Political tensions flared on the very day newly elected Members of Parliament were sworn in, throwing the fate of the Constitutional Reform Council into doubt.
On Tuesday morning, BNP deputies took the oath only as Members of Parliament, refusing to do so as members of the Constitutional Reform Council.
Despite earlier indications that they might abstain if BNP did not participate, members of the Jamaat-led 11-party alliance, which includes the National Citizen Party (NCP), eventually took both oaths, exposing clear divisions among the parties.
Experts say such a situation has no precedent in the country’s history, deepening the legal and political uncertainty.
Under the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order 2025, a “Yes” vote in the referendum requires elected MPs to serve as members of the Constitutional Reform Council.
Therefore, they were expected to take the oath, both as MPs and as council members.
At 10:30am, BNP winners were sworn in as parliamentarians at the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban but declined the council oath. The party argued that the constitution does not provide for such an oath and that it would not accept any additional obligation beyond the constitutional requirement.
As a result, despite preparations, no council oath was administered by the Parliament Secretariat to BNP members.
Before the ceremony, BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed echoed the same sentiment, stating that there was no constitutional basis for MPs to take the oath as council members, noting that they had not been elected as members of a reform council.
He said that before forming the council in line with the referendum result, explicit constitutional provisions must be inserted. The Third Schedule must clearly define who administers the oath and in what format.
Only after those steps are completed could council members be sworn in, he said, adding that the BNP has acted strictly in accordance with the constitution and would continue to do so.
Following the BNP’s decision, speculation grew that the 11-party alliance might boycott the process altogether.
Jamaat-e-Islami Assistant Secretary General Hamidur Rahman Azad told TIMES of Bangladesh in the morning that if the BNP did not take the council oath, they would also refrain.
However, Jamaat and NCP members later proceeded to take both oaths.
Narayanganj-4 MP and NCP Joint Member Secretary Advocate Abdullah Al Amin said voters had given them a mandate to implement the aspirations of July and that taking both oaths reflected that commitment.
He accused BNP of ignoring the referendum verdict by limiting itself to the parliamentary oath.
The alliance subsequently boycotted the cabinet swearing-in ceremony. NCP Member Secretary Akhter Hossen said BNP’s refusal to take the council oath amounted to rejecting the referendum outcome, prompting their decision to skip the afternoon ceremony.
After the first meeting of the BNP parliamentary party at around 12:30pm, Salahuddin Ahmed told reporters, “We are committed to following the July National Charter exactly as it was signed through political consensus.”
He said that to honour the referendum verdict, parliament must first convene and pass the necessary laws and constitutional amendments. Under the current constitution, the chief election commissioner has no authority to administer an oath as council members, he said. No such initiative was taken, and the BNP did not participate.
“All actions must be constitutionally grounded. Everything we have done so far has been in accordance with the constitution, and we will continue to govern in line with it,” he said.
The implementation order states that, within 30 working days of the election results, parliament will convene its first sitting and, in the same manner, the Constitutional Reform Council will hold its first meeting.
The meeting will also decide on the chairperson and vice-chairperson to lead the commission.
The council must complete constitutional amendments within 180 working days of its first session. The order, however, does not specify what happens if that deadline is missed.
Elected representatives participating in its work will be designated as “council members”. The council will determine its own procedures, including convening sessions and passing amendments. A minimum of at least 60 members is required, and amendments must pass by a majority of the total membership.
Under the existing constitution, amendments require a two-thirds majority in Parliament. This time, however, the Constitutional Reform Council — not the regular Parliament — is tasked with the process.
Jamaat and the NCP had argued that implementing the July Charter would alter the Constitution’s basic structure and that using a council could reduce the scope for judicial challenges.
The BNP, on the other hand, had questioned the necessity of such a body.
Several parties had proposed issuing an order rather than an ordinance to implement the charter. This move was also opposed by the BNP, arguing that the president has the authority to issue ordinances but not orders.
After consulting experts, the National Consensus Commission recommended that the President issue the “July Charter (Constitutional Reform) Order” on 13 November 2025, which included the formation of the council.
Clause 8(1) of the order states that elected representatives, after taking oath as MPs, shall at the same ceremony take oath as council members in the prescribed form. Clause 8(2) provides that the same authority administering the parliamentary oath shall administer the council oath.
At the time, Salahuddin Ahmed had said the order introduced a new concept of a Constitutional Reform Council and questioned whether the president had the constitutional authority to issue such an order.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer and constitutional expert Shahdeen Malik told TIMES of Bangladesh that there is no precedent for such a situation, either in Bangladesh or elsewhere, which explains the current complexity. He added that the president’s authority extends to issuing ordinances, not orders.
Meanwhile, Supreme Court lawyer ABM Ataul Majid filed a writ petition in the High Court on 17 February challenging the legality of the 12 February referendum and seeking annulment of the results declared on 13 February.
He said the case may be heard next week by a bench led by Justice Fatema Najib. The cabinet secretary, chief election commissioner, law secretary and election commission secretary have been named as respondents.
The petition questions why the referendum and its gazette notification should not be declared without lawful authority and non-binding. It also seeks a directive requiring a clear constitutional and legal framework before any future referendum and a stay on the Referendum 2026 results pending disposal of the rule.
Asked about the alliance’s next steps, NCP Media Sub-Committee Secretary Yasir Arafat said discussions were underway and a decision would be taken soon.
