The Voice News:In an unexpected development, Chief Justice Dr. Syed Refat Ahmed held an emergency meeting this Sunday afternoon with Interim Government Chief Adviser Professor Dr. Yunus at his official residence, Jamuna.
Amid ongoing speculation surrounding the list released by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) detailing individuals under military custody after August 5 — a list that includes former Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan — and questions about the Supreme Court’s full bench reference on Dr. Yunus’s swearing-in, today’s meeting was officially described as a discussion on the country’s overall situation. Nevertheless, the sudden nature of the meeting triggered widespread public curiosity and concern.
Later in the evening, Dr. Yunus met with leaders from various political parties and organizations. A total of eight parties and organizations participated in the two-part meeting.
Judges in Military Custody: Full Bench Reference on Yunus Government Faces Scrutiny
Recent developments in Bangladesh’s political and judicial spheres have sparked new questions.
According to information from ISPR, the 24th Chief Justice of Bangladesh, Obaidul Hassan, had been under the protection of the military along with his family since August 5 of last year. This has raised a critical question: who prepared the full bench reference of the Supreme Court that validated the formation of the interim government under Dr. Yunus? On what authority did Dr. Yunus assume the role of head of government?
Judicial Custody and the Full Bench Reference
ISPR data indicates that after the fall of the Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government, Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan was under military supervision from August 5 onward. This period coincided with severe political unrest. Following Hasina’s departure and the dissolution of parliament, Dr. Yunus declared the formation of an interim government on August 8.
The Appellate Division’s full bench, reportedly led by Chief Justice Hassan, validated this interim government via a virtual hearing. However, if the chief justice was under military custody, as ISPR states, serious questions arise: who directed the preparation and proceedings of this reference? Legal experts, political analysts, and the general public are now engaged in heated debate over the legitimacy of the process.
There are concerns over whether the chief justice voluntarily and consciously issued the opinion, or if coercion was involved while he was in military custody.
Dr. Yunus, serving as chief adviser since August 8, is relying on the Supreme Court’s verdict to validate his authority. Under Article 106 of the Constitution, President Mohammad Shahabuddin had sought the court’s opinion through the Ministry of Law, and a seven-member bench of the Appellate Division granted legitimacy to the interim government.
However, Bangladesh’s Constitution does not clearly provide for the formation of an interim government. Legal experts suggest the doctrine of necessity was applied — a principle invoked in past political crises. Yet, the chief justice’s custody under the military casts doubt on the transparency of the process. Some critics even allege this could be part of a “quasi-military coup.”
Judicial Independence and Military Role
Article 94(4) of the Constitution guarantees the independence of the judiciary. Still, Justice Obaidul Hassan’s resignation on August 10, 2024 — following his reported stay under military custody — suggests external pressure on the judiciary. It is believed he was compelled to resign due to mounting pressure from student protests and pro-Yunus activist groups, highlighting their rising influence.
The military’s role is also under scrutiny. Army Chief General Waqar-uz-Zaman announced he would act under the authority of the president, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Nevertheless, the Yunus government granted the military special executive magistracy powers, enabling them to arrest and take on police-like responsibilities — a sign of increasing political influence.
Some have labeled the Yunus-led interim government “unconstitutional,” since the Constitution contains no provisions for such a setup. As a result, it is being considered a “revolutionary moment.”
Constitutional scholars argue that only an elected parliament has the authority to initiate reforms. The interim government’s main responsibility should be restoring law and order and ensuring quick elections. However, Yunus has emphasized reforms over election timelines, fueling further criticism.
The disclosure of the chief justice’s stay under military protection and the opaque process surrounding the full bench reference have triggered new debates over the judiciary and political legitimacy in Bangladesh.
Questions surrounding Dr. Yunus’s authority and the military’s involvement may significantly impact the country’s constitutional order and democratic framework. In this context, a transparent investigation and clear public accountability are now urgently needed.