Consensus reached on emergency declaration, appointment of chief justice

Political parties have reached a consensus to amend the procedure for declaring state of emergency, replacing the requirement for the prime minister's countersignature with formal approval by the cabinet.

Under the proposed changes, any declaration of emergency must be based on the recommendations of a cabinet meeting where the leader of the opposition, or in their absence, the deputy leader, is present. Based on that recommendation, the president may issue the declaration.

The decision came during the 12th session of the second round of talks at the National Consensus Commission, held at the Foreign Service Academy in Dhaka today (13 July).

The proposed amendments include replacing the existing term "internal disturbance" in Article 141(A) with "threat to national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, pandemic, or natural disaster."

Currently, Article 141A(1) of the Constitution allows the president to declare a state of emergency for up to 120 days if he is satisfied that war, external aggression, or internal disturbance threatens the security or economic life of Bangladesh or any part thereof.

The new proposal shortens the maximum duration of an emergency to 90 days. According to the consensus, during an emergency, the "Right to Life" and the fundamental rights under Article 35, concerning due process and punishment, must not be suspended. 

In the previous session on 7 July, all political parties and alliances had agreed to amend Article 141(A) to prevent the abuse of emergency powers as a political tool.

The inclusion of the opposition in such decisions was proposed by Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami Nayeb-e-Ameer Syed Abdullah Mohammad Taher and endorsed by BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed.

Ali Riaz shared these updates while briefing reporters after the session ended today.

Appointment of CJ

Ali Riaz further stated, "Political parties and alliances have also reached consensus on clarifying provisions in Article 95 of the Constitution regarding the appointment of the chief justice. According to the consensus, the president shall appoint the most senior judge of the Appellate Division as the chief justice."

However, any judge under investigation under Article 96 of the Constitution for misconduct or incapacity shall not be eligible for appointment as chief justice, according to the consensus.

Parties have also agreed that if a political party or alliance includes in its election manifesto that the chief justice will be appointed from either of the two most senior judges of the Appellate Division, and if it secures a clear public mandate, then the Constitution may be amended to reflect this.