President's remark irks interim govt

President Shahabuddin's remark that there is no documentary evidence of deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's resignation triggered tempests in the interim administration and social media, calling in question his presidency.
Law Adviser of the post-uprising interim government Prof Asif Nazrul and other legal experts termed the President's speech "self-contradictory" and superfluous.
Legal experts further noted that ultimately Sheikh Hasina fled the country in the face of a mass uprising and the President dissolved parliament consequently. So her resignation doesn't matter after her runaway, they opined about what implies forfeiture of one's position through dereliction of station.
Meanwhile, in a retraction, the President urged all not to create any new controversy on the "settled issue" of former Prime Minister's resignation. He called on all to refrain from "destabilizing or embarrassing" the interim government by creating any controversy.
This call from the top seat of the state was made through a notification sent Monday by the President's office.
In an interview published in a Bengali newspaper President Mohammed Shahabuddin said, "I heard that she (Sheikh Hasina) resigned. But I don't have any documentary evidence."
At one point of the interview, the President said, "There is no more debate about this. It is true that the Prime Minister has left. Still, I have taken the opinion of the Supreme Court so that this question never arises."
However, the President, in his speech addressed to the nation on August 5 this year after Sheikh Hasina's exit, acknowledged that Sheikh Hasina resigned from the post of Prime Minister and he received the resignation letter.
The President also mentioned the matter in a letter sent to the Supreme Court for asking its opinion over the legality of giving oath to the interim government.
However, in the interview with the Manab Zamin Chief Editor he denied having received the resignation letter, thus opening Pandora's box.
In a strongly worded reaction Law Adviser Asif Nazrul said the president's statement, that he did not receive former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's resignation letter, is a "lie".
At a press conference called for response to President Mohammed Shahabuddin's interview, Mr Nazrul further said the President's statement is "self-contradictory" and "tantamount to a violation of his oath".
He also said if the president sticks to his statement, the advisory council of the interim government will discuss in a meeting whether Shahabuddin is qualified to remain in the position of President.
Nazrul made a statement that referred to the president's address to the nation on August 5, hours after Hasina fled the country in the face of a student-mass uprising.
The president had said in that speech that the former prime minister submitted her resignation letter to him and that he received it.
The law adviser also cited the opinion sent by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, in response to a request made by the president in accordance with Article 106 of the constitution which gives advisory jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.
Asif Nazrul showed the reporters at the press conference the first line of the opinion, which reads: "In the current situation of the country, as the prime minister has resigned…"
The adviser further argued that the chief justice and judges of the Appellate Division had signed on that opinion and that the president saw the opinion, received and signed it as well.
On a far serious note, the law professor-turned functionary in charge of law ministry called in question the mental capacity of the president to continue in his service.
"We know that the constitution says that if you don't have the physical or mental capacity, or if you commit a serious misconduct, then the constitution provides a scope to take steps about whether you can stay on as the president," he said.
"If you contradict something you have said yourself in front of the whole nation, then that is akin to misconduct. Then the question arises if he has the mental capacity to serve as the president. These questions may arise as he has created the scope for that."
Former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Advocate Zainul Abedin said, "A president is the chief of a state. People don't expect that he will lie. President's statement over Hasina's resignation is intentional and not true. He should tell the truth to the nation that she (Hasina) resigned and the person (Army Chief) who received the resignation letter is still alive. He never said that he didn't receive this."
The lawyer further argued that the people have no confusion that Hasina resigned. "As the President could not stand by his statement given on August 5, he should leave his chair."
Another Supreme Court lawyer, Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua, thinks questioning whether the former prime minister resigned or not is "totally irrelevant now… Ultimately prime minister fled the country. Consequently the President dissolved the Parliament exercising his jurisdiction. How a prime minister remains when there is no parliament. After dissolving the parliament, there is not existence of prime minister's post."
Absence of resignation letter of the ousted prime minister may have a different meaning. "The process was not normal. She fled the country in the face of a mass uprising and handed over power to the Army Chief. So the Army Chief may have an answer of it, instead of the President. There was a possibility of having bloodshed. To avoid that bloodshed they may take some measures."
It will not create any constitutional vacuum in the country, the lawyer opines.
President's office notification further said, "Confusion has been created in peoples' mind over the news published in different media quoting President's comment over former prime minister's resignation.
"The President's clear statement in this regard is that questions raised in people's mind over Sheikh Hasina's resignation and leaving the country in the face of the student mass-revolution, the dissolution of parliament and the constitutional validity of the current interim government have been answered in the order of the Appellate Division."

[email protected]