Constitutional amendment body: New idea on caretaker govt framework emerges

The special committee on constitutional amendments has received a new idea regarding how an election-time caretaker government could be formed.

The idea emerged during an exchange of views between the committee and constitutional experts, law professors and Supreme Court lawyers on Saturday.

One proposal discussed at the meeting was whether a caretaker government could be formed from the upper house of parliament if the legislature had a bicameral structure. However, the framework for the caretaker government system has yet to be finalised.

Special committee chairman and Home Affairs Minister Salahuddin Ahmed told journalists about the discussions after the meeting. The meeting began at 11am in the Cabinet Room of the Parliament Building, took a one-hour break at noon and concluded at around 5:30pm. A total of 44 people took part.

Sources familiar with the discussions said proposals included establishing an independent secretariat for the judiciary; balancing the powers of the prime minister and the president; granting constitutional status to the Anti-Corruption Commission and the National Human Rights Commission; expanding the scope of fundamental rights; setting four-year terms for the lower house and six-year terms for the upper house; forming the upper house with representatives from all 64 districts and different ethnic communities; introducing direct elections to reserved seats for women; establishing an impartial selection committee for appointments to the Election Commission and other constitutional bodies; and transferring administrative responsibility for the control and discipline of subordinate court judges to the judiciary.

Some participants also questioned whether a bicameral legislature was necessary in a country like Bangladesh. Instead, they suggested establishing an advisory council. Other proposals included appointing opposition lawmakers as chairpersons of parliamentary committees on foreign affairs and home affairs, in addition to committees such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Undertakings Committee. Some also proposed enacting a law under Article 76 of the Constitution to strengthen the powers of parliamentary committees.

Sources said the meeting also discussed whether a higher court ruling could directly amend the Constitution. Most participants expressed the view that parliament would have to incorporate such a ruling into the Constitution through a formal amendment.

Speaking to journalists after the meeting, Salahuddin Ahmed said there had been detailed discussions on the process of forming a caretaker government and the scope of its responsibilities. A new idea had emerged on the issue, he said, outlining the proposal to the media.

Under the new idea, if an upper house of parliament is established, its term would not end at the same time as that of the lower house. The meeting discussed whether a caretaker government could be formed from the upper house.

In this arrangement, if the post of vice-president were created, the vice-president could serve as speaker of the upper house. An alternative proposal was to elect the upper house speaker with the consent of both the ruling party and the opposition. The speaker could then head the caretaker government, while the other advisers could also be appointed from the upper house with the agreement of the ruling and opposition parties.

Salahuddin Ahmed said these views had been put forward and could be considered. If further proposals emerged, the committee would include them in its report. Participants had been asked to submit their views in writing, he added.

He said the common view was that a caretaker government should be formed through consensus, excluding the judiciary and the president from the process. The discussion had been theoretical, he said, adding that written submissions on the formation process would help the committee. The committee would examine everyone's views, as it wanted the caretaker government system to be determined through consensus.

Asked whether concessions would be made on issues where the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) had submitted notes of dissent following discussions with stakeholders, Salahuddin Ahmed said no such decision had been taken.

He said the committee was inviting the opposition to participate in the process. If the opposition wanted the BNP to withdraw or relax its notes of dissent on certain issues, it would have to raise the matter before the committee. The committee could then consider the proposal.

Salahuddin Ahmed said the meeting had discussed constitutional and statutory bodies. The committee wanted to introduce a new definition called a “Statutory Constitutional Board”. The discussion covered whether a framework could be developed to determine how statutory bodies are constituted, define their responsibilities and ensure that they operate independently.

Experts also gave their views on the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution, the judiciary's power to review executive and legislative actions, and the judiciary's jurisdiction over constitutional amendments.

Regarding the establishment of a separate Supreme Court secretariat, Salahuddin Ahmed said the government had made a commitment on the issue. However, an ordinance issued by the previous government contained various flaws and had therefore not been enacted into law. The proposed separate secretariat remained under discussion by the committee, he added.

Earlier in the afternoon, former interim government Law Adviser Professor Asif Nazrul spoke to journalists after leaving the meeting. He said he had also participated in a meeting of the parliamentary committee on constitutional amendments in 2011, during the Awami League government, when the committee was led by Suranjit Sengupta.

He had attended that meeting with high expectations but had subsequently felt betrayed. This time, he hoped to see positive changes. He appealed to everyone to keep the expectations raised by the mass uprising in mind.

Asif Nazrul said the caretaker government system should be determined on the basis of the opposition parties'' views. He and several other participants had called for the opposition to be involved in the discussion process. The committee had said it had made considerable efforts in this regard, he added.

Asked about the issue, Asif Nazrul said whether the body should be called a Constitutional Reform Council or a Constitutional Amendment Committee was a political dispute that he did not want to get involved in.
Personally, however, he believed that any change to the Constitution constituted reform if it was positive. What mattered most, he said, was whether the intended objectives could be achieved.

Among those attending the meeting were Professor Salimullah Khan, Professor Muhammad Ekramul Haque, Professor Borhan Uddin Khan, Supreme Court Bar Association President and Member of Parliament AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon, Bar Association Secretary Mohammad Ali, senior lawyers Shahdeen Malik, Ragib Rauf Chowdhury, Subrata Chowdhury and Manzil Morshed, among others.

Committee members attending the meeting included Chief Whip Nurul Islam Moni, Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman, Zainul Abedin, Planning State Minister Zonayed Abdur Rahim Saki, Mir Mohammad Helal Uddin, Social Welfare State Minister Farzana Sharmin and Shakila Farzana.