Dhaka rally as referendum ordinance faces possible repeal

A controversial referendum ordinance introduced during Bangladesh’s interim government is increasingly likely to be repealed, exposing deep political and constitutional divisions at the heart of the state. Signals emerging from a recent meeting of a parliamentary special committee suggest that the ordinance is on the path to repeal, with a formal proposal already placed before lawmakers.

This indication of a possible repeal has triggered political reactions beyond parliament. On Sunday (29 March), the Citizens’ Forum for Referendum Implementation (CFRI) organised a rally in Dhaka, calling for the implementation of referendums as a democratic mechanism to resolve political deadlock.

The demonstration took place along Manik Mia Avenue near the National Parliament complex- an area long associated with the centre of political power in Bangladesh. From early morning, participants from diverse social backgrounds gathered with banners, placards, and slogans emphasising what they described as the supremacy of the ‘public mandate’.

Among those present was internationally recognised photographer and human rights activist Shahidul Alam. His presence added symbolic weight to the rally, as speakers repeatedly invoked themes of democratic accountability, civil rights, and the legitimacy of direct public participation in state decision-making.

Protesters voiced a series of charged slogans: ‘Be united to protect July’, ‘Public mandate of referendum is above the constitution’, and ‘Those who reject the July charter are national traitors.’ Although controversial, these slogans reflected a growing strand of political thought that seeks to elevate direct public opinion over representative institutions. The movement also gained traction online, with hashtags such as #JulyCharter2025 amplifying its reach beyond the streets.

The rally unfolded against a backdrop of intensifying disagreement within parliament. Members of the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) are reported to support repealing the ordinance, arguing that the interim government overstepped its constitutional authority. According to several lawmakers, referendums- particularly those affecting the fundamental structure of the state- cannot be introduced through executive ordinance without parliamentary approval.

Opposition figures, including representatives of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, have taken a sharply different stance. They argue that referendums constitute a legitimate democratic tool for gauging public opinion and warn that repealing the ordinance could be politically motivated. Some leaders have suggested that questions over the ordinance’s legality should ultimately be resolved through the judiciary rather than by parliamentary decision alone.

The parliamentary special committee tasked with reviewing 133 ordinances issued during the interim period remains divided. Its chair, Advocate Zainul Abedin, has acknowledged that no consensus has yet been reached on the referendum measure. While agreement has reportedly been achieved on 113 ordinances, the remaining 20- including those related to referendums, anti-corruption, human rights, policing, and enforced disappearances- continue to generate disagreement.

Legal experts are similarly split. Constitutional scholar Shahdeen Malikh has pointed out that Bangladesh’s constitution provides only limited scope for referendums, making the interim government’s initiative inherently contentious. The key question, he suggests, is whether the ordinance encroaches upon the fundamental structure of the constitution- an issue that could invite judicial scrutiny.

Others advocate a more moderate approach. Academic Asif Nazrul has argued that referendums should not be dismissed outright. Instead, he suggests that parliament could establish a clear legal framework governing their use, thereby avoiding ambiguity and future political conflict.

Beyond legality, practical concerns remain unresolved. Analysts question whether the outcome of any referendum held under the ordinance would be binding, and if so, how such a binding authority would interact with parliamentary sovereignty. Some members of the committee have warned that a non-binding referendum could become merely symbolic, while a binding one could disrupt the balance of constitutional power.

Under Article 93 of the constitution, ordinances must be approved within 30 working days of the first parliamentary session or lapse automatically. With a deadline looming in April, time is rapidly running out for lawmakers to reach a decision.

Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed has indicated that the government is categorising the interim ordinances into three groups: those to be passed unchanged, those to be amended, and those to be repealed. The referendum ordinance, according to multiple sources, is increasingly likely to fall into the final category.

As political tensions deepen, the fate of the ordinance now rests on the committee’s final recommendation and a decisive parliamentary vote. At stake is more than a single piece of legislation: the outcome will help define the balance between direct public will and representative governance in Bangladesh’s evolving democratic framework.