One of the greatest beauties of parliamentary democracy is the balance of power. Democracy flourishes only when the three branches of government – the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary – can function independently and autonomously.
However, if the legislature interferes with the judiciary, or if the executive seeks to control it, democracy stumbles. For this very reason, the three organs of government must operate with mutual respect and deference.
A shining example of this institutional balance was recently witnessed in the United States. The US Supreme Court ruled against an order issued by President Donald Trump that sought to limit birthright citizenship. This court order is being viewed as a major defeat for President Trump.
In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court justices upheld a lower court’s decision, which had blocked Trump’s executive order. This is how democracy is strengthened and institutionalized.
In developed democratic countries across the world, commenting on court verdicts is contrary to parliamentary norms. In the Indian Parliament, speaking against someone who has been proven innocent by a court verdict is a punishable offense; consequently, the memberships of several Lok Sabha MPs have been suspended in the past.
The current Speaker of the Indian Lok Sabha, Om Birla, delivered a ruling last year stating that no comments can be made on a matter once an individual is proven innocent by a court. This practice is not unique to India’s Lok Sabha; the British Parliament operates under similar principles.
According to the conventions of the House of Commons, discussing a court verdict inside Parliament after a judgment has been delivered amounts to interference in the judiciary’s work – a practice deemed dangerous for democracy.
In Bangladesh, a new parliament was formed following the events of July 2024. More than half of the members of the National Parliament, formed through the February 12 elections, have been elected as MPs for the very first time. Their understanding of parliamentary proceedings is not yet fully mature.
The citizens of the country hoped that these young members would learn the norms and practices of parliamentary democracy and groom themselves into skilled parliamentarians for the future. Notably, several individuals who participated in the July movement were elected as MPs this time.
However, a review of the National Parliament sessions reveals that some first-time MPs have no desire to learn parliamentary discipline. Instead, their objective seems to be to make the parliament and democracy dysfunctional – aiming to destroy democracy and establish a reign of tyranny and mob rule in the country, akin to what they attempted under the leadership of Yunus.
The mastermind behind these disruptors is Hasnat Abdullah, an MP from the Jamaat-NCP alliance representing the Cumilla-4 constituency. The sole objective of this MP is to controversialize and destabilize the parliament while destroying the nascent democratic system. Just as the defeated forces of 1971, Jamaat, are declaring outside the parliament that they do not wish to give the current elected government time – attempting to stoke unrest on the streets to foil democracy – Hasnat is acting as Jamaat’s henchman inside parliament.
By raising unwarranted issues, he is venting venom against the judiciary and the executive. Through these actions, Hasnat Abdullah is not only instigating chaos within parliament but is actively attempting to destroy democracy itself.
On one hand, he uses the National Parliament to demand personal privileges. For instance, last April, Hasnat pointed out that while every upazila nirbahi officer (UNO) and upazila chairman is provided with a government vehicle, no such arrangement exists for Members of Parliament. He mentioned that MPs often have to travel to their constituencies in rented cars – a matter of public embarrassment that they cannot even share with anyone.
To make reaching the public easier, he requested the government to arrange suitable vehicles for MPs. On the other hand, utterly disregarding parliamentary democracy norms, he is propagating false and baseless allegations against various individuals and institutions. Hasnat’s actions are fostering a highly negative public perception of the parliament.
On Thursday, 25 June, during the general discussion on the budget in the National Parliament, Hasnat Abdullah presented false statements regarding one of the country’s leading industrial conglomerates. His remarks were uncalled for, illogical, aggressive, and offensive. Most concerning, however, is that in delivering such false and malicious statements, he took a stand against the judiciary, committing contempt of court.
Hasnat’s 25 June speech flew in the face of parliamentary etiquette and violated fundamental constitutional rights. Furthermore, his remarks directly breached the ruling delivered by the Speaker in the National Parliament on 21 June, which explicitly stated that, It is improper to make adverse remarks about someone who does not have the opportunity to defend themselves in Parliament. Therefore, that speech has been expunged from the proceedings.”
Simultaneously, Hasnat Abdullah’s speech violated the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. Specifically, sub-clause (1) of Rule 270 prohibits comments on sub-judice matters, sub-clause (6) bars the use of unparliamentary, abusive, or obscene language, and sub-clause (7) strictly prohibits defamatory remarks.
Even more alarming is that Hasnat committed contempt of court through his speech by labeling an individual – who was proven innocent by a court verdict – as a killer. The individual against whom Hasnat directed his false, fabricated, and malicious remarks was found entirely innocent. The matter in question was legally settled back in 2023. In 2021, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate disposed of the Gulshan Police Station Case No. 27(4)21 following a proper trial.
After months of hearings and arguments from both sides, the judge acquitted the accused of the charges. In response, the plaintiff filed a “Naraji” (no-confidence) petition before the Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal-8. Following extensive hearings and arguments from all parties, the court rejected the Naraji petition. The judge of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal delivered a final verdict, declaring the accused innocent and completely unconnected to the incident.
Why did Hasnat Abdullah resurrect an issue in the National Parliament that has already been definitively settled by a court of law? The reason is simple: he does not believe in the rule of law; Hasnat is the mastermind of mob violence.
Legal experts believe that Hasnat’s speech constitutes direct interference with the independence of the judiciary and poses a blatant threat to it. Hasnat’s rise to prominence was fueled by mob violence. The mob is the ultimate enemy of the rule of law and justice. Using mob power, Hasnat has occupied media offices, forced Supreme Court justices to resign, and created an atmosphere of terror and extortion across educational and business institutions. Forcing everyone into submission through intimidation, while completely disregarding law and justice, defines Hasnat’s brand of politics. This does not reflect democratic thought or culture; rather, it is an attempt to establish neo-fascism. His proclamations and actions shows that he is following and endorsing ‘fascist’ tendencies which NCP uses to discredit its opponents.
Hasnat has not only threatened a single industrial family; he has threatened the entire private sector. His remarks have already triggered deep anxiety across private enterprises. By raking up a legally settled matter, Hasnat has effectively threatened the judiciary once again. This is a clear case of contempt of court and an absolute violation of parliamentary decorum.
Whose game is Hasnat Abdullah actually playing? Democracy in Bangladesh was established at the cost of immense bloodshed. Yet, anti-liberation forces and anti-democratic conspirators are now engaged in a sinister game to destroy it. Jamaat’s renewed threats of a mass uprising and Hasnat’s aggressive rhetoric on the parliament floor are intrinsically linked. Does Hasnat wish to imperil democracy once again through mob terror? Is that why he stands in parliament openly threatening the judiciary and private entrepreneurs?
It must be kept in mind that instigators of mob terror like Hasnat are a direct threat to the country’s democracy, the rule of law, and its independence. All pro-democratic forces must unite against them.
