16th Amendment verdict motivated: Inu


DHAKA, Aug 24, 2017(BSS)-Information Minister Hasanul Haq Inu, MP, said today that the Supreme Court’s verdict on the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was motivated and its aim was not to protect the independence of the judiciary but to create confusion about the Great Liberation War, the role of Bangabandhu and restore the remnants of military rule.

The minister was speaking at a press conference at his Secretariat office.

He further said that the 16th Amendment was part of an effort by the government to restore the constitution to its original form.

“The Constitution of 1972 was mutilated by military rulers and the Court judgment preferred the mutilation rather than the original one, “he said.

“It raises several questions,” he added. “Can the Chief Justice change the Constitution,” he asked rhetorically.

He also said that there were many implications of the judgment. “For instance”, he said “Is the Chief Justice above the Constitution?”

Refuting allegations that the government was creating a controversy about the verdict, he said “On the contrary, the Chief Justice had raised controversy by questioning the very foundations on which the nation was built.”

He also pointed out at the many inconsistencies of the verdict and said “There were six different observations by six different justices. So which one should we follow? Particularly, as the verdict says that the observations were to be followed.”

Inu concluded by saying that the parliament would mull over the probable steps that could be taken in response to the verdict. He also said that another option was that the Chief Justice could end the controversy by resigning voluntarily. “After all he was appointed by the current president, who was elected by people’s representatives”. A third option was also identified by the minister. “The president could mediate in such a situation and delete the irrelevant portions of the verdict,” he said.

The information minister also observed that there was no political crisis because of the judgment. “It has not created any stalemate,” he said. “Neither had it brought the government to a standstill, “he added.” Debate does not mean chaos. It is a normal part of democracy,” he concluded.