[🇧🇩] Constitution Reform Council

[Saif]

Date of Event: Mar 16, 2026

Source: https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/politics/xq8jbqf7ne

Fresh tensions over Constitution Reform Council

Political tensions are rising over the implementation of the constitutional proposals contained in the July National Charter

en.prothomalo.com

Fresh tensions over Constitution Reform Council

Staff Correspondent
Dhaka
Published: 15 Mar 2026, 12: 12

Parliament session File photo

Political tensions are rising over the implementation of the constitutional proposals contained in the July National Charter. The 11-party electoral alliance led by Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami has demanded that a session of the Constitution Reform Council be convened by today, Sunday. Otherwise, it warned, it will launch street protests.

Meanwhile, the ruling party Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has said the matter of the Constitution Reform Council could be discussed in parliament.

According to the July National Charter implementation order, today is the final day for calling the council’s session. Those elected in the parliamentary election are supposed to take two oaths on the same day—one as members of parliament and another as members of the Constitution Reform Council.

The swearing-in ceremony for the newly elected MPs was held on 17 February. The parliament secretariat had prepared for both oaths that day. Members of opposition parties, including Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizen Party (NCP), took both oaths. However, MPs elected from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party did not take the oath as members of the Constitution Reform Council.

BNP leaders said the Constitution contains no provision regarding the oath of members of such a council. If such a provision is added in the future, then the question of taking the oath will arise. Since then, the formation of the council has been a topic of political debate. Earlier discussions at the National Consensus Commission had also revealed differences between BNP and the Jamaat–NCP bloc over several key proposals.

The first session of the 13th Jatiya Sangsad began last Thursday. On the opening day, opposition MPs from Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizen Party staged protests in parliament over the speech delivered by President Mohammed Shahabuddin and walked out of the chamber.

According to an opposition source, tensions may escalate again during Sunday’s second sitting of the session, particularly over the formation of the Constitution Reform Council. Opposition parties are considering raising the issue during an unscheduled discussion.

Constitution Reform Council

After the “Yes” vote won in the referendum, the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order stipulates that a Constitution Reform Council should be formed with representatives elected in the 13th parliamentary election.

The referendum endorsed the order and the charter’s 48 constitutional reform proposals. The council is supposed to implement those constitutional provisions.

The implementation order states that the council’s first session should be convened within 30 calendar days of the election results being officially declared—following the same procedure used for convening the first session of parliament. The council would then have 180 working days from its first sitting to complete the constitutional reforms in line with the July National Charter and the referendum results.

The parliamentary election was held on 12 February. The Bangladesh Election Commission published the official gazette of the results after midnight on 13 February (early 14 February).

According to the July order, today—Sunday—is the deadline for convening the council’s first session. The order states that the president should call the session, but that has not yet happened.

Meanwhile, a writ petition has been filed in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh over the issue. The court issued rules regarding several matters, including the legality of the July National Charter implementation order, letters asking newly elected MPs to take oath as council members, the administration of such an oath through the chief election commissioner, and provisions of the Referendum Ordinance.

A High Court bench issued separate rules on 3 March after hearing two writ petitions and asked the respondents to reply within four weeks.
Observers say that overall the reform initiative—particularly the fundamental constitutional changes pursued by the outgoing interim government through the July National Charter—has now stalled.

Opposition position

At an emergency meeting of the liaison committee of the 11-party opposition alliance yesterday, the issue of the Constitution Reform Council was discussed.

After the meeting, Hamidur Rahman Azad, assistant secretary-general of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and coordinator of the 11-party electoral alliance, told journalists that the government will complete 30 days in office on 15 March.

“If the government does not convene or arrange to convene the session of the Constitution Reform Council according to the July Charter within this time, it will not be forgiven by the nation,” he said, adding that the responsibility would lie with the government, including the leader of the house.

He warned that if quick steps are not taken to implement the July Charter, the alliance will be forced to launch street protests with public support. The top leaders of the alliance will soon meet to announce protest programmes.

Azad also said that since two votes were held on the same day, two sessions—of parliament and of the reform council—should also be convened. “But only the session of the national parliament has been called,” he said.

He added that although BNP MPs took the oath as MPs in line with the party decision, they did not take the oath as members of the reform council. According to him, this shows the BNP has taken a “U-turn” after forming the government and moved to a completely opposite position, which he described as a betrayal of the nation and an insult to those who voted “Yes” in the referendum.

Government party’s objections

Of the 84 reform proposals in the July National Charter, 48 relate to the Constitution. Consensus was reached on 30 of them. However, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party has expressed disagreement on several key proposals, including reducing the prime minister’s sweeping powers, increasing the powers of the president in certain cases, forming an upper house based on proportional votes from the lower house, requiring upper house approval for constitutional amendments, and incorporating provisions in the Constitution for appointments to bodies such as the ombudsman, the Bangladesh Public Service Commission, and the Anti-Corruption Commission.

For instance, BNP wants the upper house to be formed according to the number of seats a party wins in parliament. In other words, parties would receive seats in the upper house proportional to their parliamentary seats. BNP also believes that constitutional amendments should not require approval from the upper house. These proposals were included in the party’s election manifesto.

In contrast, the referendum presented the proposals exactly as stated in the July Charter, without mentioning BNP’s dissenting views.

During the oath-taking ceremony on 17 February, BNP standing committee member and MP Salahuddin Ahmed said they had been elected as MPs according to the Constitution, not as members of the Constitutional Reform Council. He said that once constitutional reforms are enacted according to the referendum verdict—once the oath format for council members is included in the Constitution’s Third Schedule and it is determined who will administer the oath—then MPs could take the oath as members of the council.

BNP’s position is that it remains committed to implementing the July National Charter in the form in which it was signed, including the differing views of political parties.

However, since BNP MPs—who hold more than a two-thirds majority in parliament—have not taken the oath as council members, the council has not been fully constituted.

After a meeting of the parliamentary advisory committee at the parliament building yesterday, BNP standing committee member and Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed told journalists that discussions on the Constitution Reform Council could take place “on the floor of the house.”​

 

[Saif]

Constitution reform council: Why the dispute and what the law says

Is the BNP dragging its feet over July charter reforms?

www.thedailystar.net

Constitution reform council: Why the dispute and what the law says

Is the BNP dragging its feet over July charter reforms?

Tanim Ahmed

FILE VISUAL: ANWAR SOHEL

The tension had been brewing since the day new MPs took their oaths almost a month ago.

BNP lawmakers had refused to take oath as members of the constitution reform council, as mandated by the July National Charter Implementation (Constitution Amendment) Order of 2025, saying such a council did not exist in the constitution, and further that they had been elected as members of parliament.

However, the opposition alliance, Jamaat-e-Islami and its allies, took two oaths.

Since then, there has been a back-and-forth of taunts and threats. The home minister’s jibe that he did not quite understand what it (the implementation order) was, "masculine, feminine or perhaps neuter", was widely quoted as being dismissive of the July charter. The opposition, keen to implement the July charter, threatened street agitation if the ruling government refused.

Debate

That tension simmered to the surface at the parliament on Sunday, which marked one month since the election results were formally announced. That one month was also the timeline to convene the constitution reform council, as stipulated by the order.

The order states that the council be convened within a month of the formal election results "in a manner similar to that of the parliament". The leader of the opposition, Jamaat leader Shafiqur Rahman, pointed it out and raised his concern about the fate of the reform council.

The home minister, Salahuddin Ahmed, who led BNP’s negotiations at the consensus commission and is presumably the ruling party’s focal point in this matter, responded. He said that while the president had convened a session of the parliament under Article 72 of the constitution, it does not mention anything about a reform council. Hence, the president could not convene it.

“I am not denying anything. The people’s verdict must be respected, but it has to be done constitutionally -- it has to be done legally. There is no place for emotion here. A state does not run on emotion. A state runs on the constitution, on law, on rules,” he said.

Salahuddin went on to point out that the current session would discuss the president’s speech and was already burdened with scrutinising 133 ordinances passed during the interim government tenure and deciding on them within 30 days. There would not be enough time. Furthermore, the next session would be the budget session.

However, he suggested that this matter could very well be debated and discussed at the business advisory committee and then a bill might be placed to amend the constitution in a way that would allow convening the reform council.

What does the implementation order say?

The order stipulates that MPs will play a dual role -- as members of parliament and as members of the constitution reform council. It says that the council be convened in the same manner as the parliament within a month of the formal election result announcement.

The order states the four questions of the referendum and also lays down guidelines for the council. It states that the first session will elect a leader of the council by a simple majority. The council will decide on its rules of procedure. The order sets the council’s quorum at 60 members in attendance. However, constitutional amendments must pass with a simple majority of the entire council. Meaning that while the council may discuss and deliberate on issues with just 60 members present, constitutional amendments will require 151 votes in favour. There is also a 180-day limit within which the council must conclude reforms, presumably undertake constitutional amendments, in light of the July charter.

However, there are no contingencies. In other words, there is no such provision that stipulates any course of action, in case the provisions are not adhered to.

The home minister pointed out that while the president could indeed issue ordinances (when the parliament is not in session) under article 92 of the constitution, these ordinances may not alter the constitution itself. He said it (meaning the implementation order) was neither an ordinance nor a law, but something in between, raising legal concerns over what he described as an imposed order.

MP Najibur Rahman, responding to the home minister’s comment, said Article 152 of the constitution did stipulate that acts, orders, and ordinances were laws. He said there were about 150 orders from 1971 and 1972 (including the Representation of the People’s Order) that are considered laws.

What does the constitution say?

The relevant section of article 93 states that when the parliament is dissolved or not in session, if the president is “satisfied that circumstances exist which render immediate action necessary, he may make and promulgate such ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to require” but they must not be such that “could not lawfully be made under this Constitution by Act of Parliament”, or “for altering or repealing any provision of this Constitution”.

The home minister had referred to this article suggesting that the order was not legally tenable, presumably since the constitution, as it stands, does not provide for a reform council.

MP Najibur Rahman correctly pointed out that orders are indeed laws. Article 152 defines law as “any act, ordinance, order, rule, regulation, by-law, notification or other legal instrument, and any custom or usage, having the force of law in Bangladesh”.

However, what the MP from Pabna did not mention was that customarily an “order” is passed when the constitution does not exist, as was the situation in 1971 and 1972, or has been suspended, as it was under Ziaur Rahman or during 2007-2008.

Neither was the case in 2025, when the order was passed.

Had it been an ordinance, it would be among those that the current parliament is scrutinising for enactment into laws. BNP appears to be keen on leveraging this legal loophole, citing that the instrument is an ‘order’ and not an ‘ordinance’.

Why an order and not an ordinance?

The National Citizen Party, which is the natural heir of the July uprising, insisted on a legal provision that would make the reforms binding on the next government. In fact, they refused to sign the July charter, pending such a provision.

In order to placate July leaders, who held considerable sway over the Yunus administration, the interim government decided to pass the presidential order in an attempt to bring about a semblance of legal compulsion. It was a stopgap solution, which had the potential of future tension even when it was passed.

What happens to reforms now?

Being the ruling party and that too with a supermajority, BNP has not said no to reforms. In fact, it has already offered the position of one deputy speaker to the opposition, which was one of the reform proposals. Understandably it is more symbolic than substantive in terms of reforms. The opposition is yet to accept that offer.

However, the ruling party has complained strongly about the implementation order and the referendum questions. BNP had given a note of dissent, for instance, on the question of an upper house based on proportional representation which would vote on constitutional amendments.

While BNP has stated several times that it is fully willing to implement reforms, the party has yet to explain how it envisions them. The legal course of action, as the BNP has already suggested, would be to discuss and debate the issues at the Business Advisory Committee, which schedules and organises the parliament's agenda and allocates time for debates. The current committee, headed by the speaker, includes the prime minister, leader of the opposition and other leading members of both the treasury and the opposition benches.​