Breaking News:

The Constitution has been violated at least in seven ways

Barrister Nazir Ahmed : Constitution is the most important written document of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. It is the highest law of the Republic. It is the reflection of peoples' wishes and desires. Constitution of Bangladesh itself declared its supremacy by saying "This Constitution is, as the solemn expression of the will of the people, the supreme law of Bangladesh, and if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void" [Article 7(2) of the Constitution]. All citizens regardless of their position are supposed to obey and follow the Constitution. Specially those who are in power should be the role model in following the Constitution. What will happen if the government itself, more specifically the Prime Minister herself, violates the Constitution in several ways? What will the general public do? Where will they go? We aim to show in this article how the Prime Minister, the head of the current government who herself came to power by the force of the Constitution, has violated the very Constitution in at least seven ways. Firstly: Under the Article 145A of the Constitution, all treaties with foreign countries shall be submitted to the President who shall cause them to be laid before Parliament. The said Article also says provided that any such treaty connected with national security shall be laid in a secret session of Parliament. After the current government came into power following the General Election on 29 December 2008, the Prime Minister visited India and signed some important treaties and bilateral agreements with Indian. None of the agreements and treaties has yet been placed in Parliament. The Treasury Bench MPs have not even seen those agreements and treaties in Parliament, let alone the opposition MPs or other stake holders having a chance to see. Even if those agreements or treaties contained any component of national security at all, they could have been laid in a secret session of Parliament, as provided by the above Article. But the government did not do that. This is clear violation of the Constitution and democratic norms (indeed against the norms and practice of the parliamentary democracy). Secondly: Article 77 of the Constitution provides a provision for the establishment of the office of Ombudsman. Article 77 says: "(1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the establishment of the office of Ombudsman, (2) The Ombudsman shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as Parliament may, by law, determine including the power to investigate any action taken by a Minister, a public officer or a statutory public authority, (3) The Ombudsman shall prepare an annual report concerning the discharge of his functions, and such report shall be laid before Parliament." In spite of having a clear constitutional provision, no governments since 1972 (when the Constitution was formally adopted) have ever attempted to establish the office of Ombudsman. Parliament passed the 'Ombudsman Act 1980' in 1980 and empowered the government to bring it into force by notification in the official Gazette. The Act has not been brought into force and the office of Ombudsman has not been established yet though more than two decades have elapsed since the passing of the Act. If all the governments, both past and present, have been reluctant to establish the office of Ombudsman, what is the point of keeping such provision in the Constitution? Although the respective Prime Ministers or Presidents since 1972 have been liable for violating this clear constitutional provision, the current Prime Minister cannot escape her liability for her terms. Thirdly: Under the Article 49 of the Constitution, the President shall have power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites and to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court, tribunal or other authority. This provision has clearly given power to the President to pardon a person or remit or suspend his sentence only after trial and conviction. How can the President pardon a prime murder accused or suspect whose trial has not been commenced or finished yet? The accused's/suspect's culpability and criminality has not been determined yet. Neither this provision has given such power to the President nor did framers of the Constitution contemplate such scenario. Furthermore, can the President pardon convicted murderers on political consideration who received death penalty but all appeal avenues have not been exhausted? It is contrary to the rule of law, justice and fairness. If it is allowed, then the confidence and trust on the judiciary will be lost. The President normally acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Therefore, The Prime Minister cannot escape her liability in violating or misusing this constitutional provision. Fourthly: Article 36 of the Constitution provides the provision for freedom of movement. It says "Subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest, every citizen shall have the right to move freely throughout Bangladesh, to reside and settle in any place therein and to leave and re-enter Bangladesh." Since the current government came into power, dozens of important persons (who have, in fact, been holding very important positions of the cabinet or government in the past including the Law Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Communication Minister, the Speaker, the Vice President and so on) have been stopped at airport for no apparent reasons or flimsy grounds (mostly they were said to have been stopped for superior order - no written order or reasons were even shown!). Those who have the financial ability have challenged to the High Court by way of Writs and the High Court, after issuing show causes and hearing the matters, ordered the government to let them leave and re-enter. Not a single High Court order in such cases went in government's favour. Still the government h