Jamaat expels MP Gazi Nazrul

Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami has expelled its Satkhira-4 lawmaker, Gazi Nazrul Islam, from the party after an internal investigation found evidence of what it described as “moral turpitude”, triggering a constitutional debate over whether he can continue as a member of parliament.

The decision was taken at an emergency meeting of the party’s Central Executive Council on Wednesday afternoon at the opposition leader’s official residence on Minto Road in Dhaka, chaired by Jamaat Ameer Dr Shafiqur Rahman.

In a press release issued by the party’s Central Publicity and Media Department Secretary, Ehsanul Mahbub Zubair, Jamaat said Gazi Nazrul had been expelled under Article 62 of the party constitution following an organisational inquiry into allegations recently reported in the media.

The party also announced that it would immediately notify the Bangladesh Election Commission (EC) of its decision and request it to take the necessary legal steps. However, whether the expulsion ultimately results in the loss of his parliamentary seat will depend on the EC’s interpretation of the Constitution.

No formal notice regarding the expulsion of Satkhira-4 lawmaker Gazi Nazrul Islam from Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami has yet reached the Election Commission (EC), the commission said on Wednesday, adding that it would take necessary steps under existing law and rules once officially informed of the party’s decision.

Election Commission Secretary Akhtar Ahmed told reporters on Wednesday (July 22) afternoon that no letter or notice on Gazi Nazrul Islam’s expulsion had reached the commission so far. Once the notice is received, the Election Commission will review the matter legally before taking its next decision, he said.

Meanwhile, a case has been filed at Pallabi Police Station in the capital against MP Gazi Nazrul Islam and four others.

The case was filed on Tuesday by Obaidur Rahman, Gazi Nazrul Islam’s personal car driver, who alleged that he was beaten and subjected to attempted murder by strangulation after protesting an illicit relationship and over suspicions related to a leaked video.

The accused named in the case are: Gazi Nazrul Islam (74), Aminur Rahman (55), Masum Billah (41), Mutasim Billah (25), and Rakibul Hasan (30). Following the filing of the case, accused Aminur Rahman was arrested and sent to jail on Wednesday.

The controversy stems from a viral video circulating on social media involving the MP. During the ensuing public debate, the biodata of a young woman, Mariam Khatun, also resurfaced online.

Gazi Nazrul has maintained that the woman featured in the video is his legally married second wife. The claim has been publicly supported by his first wife, the woman herself and her father.

Earlier this week, Jamaat said it had been monitoring media reports and statements made by the MP, his two wives and the second wife’s father before initiating an organisational investigation.

However, the expulsion has prompted differing legal interpretations over whether an MP elected on a political party’s symbol automatically loses their seat after being expelled from that party.

Under Article 70 of the Constitution, a member of parliament may lose their seat if they voluntarily resign from the political party that nominated them or vote in parliament against the party’s decision.

The Constitution, however, does not explicitly state that expulsion by a political party automatically vacates a parliamentary seat.

If a dispute arises over whether an MP has lost their seat under Article 70, Article 66(4) empowers the Election Commission to determine the matter, with its decision deemed final. Parliamentary rules also require such disputes to be referred to the EC through the Speaker.

Election expert Gazi Zahid said Gazi Nazrul was elected using Jamaat’s election symbol and therefore could face disqualification if the party formally sought cancellation of his membership.

“If Jamaat asks the Speaker and the Election Commission to declare his seat vacant, the Election Commission may cancel his parliamentary membership,” he said.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Badrul Hasan Kachi said Article 70 identifies only two circumstances in which an MP elected with a party’s nomination loses their seat: voluntarily resigning from the party or voting against it in parliament.

“Article 70 does not clearly state that an MP automatically loses their seat if expelled by the party. Legally, Gazi Nazrul has lost his position in Jamaat, but the Constitution does not directly bar him from remaining an MP because he did not resign himself,” he told The New Nation.

He added that, in the absence of a court or EC decision, the lawmaker could continue serving in parliament for the time being, although the EC would have the decisive role in determining the issue.
Parliamentary affairs expert and former Chittagong University political science professor Nizam Uddin Ahmed also said party expulsion and parliamentary membership were separate legal issues.

According to him, the MP’s seat would remain intact unless a formal parliamentary inquiry established the allegation of moral turpitude through due process.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer and constitutional expert Shahdeen Malik similarly observed that political parties may expel members for violating organisational rules, but expulsion alone does not terminate parliamentary membership.

He said an MP could lose their seat if convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment, or if they resigned from the party or defied it in parliament. He also noted that the legal definition of “moral turpitude” remains subject to judicial interpretation and does not apply to every offence.

Offering a different interpretation, senior Supreme Court lawyer Advocate Mohammad Shishir Manir argued that an MP expelled on grounds of moral turpitude should not be allowed to retain their parliamentary seat. In a verified Facebook post, he said Article 70 refers to resignation, whereas the present case concerns expulsion linked to moral turpitude, adding that Jamaat’s notification to the EC could lead to cancellation of the MP’s membership.

Supreme Court lawyer Jyotirmoy Barua also highlighted the constitutional distinction between resignation and expulsion. He noted that Article 66(1)(d) deals with disqualification on grounds of moral turpitude, but such disqualification must arise from a court verdict, which does not exist in this case.

He suggested that the Speaker should refer the matter to the Election Commission under Article 66(4) of the Constitution, the Members of Parliament (Determination of Dispute) Act, 1980, and Rule 178 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament, after which the EC’s decision would be final.