CA’s address ‘violated’ July Charter: Salahuddin

Senior BNP leader Salahuddin Ahmed has alleged that Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus “violated” the July National Charter in his televised address to the nation on Thursday.

“In his speech, the chief advisor breached the signed July National Charter,” the Standing Committee member said in an immediate reaction after the broadcast.

“He signed the National Charter, and with this address he has violated it. That is all I will say for now.”

Earlier at 2:30pm, the chief advisor announced that the general election and the referendum would be held together on the same day.

Also on Thursday, President Md Shahabuddin issued the July National Charter (Implementation) Order, setting out the questions to be put to the referendum.

BNP's Acting Chairman Tarique Rahman has convened an emergency meeting of the party’s Standing Committee for the evening.

Several members of the party's highest policymaking body told bdnews24.com the meeting will discuss the chief advisor’s address to the nation. A formal response will be issued afterwards.

Charter ‘Violation’: How?

Speaking later at his Gulshan residence, Salahuddin, the BNP representative in the National Consensus Commission’s dialogue, said the Charter had been “violated” in the chief advisor’s address through an “instant process”.

When asked how the breach occurred, he said the July Charter was signed through a historic public ceremony witnessed by the entire nation, and printed copies of the signed document were available to all. These copies include the proposals, the parties’ endorsements, and the exact language of any notes of dissent.

“This was not a conventional note of dissent or a mere difference of opinion,” Salahuddin said. “It was clearly said if the dissenting parties mention their positions in their election manifestos and receive the people’s mandate, they can act accordingly. Now, has that position been abandoned? That is why I say the chief advisor has violated the very document he signed.”

‘Some Parties May be Pleased’

Salahuddin said, “Only a few days ago, we made our party’s stance clear through a press conference that we would not accept any imposition beyond the signed July National Charter. Such additions will not create any binding obligation for the signatory parties.”

“I want to say again that many of these issues have been forced through. We were told to either say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions that fall outside the agreed Charter. The order issued [on Thursday] includes several new proposals, seemingly mixed with personal preferences.”

“Perhaps some parties are happy with this,” he added. “But are we not, instead of building national unity, heading towards division? Are we creating disunity within the state? Will the chief advisor take responsibility for this divide?”

Constitutional Reform Council

Salahuddin said this was a new concept which had never been discussed, decided, or agreed upon within the National Consensus Commission.

He expressed confusion over why the chief advisor introduced these ideas into the order and proposals.

He explained that the parliament will be formed through elections, with the Election Commission constitutionally responsible for both parliamentary and presidential elections. Accordingly, members of parliament will be elected and take their oaths through the standard process.

“Now, the order suggests that they will also take oath as members of the Constitution Reform Council. Were they elected to that council?” he questioned. “So these ideas are entirely new.”

Salahuddin raised concerns about authority and legality, noting that fixing a specific timeline and establishing such a council to propose constitutional amendments within 180 days may not be within anyone’s jurisdiction.

He asked whether directives issued to the next parliament in this manner would have legal validity, warning that it could “interfere” with the sovereign authority of parliament itself.

‘Concept of Constituent Assembly is Contradictory’

During the commission’s dialogue, the National Citizen Party (NCP) called for a Constituent Assembly to draft a new Constitution, while the Ganosamhati Andolon and the Rastro Songskar Andolan demanded a Constitutional Reform Council.

Referring to the absence of such proposals in the July Charter, Salahuddin said: “If there had been any national consensus to form a Constituent Assembly or a Constitution Reform Council, then the Constitution would first need to be amended to empower the Election Commission for that purpose.”

“Are we now back to the pre-independence era that we need a Constituent Assembly?” he asked. “Bangladesh is not a new state; it already has a Constitution. So these imposed ideas are all contradictory.

“Even so, had there been genuine national consensus on any issue, such questions would not have arisen.”

‘Govt, Consensus Commission created The Crisis’

Salahuddin said, “The crisis has in fact been created by the National Consensus Commission and the government itself. They first formed reform commissions, then the Consensus Commission.”

“Discussions continued -- the Consensus Commission held nine months of dialogue on these issues to come to power. After that, the National Charter was drafted, adopted, and signed. Why go beyond it now? That’s our point,” he added.

“The crisis began when the Consensus Commission made its recommendations to the government. And as the chair of that commission, the chief advisor himself signed it. He has now made recommendations to himself -- that’s what it seems like.”

He noted that there was no question of making fresh demands.

The July Charter had been drafted and signed on the basis of consensus, he said, noting that all signatories, including the chief adviser, had endorsed it.

“We’re saying -- let’s implement that Charter,” Salahuddin emphasised.

The leader also noted that it was not a matter of whose proposals were accepted. Toward the end of the Consensus Commission’s work, when the legal basis of the Charter was discussed, his side had suggested that public consent could be sought, and that such consent could be taken on the same day.

Almost all parties agreed, he said, except for one or two.

He explained that a question was then raised about whether the referendum should be held before, after, or on the same day as the vote.

According to him, all parties agreed that holding it on the same day was logical, acceptable, cost-effective, and convenient in terms of timing and arrangements.

He stressed that this was not his side’s proposal, but one they agreed with.