Published : 23 Oct 2025, 06:47 AM
Updated : 21 Aug 2026, 02:37 PM
Lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan has argued before the Appellate Division that the 1/11 political crisis in Bangladesh occurred because former president Iajuddin Ahmed “breached’ the Constitution.
The hearing on appeals against the verdict that annulled the caretaker government system began on Tuesday.
Sharif continued his submissions for a second day on Wednesday before the seven-member full Appellate Division bench led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed. The hearing will resume on Thursday.
The lawyer said he would complete his submissions before other appellants’ lawyers take their turn, followed by the state’s arguments.
Attorney General Mohammad Asaduzzaman, Additional Attorneys General Aneek R Haque, Abdul Jabbar Bhuiyan, Arshadur Rouf and several deputy attorneys general were present on behalf of the state.
Speaking to after the hearing, Sharif said the bench led by Justice Khairul Haque, which annulled the caretaker system, “made several errors”, some of which were presented before the court on Tuesday.
He added that the earlier bench had acted beyond its judicial authority. “In giving that verdict, they performed roles meant for the legislature or the executive.
“They exercised powers beyond the judiciary, which was another major flaw in the judgement.”
Sharif noted that discussions in newspapers had also pointed out that although the caretaker system introduced through the 13th Amendment might have contained errors, it could have been improved.
He said: “Some people link the 2006–07 Army-controlled government to flaws in the caretaker system. But we showed the court, referring to the minority opinions of Justices Wahhab Miah and Iman Ali, that the 1/11 crisis did not stem from the system itself.
“It occurred because the then president Iajuddin breached the Constitution by assuming the office of chief advisor instead of following the sub-articles that governed the process.
He told the court that the crisis began from that constitutional violation. “The incident was not due to any defect in the caretaker system, but because the president acted beyond the Constitution.”
Sharif also urged the court to consider if it could make observations on any faults or inconsistencies in the system.
“We told the court that its jurisdiction is limited to determining whether a law or amendment is legally valid. Improving a law is the responsibility of lawmakers, not the judiciary,” he said.
When asked whether reinstating the caretaker system would affect the current interim government, the lawyer said it would not.
He added, “The caretaker system, if revived, will not impact the interim government, which was formed under a different constitutional context. It was created from the public will following the power vacuum that emerged after the government fled, based on recognised constitutional conventions.
“Its role is to govern, implement post-revolution reforms, and then hold an election to transfer power to an elected government.”
On whether a caretaker government would need to be formed before the election, Sharif told the court that it would not be necessary or feasible now.
“We made it clear that this will not be required or possible. The caretaker provisions introduced by the 13th Amendment include clause 58C (2), which explicitly provides that a caretaker government shall be constituted within 15 days of the dissolution of parliament. Therefore, the caretaker mechanism can be activated only after parliament is dissolved.”
He added: “When the parliament formed after the February election is dissolved, clause 58C can be triggered and a caretaker government can be formed within 15 days.”
Sharif explained that there is confusion among lawyers and the public about whether the 13th Amendment would automatically come back into effect if the Appellate Division overturns the 2011 verdict.
He referred to previous cases involving the 8th and 16th Amendments, where the law that existed before being struck down was sometimes treated as revived in practice.
However, since this automatic revival does not usually happen in Bangladesh, he assured the court that even if the 13th Amendment is restored by the judiciary, parliament’s power will not be reduced.
