Making laws at 'supersonic speed' during Yunus' govt: Isn't it a blatant abuse of power?

Illustration: TBS

Bangladesh set a new record of making laws at 'supersonic speed' during the immediate-past government led by Muhammad Yunus, beating the previous one set by the emergency regime led by Fakhruddin Ahmed around two decades ago.

Both the governments exceeded the speed of previous parliaments in making law by a huge margin. On both occasions, many of the laws enacted through the promulgation of ordinances sparked controversy, overshadowing the positive ones. Both interim governments put a massive burden on the parliaments formed following the December 2008 and February 2026 elections, respectively, to decide their life span in just 30 days.

Let us see the record book.     

The previous four parliaments, formed through largely credible elections since the restoration of democracy after the fall of the autocratic Ershad regime in an uprising in 1990, made on average 38 laws per year through passing bills.

The emergency regime led by Fakhruddin Ahmed – also known as the government of 3-Uddins, which included then-president Iajuddin and army chief General Moin Uddin Ahmed – surpassed the yearly lawmaking record set by previous parliaments. During the 2007-08 period, it set a new record by making 122 laws through the promulgation of the same number of ordinances, which stands at 61 laws per year.

The Yunus' interim government beat them all.

In its one-and-a-half-year life span, it made 133 laws through the promulgation of ordinances. It means per year 88 ordinances were promulgated, which is 132% higher than the average of parliamentary legislation per year.

A brief analysis says the tail end of his government – the last one and a half month – got more than supersonic speed in legislation. It promulgated 36 ordinances in 47 days; if weekly holidays were deducted, at least one ordinance was promulgated every day! In 2025, it promulgated a total of 80 ordinances. In the first five months since its formation on 8 August 2024, it made only 19 laws.

Through ordinances, some new laws were made and many existing ones were amended, which the former chief adviser claimed as part of "institutional reforms which were at the core of the July uprising spirit."

In his farewell address to the nation on 16 February night, Yunus did not forget to take the credit of his government's 'supersonic speed at lawmaking'.

It is going to be a herculean task for the new parliament to keep 133 laws alive by passing the same number of bills carrying the provisions of the ordinances in only 30 days.

Highlighting the government's reform initiative, Yunus said his interim administration has formulated about 130 new laws and amendments [Law Ministry note says the number is 133] and issued about 600 executive orders, about 84% of which have already been implemented, according to a report of BSS, the official news agency.  

"These reforms have consolidated civil rights, strengthened the judiciary, and ensured that the culture of disappearances, murder, and extrajudicial killings never returns," said Yunus.

But his government's law-making record does not look so bright as he claimed, as the legality and transparency of many of the ordinances were questioned. It even promulgated an indemnity ordinance to indemnify families of those killed and also those engaged in the July uprising to oust Hasina from power.

The indemnity ordinance triggered outcry as the parliament itself cannot make such a law undermining the supremacy of the constitution. But the president was advised by the chief adviser to promulgate the ordinance.

At least three much-talked-about indemnity laws can be cited here which were scrapped.

The indemnity ordinance promulgated by Khandker Mushtaque Ahmed, who assumed the presidency after the bloody political changeover on 15 August, 1975, indemnifying those involved in the killing and ousting the government. Parliament scrapped that ordinance passing a bill after Awami League returned to power by winning the June 1996 election.

Shahriar Rashid, one of the accused of the August killing and toppling the government, challenged the legality of the legislation scrapping the indemnity ordinance. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 1998 rejected his petition, upholding the parliamentary action scrapping the indemnity ordinance.

The apex court scrapped another indemnity law that legitimised all actions under a controversial criminal hunt named 'Operation Clean Heart' in 2003.

In November 2024 during the Yunus' government, the High Court declared the immunity provision in Section 9 of the Quick Enhancement of Electricity and Energy Supply (Special Provision) Act, 2010 as illegal and unconstitutional. 

His government did not wait further. In less than two weeks, it repealed the 'controversial' Quick Enhancement of Electricity and Energy Supply (Special Provision) Act 2010, 14 years after its enactment through an ordinance.

But the same government took a U-turn in January, just a month before its tenure expired. It promulgated an indemnity ordinance, granting legal protection and indemnity to students and people who took part in the movement that toppled the Sheikh Hasina regime in August 2024.

The fifth and seventh amendments to the constitution also had the similar indemnity provision indemnifying all actions of the two martial law regimes. Both the amendments were scrapped by the Supreme Court.

The reason was simple. All those indemnity laws shut the door of the court for the aggrieved and victims, which is against the rule of law. The fundamental principle of the rule of law is everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

In his farewell address to the nation, Muhammad Yunus claimed that the best achievement of his government is the "July Charter." But its implementation order triggered controversy. 

The interim government got the July Charter Implementation Order signed by the president even after legal experts questioned the jurisdiction of the president to issue such an order.

The July Charter Implementation Order, which claims supremacy over the constitution, has been mired in controversy over its legality since its draft was made public last November. 

Constitutional experts vehemently opposed the order, saying the constitution, which is still in force, does not allow the president to issue such an order. 

As per the constitution, the president is allowed to make laws to meet the urgency through promulgation of ordinance in the absence of parliament. But that law-making power is not unfettered; the constitution imposes restraint. An ordinance cannot make any provision which could not lawfully be made by Act of parliament and for altering or repealing any provision of the constitution. 

The July Implementation Charter order has been accused of defying the supremacy of the constitution – supremacy which cannot be altered even by the parliament in exercise of its constituent power under Article 142. 

Take Article 142 as an example, which requires a two-thirds majority of the total membership of Parliament for constitutional amendments.

But the July Charter Implementation Order authorises the proposed reform council to adopt final constitutional reforms by a simple majority of members present and voting. This provision of the Order undermines Article 142.

Constitutional expert Ridwanul Haque, former professor of law at the University of Dhaka, terms the 'supersonic speed at legislation' as 'abusive constitutionalism.'

"Abusive constitutionalism is to use public power or constitutional authority as a cover for an ulterior purpose such as to continue in power or to achieve narrow political interest," he explains.

"Examples include 14th amendment by BNP to change judges' retirement age, 15th amendment by AL to remain in power, 13th amendment case by the Supreme Court Appellate Division to give incumbency advantage to AL.

"That this government promulgated so many ordinances, in some cases to benefit institutions such as Grameen Bank, is an example of abusive constitutionalism,' he said.

The law professor says Article 93 of the constitution is to be applied by an interim government only sparingly, for a purpose where without an ordinance the interim government cannot operate. Ordinances to reform the electoral system are such valid ordinances, he said.

According to legal experts, "lawmaking at supersonic speed" is considered as the accelerator for the engine of "abusive constitutionalism."

Both are aimed to shift a country from a liberal democracy toward an illiberal or authoritarian, yet legally-disguised, regime. 

The legislation at supersonic speed came to an end on 17 February when the new prime minister was sworn in and a new government formed, leaving huge works for the new parliament.

At the first sitting of the new parliament, all the 133 ordinances will have to be placed. Until now, the ordinances do not have any specific life span. But since they are tabled in the first sitting of the new parliament, it will have a life span of only 30 days. They automatically cease to have effect at the expiration of thirty days unless they are earlier repealed by ordinances. Parliament cannot ratify an ordinance, it can disapprove any of them by passing a resolution before expiry of the 30 days' timeframe.

So, their fate now hangs in balance. The new parliament convenes on 12 March. It is going to be a herculean task for the new parliament to keep 133 laws alive by passing the same number of bills carrying the provisions of the ordinances in only 30 days.

But it must take urgent steps regarding some ordinances related to the passage of the budget for the current fiscal year.

Because of the urgency, the law ministry on 19 February issued a circular urging all other ministries to take necessary steps such as drafting bills to be placed in parliament to translate them into Acts of parliament. Every ministry was asked to prepare synopsis of the bills for consideration of the cabinet. The new parliament is not legally bound to stand by all of the ordinances. Many of them will be scrutinised in light of the ruling party's election pledges and policies.

Moreover, the new parliament dominated by first time MPs will have to deal with the contentious July Charter implementation order, which has already created a political deadlock.

What happened last time after the end of the emergency regime? The then parliament formed after the election in December 2008 received 122 ordinances from the Fakhruddin led emergency regime.

A special committee consisting of senior lawmakers was formed to review and select the ordinances needed to be kept alive through passage of bills. After a series of meetings, it recommended for less than half of the 122 ordinances to be transformed into the act of parliament through passage of separate bills.

This time, the new parliament may not have a smooth journey due to the contentious issue of the July Charter which the former chief adviser claimed as 'best achievement of his government'. 

Last but not the least

The Yunus-led interim government was mired in controversy and criticism over a number of deals, as economists and experts raised concerns about transparency, legal mandate, and timing.

As an unelected administration, its decision to finalise long-term, high-value international agreements just days before the 2026 general elections sparked significant backlash from economists and political rivals.

However, the interim government paid little heed to the outcry and proceeded as it wished, amid what critics described as a lack of effective checks and balances during its tenure.

It often appeared to enjoy a "free hit." Now voices are getting louder demanding review of all the deals, their legality and impacts on Bangladesh.