Reform row rocks parliament
A heated constitutional debate erupted in Parliament on Tuesday as ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) lawmakers and the opposition Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami clashed over the implementation of the July National Charter and the process for constitutional reforms.
The debate followed a motion by Opposition Leader Dr. Shafiqur Rahman seeking to convene a special session of a proposed Constitution Reform Council, in line with the July National Charter (Constitution Reform) Implementation Order, 2025.
The motion, submitted under Section 62 of the parliamentary Rules of Procedure, called for urgent action to implement the charter’s commitments.
Opposition members demanded the immediate formation and session of the Constitution Reform Council, arguing that the charter, endorsed by multiple democratic forces after last year’s political upheaval, reflected public aspirations for structural reforms.
However, the opposition later accepted the ruling party’s proposal to form a special committee to examine the issue.
Government MPs emphasised that while the BNP supports constitutional reforms, such changes must proceed through established constitutional and parliamentary procedures.
Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed described the July Charter as a political consensus document rather than a legally binding instrument capable of automatically amending the Constitution.
“The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law inconsistent with it becomes void,” he said. “An executive order cannot alter constitutional provisions or bind future parliaments.”
Ahmed noted that the Implementation Order 2025 raised significant legal and constitutional questions, particularly regarding the proposed Constitution Reform Council and the President’s authority to convene it.
Citing Articles 72 and 73 of the Constitution, he explained that any new body affecting constitutional governance must derive its authority from amendments passed by Parliament.
The minister stressed that the BNP remains committed to implementing reforms envisioned in the July Charter, but insisted that the process follow democratic procedures and parliamentary consensus.
He highlighted two elements of the charter: constitutional amendments requiring parliamentary approval, and administrative or legal reforms implementable through ordinances or executive actions.
While acknowledging a referendum indicating public support for reforms, Ahmed cautioned that such results could not replace parliamentary authority.
He proposed forming a special parliamentary committee with representatives from all parties and independent MPs to consult constitutional experts, prepare reform proposals, and submit amendment bills to Parliament.
Ahmed also raised concerns over a provision in the implementation order requiring reform within 180 days, arguing that such a deadline could undermine parliamentary sovereignty and the authority of future legislatures.
“As representatives of the people, we must work through discussion and consensus to amend the Constitution and repair the state structure,” he said.
National Citizen Party MP Akhtar Hossen stressed that implementation of the July Charter ultimately depends on the political will of the ruling party.
“They have a two-thirds majority. If they accept the charter, the implementation order and the referendum, then no further questions will arise,” he said. Akhtar also questioned the constitutional circumstances under which the current Parliament emerged following political developments in August last year.
The debate, marked by sharp exchanges between the treasury benches and the opposition, highlighted deep divisions over how constitutional reforms under the July Charter should proceed — through an extraordinary reform council or the conventional parliamentary amendment process.
