[ad_1]
The government and the opposition have debated in parliament about the abolition of the provisional government system. BNP MP Harunur Rashid argued that the main objective of removing the provisional government system from the constitution was to appease the government.
In response, the Minister of Fisheries and Animal Resources, Sham Rezaul Karim, said the ruling was aimed at improving the constitutional system in Bangladesh. This is not a verdict to please the government. The debate took place in Parliament on Monday evening during the approval of the Marine Fisheries Bill-2020.
The proposal to approve the bill was raised by the Minister of Fisheries and Animal Resources. Harunur Rashid participated in the discussion on the proposal to amend the provisions of the bill and to verify public opinion and spoke about the interim government system.
When asked about the repeal of all the ordinances issued during the military regime, he said: “Do we implement all the rulings of the Supreme Court?
The observations made by the interim government were not implemented. In order for the verdict to be rendered, this verdict was given in 2011 to satisfy the government. That is, I repealed the Fifth and Seventh Amendments, but how can I repeal all the activities that are still taking place at that time? What is the need for the effectiveness of the law? If you made all the laws of that time illegal today, then all the laws of that time have been enforced. I declared martial law illegal, but I declared all activities of that time illegal. What will happen to all the laws in force at that time?
In response, the Minister of Fisheries and Animal Resources, Sham Rezaul Karim, said: ‘Why do we not accept the observation of the provisional government? I wanted to say something like that. How long was the observation? Observation is not a decision, and the option of observation was given to Parliament. Parliament has done what it saw fit. The fifteenth and seventeenth amendments were not made to please the government.
He said: ‘The constitution of Bangladesh. To which we often refer. From the preamble of this constitution to article 1 to the last article, there is no law called Martial Law anywhere and no one has given authority to anyone. What our constitution says is, if there is no president, there is a vice president, if there is no vice president, there is a speaker. Who gave the military rulers the authority of the military officers to take power? After the uniform I am the candidate, I will not vote for me, I will not vote, I will vote yes or no. In some places, 101 percent of the votes were cast. The Supreme Court has issued that verdict because there is no legal basis for those who make this kind of mistake. This verdict was not to please the government, but to improve Bangladesh’s constitutional system. This is not a verdict to please the government.
Later, BNP MP, lawyer Rumin Farhana, took part in the discussion and said that when someone is in power, it is very good to give enough power to law enforcement. House searches, warrantless searches, all are bunch powers, the ability to kill without trial if possible, the ability to shoot on sight is very comfortable to grant these powers. But when he leaves power, it is clear that everyone knows what the consequences of this type of power can be.
“What does the constitution say about mobile courts?” He asked. Why did the government hurriedly file an appeal on behalf of the court on mobile? Why can’t the suspension order, which has been pending for the past three years, be heard? The government has yet to take steps to hear the case, only to extend the mobile court and hand over some of the powers of the judiciary to the executive branch.
[ad_2]
