-led National Consensus Commission after extended consultations with several political parties, excluding the now-defunct Awami League of deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, according to a PTI.
In a nationally televised address on Thursday, Chief Adviser Yunus announced that the plebiscite would be conducted alongside the planned national elections in February next year to seek public approval for the charter.
“Many of the decisions outlined in the July Charter, including those in the gazette, contradict the current Constitution. Since the Constitution remains in force, the President does not have the legal authority to sign this gazette,” said Shahdeen Malik, a leading constitutional expert and former law professor, in a newspaper interview.
The Bangladesh Constitution does not provide for a referendum or plebiscite, and Article 93 explicitly states that no ordinance can be issued “for altering or repealing any provision of this Constitution.” said Malik, as PTI reported.
The charter included over 80 proposals, many of which required constitutional amendments. Yunus, however, argued that these had been condensed into four key issues, with voters only needing to respond “yes” or “no” to a single question encompassing all four.
Speaking to Bangladesh’s The Business Standard, constitutional expert Shahdeen Malik said the referendum “would have been permissible if the Constitution had been annulled or suspended under martial law. Since neither has occurred, all actions must follow the existing Constitution.”
Malik also expressed concern that voters would be unable to make informed choices on the referendum questions and might “leave their ballots blank” on the plebiscite while still voting for their preferred parliamentary candidates.
(With inputs from PTI)
Published At: