Political parties at the National Consensus Commission’s dialogue session on Thursday recommended replacing the term ‘internal disturbance’ with ‘security threats to the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity’ in the constitution’s article 141A that relates to the proclamation of emergency.
This article allows the president to proclaim a state of emergency in extraordinary circumstances, such as internal disturbance, external aggression and war.
During the session, held at Foreign Service Academy in Dhaka, the parties also recommended including large-scale disasters and pandemics as extraordinary conditions and demanded amendments to article 141B to ensure that citizens’ access to justice is not curtailed during a state of emergency.
On July 7, almost all of the 30 participating parties agreed in principle to amend article 141A to prevent the misuse of emergency provisions for political gain.
At Thursday’s session chaired by Professor Ali Riaz, the commission presented a revised proposal suggesting that the president must obtain the cabinet’s approval before declaring an emergency.
The commission also proposed that the period of emergency must not allow cruelty, torture, or inhuman treatment or deprive any citizen of the right to life.
The session, however, ended without consensus on this issue, as the commission requested more time to refine its proposals.
During the discussions, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami’s assistant secretary general Hamidur Rahman Azad, National Citizen Party’s member secretary Akhtar Hossain, and Socialist Party of Bangladesh (Marxist) chief coordinator Masud Rana, among others, emphasised that citizens’ access to justice and other fundamental rights must not be compromised during an emergency.
The existing article 141B states that while a proclamation of emergency is in effect, the state is not bound by the restrictions of articles guarding citizens’ freedom of association, movement, assembly, thought, profession and right to property.
The sub-article also allows the state to enact laws or take executive actions that would otherwise be limited by the fundamental rights outlined in third part of the constitution.
Parties including Jamaat, Khelafat Majlish, and Aamar Bangladesh Party recommended that the president should proclaim an emergency with the approval of an all-party parliamentary committee, rather than solely the cabinet.
Opposing this view, Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s standing committee member Salahuddin Ahmed and consensus commission member Ayub Ali, a former bureaucrat, argued that requiring all-party committee approval could delay critical emergency responses.
The commission also proposed that the president might appoint the chief justice from among the two or three most senior judges of the Appellate Division.
Given varying opinions on this matter, political parties requested additional time to consult within their party forums.
Regarding the formation of a caretaker government, the commission placed previously suggested options, including appointing the chief adviser nominated by an all-party parliamentary committee.
Under the proposed model, the committee would select a chief adviser from a pool of nine nominees, three each nominated by the ruling party, the main opposition, and a coalition of other opposition parties in parliament.
Due to divergent views, the political parties requested that discussions on this issue be deferred to a future session.
BNP’s Salahuddin Ahmed noted that a decision on the caretaker government would be more feasible when the Appellate Division would issue a rule on a pending review petition related to the cancellation of the 13th amendment, which introduced the election-time caretaker government in the constitution in 1996.
The commission’s next dialogue sessions are scheduled for Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday of the upcoming week.
At a post-session press briefing, commission vice-chair Professor Riaz said that consensus was reached on two issues regarding the appointment of the chief justice.
‘The parties have reached consensus on amending the existing provision of article 95 of the constitution to allow the president to appoint the chief justice from among the judges of the Appellate Division,’ Riaz stated.
