Will expelled Jamaat MP Nazrul lose his parliamentary seat?

Highlights:

• Jamaat expels Gazi Nazrul over alleged moral misconduct
• Constitution does not automatically revoke MP's seat after expulsion
• Past cases involving BNP and Awami League MPs set precedent
• Experts say seat remains unless Article 70 conditions are triggered

The expulsion of Satkhira-4 MP Gazi Nazrul Islam from Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami over allegations of moral misconduct has raised questions about whether he can continue as a member of parliament.

Past parliamentary and constitutional precedents suggest that expulsion from a political party alone does not automatically result in the loss of an MP's seat as there are several precedents involving the BNP and the Awami League where individuals expelled from their parties retained their parliamentary membership.

What the Constitution says

Article 70 of the Constitution provides that an MP elected on a political party's nomination will lose their parliamentary seat if they resign from the party or vote against it in parliament.

However, the Constitution does not explicitly state that expulsion from a political party automatically vacates a parliamentary seat.

On the other hand, Article 66(2)(d) states that a person becomes disqualified from being an MP if convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to at least two years imprisonment.

In the case of Gazi Nazrul Islam, he has not been convicted or sentenced by any court.

Previous precedents

Bangladesh's parliamentary history contains several examples where lawmakers retained their seats despite being expelled from their parties.

In 2005, BNP MP Abu Hena was expelled after publicly accusing a minister of supporting militants. Then Speaker Jamir Uddin Sircar ruled that since Abu Hena had neither resigned from the party nor voted against it in parliament, Article 70 did not apply and there was no legal basis to declare his seat vacant.

Another notable case involved former Awami League minister Abdul Latif Siddique.

After making controversial remarks about Hajj in 2014, he was removed from the cabinet, stripped of his party membership and later expelled from the Awami League.

The party subsequently requested the Speaker to cancel his parliamentary membership.

The matter was referred to the Election Commission, which sought explanations from both the Awami League and Latif Siddique.

The party argues that, since he was expelled from the party after being elected on its nomination, he is no longer a member of the party and, consequently, has no legal right to retain his seat as a Member of Parliament.

On the other hand, Latif Siddique filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the Election Commission.

After the High Court dismissed the petition, he appealed to the Appellate Division, but his appeal was rejected there as well.

Before any final legal decision was reached, however, Latif Siddique voluntarily resigned from parliament in September 2015. His seat therefore became vacant through resignation rather than expulsion.

What happened in Gazi Nazrul's case

Seventy-six-year-old Gazi Nazrul Islam was elected from the Satkhira-4 constituency as a Jamaat candidate in this year's parliamentary election. He also served as a member of the party's central Majlish-e-Shura.

Jamaat launched an organisational investigation after a video featuring the MP in a hotel room with a young woman went viral.

Later, the party said the investigation found evidence of "moral misconduct" and decided to expel him under Article 62 of its constitution.

The decision was taken at an emergency meeting of the party's central executive council, chaired by Jamaat Ameer Dr Shafiqur Rahman, at the opposition leader's residence on Minto Road yesterday.

The party also decided to inform the Election Commission immediately about the expulsion.

Before the decision was announced, Jamaat's Secretary of the Central Publicity and Media Department, Advocate Matiur Rahman Akand, told BBC Bangla that any member violating the party constitution or engaging in conduct that damages the party's reputation could have their membership cancelled or face expulsion from the organisation.

Experts' views

According to constitutional and parliamentary experts, under the current legal framework, there is no provision for the automatic cancellation of Gazi Nazrul Islam's parliamentary membership solely because of his expulsion from the party.

Parliamentary affairs expert and former Chittagong University professor of political science Nizam Uddin Ahmed told BBC Bangla that expulsion from Jamaat would not automatically cost Gazi Nazrul his parliamentary seat because Article 70 does not list expulsion as a ground for vacating an MP's seat.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer and constitutional expert Shahdeen Malik echoed the same.

He also told BBC Bangla that violating a party's rules and regulations usually results in expulsion from the party.

"MPs lose their seat only by resigning from the party, voting against it in parliament or being convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude and receiving a prison sentence of more than two years," he said.

Shahdeen, however, noted that the Constitution leaves room for interpretation regarding what constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, as neither the Constitution nor court judgments provide a definitive definition.

Supreme Court lawyer and constitutional expert Jyotirmoy Barua said that Article 66 of the Constitution sets out the qualifications and disqualifications for becoming or remaining a Member of Parliament.

Article 66(1)(d) refers to offences involving moral turpitude. However, whether an offence involves moral turpitude must be determined by the court, and no such determination has been made in the Jamaat MP's case.

"Article 70 of the Constitution is also not applicable in this case because it provides that an MP loses his or her seat only if they resign from the party or vote against it in Parliament. He was expelled from the party; he did not resign. Therefore, the two situations cannot be treated as equivalent," Barua said.

However, Barua noted that, beyond the interpretation of these two constitutional provisions, the issue of moral turpitude remains relevant.

In that case, to determine whether he may continue as a Member of Parliament, the Speaker would refer the matter to the Election Commission under Article 66(4) of the Constitution, Section 3 of the Members of Parliament (Dispute Settlement) Act, 1980, and Rule 178 of the Rules of Procedure of the Jatiya Sangsad.

In such a case, the Election Commission's decision would be final.

Sujan Editor Badiul Alam Majumdar said Parliament's Committee on Privileges enjoys significant authority, although many lawmakers mistakenly view it as a body concerned solely with protecting MPs' privileges.

He said the committee's actual mandate is to examine matters relating to the dignity of Parliament and breaches of parliamentary privilege.

"If the conduct of a Member of Parliament undermines the dignity of Parliament, the Committee on Privileges may examine the matter. If necessary, it can recommend disciplinary action against the member, including expulsion," he said.

Badiul also cited India's Raja Ram Pal v Speaker case as an important legal precedent.

"The judgment in that case is particularly significant for its interpretation of Parliament's power to expel members and the scope of parliamentary privilege," he added.

Based on the existing constitutional provisions and previous precedents, legal experts believe Gazi Nazrul Islam is likely to retain his parliamentary seat unless he resigns, triggers any of the conditions under Article 70, or is later disqualified following a final court verdict.