President Cannot Endorse July Charter, Says Barrister Tania Amir

Barrister Tania Amir, daughter of the late constitutional expert Amirul Islam, has asserted that the so-called “July Charter” has no legal standing and cannot be endorsed by the President of Bangladesh. In a video statement shared from her verified Facebook account, she described the July Charter as a purely political agreement that falls outside the constitutional framework of the state.

According to Barrister Amir, the President does not possess the authority to approve or validate a political charter in the manner suggested by its proponents. She emphasised that the process of enacting any law in Bangladesh is clearly defined by the Constitution. Legislation must first be introduced and debated in Parliament by elected Members of Parliament. Once passed, it may be subject to judicial scrutiny where applicable, and only thereafter can it be formally promulgated through a gazette notification by the President. This, she said, is the constitutionally recognised and lawful procedure.

She further alleged that Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami is attempting to replace the 1972 Constitution with the July Charter through political manoeuvring. Referring to the Constitution introduced under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1972, Barrister Amir argued that any attempt to discard that foundational legal document in favour of a political agreement would be unconstitutional. She characterised such efforts as being outside the bounds of established constitutional norms.

In her remarks, she also referred to Dr Muhammad Yunus, stating that he had taken oath under the authority of President Shahabuddin Ahmed in accordance with constitutional provisions. She explained that, under special circumstances and upon the advice of the Chief Justice, a government may be formed within the constitutional framework. Therefore, she maintained, the existing government structure remains lawful and constitutionally valid.

Barrister Amir stressed that no political party’s agreement can be directly incorporated into the Constitution without following due legislative process. Should there be a compelling reason for constitutional amendment or reform, the proper route would involve parliamentary debate, the formation of a constituent or special committee, oath-taking before the Speaker, and the formal presentation of a bill in Parliament. Only after a majority vote in favour could such changes take effect.

She concluded by warning that efforts to undermine the 1972 Constitution in favour of an alternative charter risk destabilising the state. Calling for vigilance, she urged citizens to remain aware of what she described as attempts to alter the constitutional order through means not sanctioned by law.