Bangladesh Socio-Political Crisis 2024

You can ask hasina. She is in india...
I don't have access to sarkari guests. The point remains that , whether the elections were free or not, she was constitutionally elected . What is the constitutional standing of the present regime ? Is the office and role or "Chief Advisor" described in BD's constitution ?
 
What is the constitutional standing of the present regime ? Is the office and role or "Chief Advisor" described in BD's constitution ?
Our interim Yunus Administration is perfectly legal with permission from our supreme court and every other major political party. Minus BAL of course...
.
The legality of the interim government
 
It is good Bangladesh is becoming a signatory, but shouldn't this have been done by an elected goverment rather than a selected Chief Advisor ?

Well, based on the track record of Bangladeshi elected govts, none would be signing this.

There is a huge pressure from general public to completely shutdown all the secret prisons and permanently stop this practice at the moment, as the horrors of Hasina's secret prison is coming to light. The Chief Advisor is just catering to the people's wishes.
 
Are you familiar with the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh ? Has the Supreme Court of Bangladesh struck it down ?
Yes. and Not yet. Most probably this old constitution will be gone...
 
So the present regime is unconstitutional ?
No.
.
With the Awami League President and former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigning and fleeing the country amid protests, this creates an impossible situation for the Bangladeshi legal system because it can no longer account for transfers of power. That being said, the Appellate Division of the Bangladeshi Supreme Court has acknowledged the necessity of the Yunus government.
.
The Appellate Division opined that in accordance with Article 106 of the Constitution, an interim government can be formed with a chief advisor and a few other advisors in the absence of parliament as per Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan. Hassan himself a staunch supporter of the ousted Awami League, has since resigned as Chief Justice.
 
No.
.
With the Awami League President and former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigning and fleeing the country amid protests, this creates an impossible situation for the Bangladeshi legal system because it can no longer account for transfers of power. That being said, the Appellate Division of the Bangladeshi Supreme Court has acknowledged the necessity of the Yunus government.
.
The Appellate Division opined that in accordance with Article 106 of the Constitution, an interim government can be formed with a chief advisor and a few other advisors in the absence of parliament as per Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan. Hassan himself a staunch supporter of the ousted Awami League, has since resigned as Chief Justice.
Article 106 deals with the advisory powers of the Supreme Court , not how to deal with government formation .

The SC can give its opinion in accordance with Article 106 , but a government cannot be formed "in accordance with Article 106". I am sure you are misquoting (or the source you used misquoted) the actual opinion of the Supreme Court.

Actually you seem to be ignorant of your own country's Constitution.
Article 56(4) clearly states that if the PM or any other minister resigns , they shall continue to hold office until their successor takes office. So, according to the Constitution of Bangladesh , Haseena should have continued as PM until a new PM was elected by the new Parliament.

Yunus' goverment is extra-constitutional . However , it seems the Supreme Court has given a face -saver using the same logic of doctrine of necessity that courts in Pakistan have used to recognise the reality of military coup. So, the Yunus government has no constitutional standing at all, but is a necessity arising out of an unconstitutional coup.
 
Last edited:
Article 106 deals with the advisory powers of the Supreme Court , not how to deal with government formation .

The SC can give its opinion in accordance with Article 106 , but a government cannot be formed "in accordance with Article 106". I am sure you are misquoting (or the source you used misquoted) the actual opinion of the Supreme Court.
Man, are you dumb? Our supreme court gave its opinion using Article 106 of constitution of Bangladesh, that Yunus administration is legal.
.
Supreme court aren't forming a government here. It gave its legal opinion...
 
Man, are dumb? Our supreme court gave its opinion using Article 106 of constitution of Bangladesh, that Yunus administration is legal.
.
Supreme court aren't forming a government here. It gave its legal opinion...
Actually you seem to be ignorant of your own country's Constitution.
Article 58(4) clearly states that if the PM or any other minister resigns , they shall continue to hold office until their successor takes office. So, according to the Constitution of Bangladesh , Haseena should have continued as PM until a new PM was elected by the new Parliament.

Yunus' goverment is extra-constitutional . However , it seems the Supreme Court has given a face -saver using the same logic of doctrine of necessity that courts in Pakistan have used to recognise the reality of military coup. So, the Yunus government has no constitutional standing at all, but is a necessity arising out of an unconstitutional coup.
 
Actually you seem to be ignorant of your own country's Constitution.
Article 56(4) clearly states that if the PM or any other minister resigns , they shall continue to hold office until their successor takes office. So, according to the Constitution of Bangladesh , Haseena should have continued as PM until a new PM was elected by the new Parliament.
Now Im sure you're dumb. Read below passage carefully and slowly:
.
With the Awami League President and former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigning and fleeing the country amid protests, this creates an impossible situation for the Bangladeshi legal system because it can no longer account for transfers of power. That being said, the Appellate Division of the Bangladeshi Supreme Court has acknowledged the necessity of the Yunus government.
Yunus' goverment is extra-constitutional . However , it seems the Supreme Court has given a face -saver using the same logic of doctrine of necessity that courts in Pakistan have used to recognise the reality of military coup. So, the Yunus government has no constitutional standing at all, but is a necessity arising out of an unconstitutional coup.
LOL. Hasina dictatorship was toppled with revolution not coup. And revolution means existing constitution is fuked by default...
 
Now Im sure you're dumb. Read below passage carefully and slowly:
.
With the Awami League President and former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigning and fleeing the country amid protests, this creates an impossible situation for the Bangladeshi legal system because it can no longer account for transfers of power. That being said, the Appellate Division of the Bangladeshi Supreme Court has acknowledged the necessity of the Yunus government.

LOL. Hasina dictatorship was toppled with revolution not coup. And revolution means existing constitution is fuked by default...
Lol. You are an ignorant moron, who probably has not even read the opinion you are citing. Just because the court has acknowledged the necessity of someone assuming power in a vaccum does not make the regime constitutional . A court's advisory opinion cannot rewrite the constitution, only an elected body can. Zia and Musharraf juntas were also acknowledged by courts in Pakistan after they destroyed the Constitution through coups.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Pakistan Defence Latest

Back
Top