Calling the July charter implementation order “a document of endless deceit and national betrayal”, the treasury bench yesterday proposed forming an all-party special parliamentary committee to amend the constitution.
In response, opposition leader Shafiqur Rahman proposed a separate special parliamentary committee to convene the Constitution Reform Council. “But our appeal is that the committee should have an equal number of members from both sides, so that we can present our views properly.”
The opposition argued that the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order, 2025 was legal and that all should respect the mandate of the referendum and the spirit of the July charter.
The lawmakers were participating in a discussion on an adjournment motion brought by the opposition leader, calling for convening] the Constitution Reform Council in accordance with the July charter implementation order.
The debate ended without any resolution.
According to the order, the first session of the council should be convened in the same manner as the first session of parliament -- within 30 calendar days of the election results being declared.
However, this has not yet been done.
Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed said the July charter implementation order was “void ab initio” (invalid from the beginning), adding that between March 26, 1971 and April 7, 1973, the president had the authority to issue such orders, but after the formation of the first parliament in 1973, that power no longer existed.
He noted that 133 ordinances were placed before parliament, but the July charter implementation order was not among them, because it was neither an ordinance nor a law.
He also described the order as “a document of endless deception by the interim government” and “a document of national betrayal”, adding that he had asked the president whether such an order could be issued. “The president replied, ‘I cannot, but I am being forced to,’” he said.
Salahuddin then asked, “Under which provision can the president convene a session of the Constitution Reform Council?” He added that the question of an oath would arise only if the constitution had been amended, the oath format for members defined, and the individual responsible for administering it clearly identified.
He further argued that by administering oaths to members of the Constitution Reform Council, the chief election commissioner had violated the constitution. “I could have asked the CEC who authorised him to issue such oath forms, but since the CEC is not present in parliament, that question cannot be raised.”
The order stated that constitutional reforms must be completed within 180 days.
Salahuddin asked: “Where, then, is the supremacy of parliament and the people?” About the 70 percent “yes” vote, he said the referendum was meant only to test support for the July charter. He criticised the referendum format, saying that only one answer was given to four questions, calling the implementation order “a document of national fraud”.
He stressed that no parliament can be bound or stripped of its jurisdiction by a previous parliament, and no presidential order can undermine parliamentary sovereignty. “Under article 93 of the constitution, even ordinances cannot alter constitutional provisions. Therefore, the July charter implementation order is illegal.”
The home minister said there was confusion over whether the BNP opposed reforms or the July charter. “In fact, every word of the charter signed is embraced by the BNP,” he added, pointing out that he himself had proposed the referendum in the National Consensus Commission, and that the charter explicitly allows dissent notes, meaning a party can act on its manifesto if it receives a mandate.
He then affirmed that they are committed to implementing the July charter. “The people endorsed the BNP’s manifesto with a 51 percent mandate, and the BNP wants to bring democratic constitutional amendments through discussions involving both ruling and opposition parties.”
Proposing the special parliamentary committee on behalf of the Leader of the House Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, he said, “In that committee, we should all sit together, hold discussions, and through consensus bring forward a constitution amendment bill that reflects the people’s aspirations in this great national parliament, and adopt it on the basis of agreement.”
Later, Law Minister Md Asaduzzman also made a similar proposal.
In response, Opposition Leader Shafiqur Rahman said the discussion was about the Constitution Reform Council and convening its session, and proposed a separate special committee to convene the council.
“If you consider it appropriate after this discussion, you may form the special committee. But our appeal is that the committee should have equal numbers of members from both sides. That way, we can present our views properly.
“If the committee is formed on the basis of majority alone, then the same kind of debate we see here will continue there as well. In that case, nothing new will come out -- it will be the same old story. We have expressed our intent. Now the decision rests with you.”
He added, “We sincerely call upon the ruling party -- since the people have accepted the referendum, if we also accept it, we will be honoring the people, and this parliament will be honored. Let the people’s aspirations be reflected through our collective initiative. If we continue to move in parallel lines -- government on one side, opposition on the other -- then how can there be a solution? We all understand this.”
The Jamaat ameer further said, “The home minister called this order an endless deception. He said that the interim government and the president together did this. The order was issued on November 13 last year. And the vote took place on February 12 this year. Because of their [BNP’s] demand, the parliament and the referendum were held on the same day, and the government formally congratulated them. So, the referendum was also their demand.”
Also, Shafiqur said that both he and Prime Minister Tarique Rahman sought “yes” vote in the referendum.
“We did not change our position,” he said, adding that if the referendum is called unconstitutional, then many past referendums will come into question.
Law Minister Asaduzzaman, in his address, termed the July charter implementation order both a “colourable legislation” -- a law that appears valid but exceeds the legislature’s power, often disguising an unconstitutional purpose -- and a “fraud on the constitution”.
He criticised the opposition’s demand for a “50-50” membership split in the proposed committee, terming it unfair as the BNP has 209 MPs while the opposition alliance has 77 MPs.
Jamaat-e-Islami MP Najibur Rahman said that, according to article 152 of the constitution, a president’s order is a law.
Jamaat’s Nurul Islam said, “According to the constitution, elections must be held within 90 days of parliament’s dissolution. Was that done? No…. The current constitution says elections should be in 2029. How did we hold them in 2026 then? Does that mean parliament, government -- everything -- is illegal?”
National Citizen Party MP Akhtar Hossain said that the implementation of the July charter and the formation of a Constitution Reform Council are matters of political goodwill on the part of the ruling party.
“Why do they now refuse to accept the verdict of the referendum? The people voted in favour of implementing the July National Charter. To call that verdict unconstitutional is arrogant and a disgrace to parliament.”
NCP MP Hasnat Abdullah pointed out how the constitution is valued only when certain sections suit certain parties. “The fall of Hasina came through blood, sweat, and toil of every anti-fascist party. Popular verdicts never bow their heads to books.”
Andaleeve Rahman Partha said they are not against the July charter but are raising questions about the process. “We respect the July charter and its spirit. We respect the constitution…. At the same time, we must find a way to uplift the spirit of July.
“Many talk about discarding the constitution. Is it because the constitution reminds them of the defeat of 1971? Why should I throw it away? If I dislike it, there are provisions within the constitution itself to amend it. Why discard it entirely?”
To the NCP and July fighters, he said, “You represent Gen-Z. Don’t make yourselves a part of the Jamaat generation.”
