‘Insulted’ President’s letter to foreign adviser and some constitutional questions

When controversy erupted over the removal of President Md Shahabuddin’s portrait from Bangladesh’s foreign missions, many wondered whether the President was being removed or was planning to step down himself.

Now, a letter written by the President to Foreign Adviser Md Touhid Hossain has come to light. On Wednesday (1 October), journalist Zulkarnain Saer published the letter on his verified Facebook page, and several media outlets followed suit.

In the letter, signed on 28 September, the President referred to the removal of his portrait from Bangladesh’s diplomatic offices worldwide and questioned, “Could there not have been a tactful step so that the President was not demeaned?”

Stating that he had been discharging his constitutional duties with sincerity, Md Shahabuddin wrote, “Since independence, nothing like this has happened. I have issued nearly 50 ordinances to provide full legal cooperation to the government. The government is now on firm legal ground. My actions during the national crisis from 5 to 8 August 2024 are also noteworthy.”

The head of state expressed anger, pain and frustration in the letter written to an official of lower ministerial rank — a rare event not just in Bangladesh but perhaps anywhere in the world.

It should be noted that there is no law or constitutional provision requiring the display of the President’s portrait in government offices or in Bangladesh’s embassies abroad. Only the display of the portrait of Bangabandhu is mandatory, as per the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution passed in 2011.

A new sub-clause was added to Article 4 of the Constitution, stating: “The portrait of the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman must be preserved and displayed in the offices of the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice, and in all government and semi-government offices, autonomous bodies, statutory authorities, educational institutions, and in Bangladesh’s embassies and missions abroad.”

However, there is no law or constitutional clause requiring the display of the President’s or Prime Minister’s portraits in offices. Such displays are merely the result of Cabinet decisions. Therefore, the controversy over the removal of President Md Shahabuddin’s portraits from foreign missions could easily have been avoided if the Cabinet had simply made a decision on the matter.

The Cabinet has the authority to revoke any decision made by a previous Cabinet, just as Parliament can repeal previous parliamentary resolutions. The Constitution grants this authority as part of ensuring the empowerment of the people, stating that “all powers in the Republic belong to the people, and their exercise shall be effective only under and by the authority of this Constitution.” Thus, the Cabinet of the interim government could have cancelled the previous decision concerning portraits by a new Cabinet resolution — but it did not.

In his letter to the foreign adviser, the President also wrote, “Overnight, my portraits were competitively removed, and it became not only a subject of media discussion but also a global humiliation through social media. As a conscious citizen and freedom fighter who contributed to the Liberation War, I have been insulted.”

On 17 August, the country’s media was abuzz all day with reports that the foreign ministry had ordered Bangladesh’s embassies, high commissions, and diplomatic residences abroad to remove President Md Shahabuddin’s portraits. Though no specific source was cited, the issue became “the talk of the country.”

In response to journalists’ questions, Environment Adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan stated that there was no written instruction and no Cabinet discussion on the matter. This raised the question: who issued the verbal order, and why was such an important decision made verbally? If the government’s intention was to remove the President’s portraits, did it consider that a verbal directive would suffice without written instruction?

Later that night, Deputy Press Secretary to the Chief Adviser, Azad Majumder, wrote on Facebook: “From the beginning, the interim government has discouraged the use of portraits in government offices. An unwritten zero-portrait policy has been maintained. Still, some have used portraits of the head of government or state on their own initiative. No written instruction has been given to any office or mission to remove them. Yet the issue is being exaggerated. Since the election announcement, the scope for political manipulation has shrunk, so even trivial matters are now being blown out of proportion.”

After the fall of the Awami League and Sheikh Hasina’s government following the July mass uprising, her portraits were naturally removed from government offices. In many places, they were vandalised and even set on fire. Portraits of Bangabandhu were also damaged, and in some cases, trampled underfoot.

In November last year, Bangabandhu’s portrait was removed from the Darbar Hall of Bangabhaban, an event acknowledged in a Facebook post by Adviser Mahfuz Alam. But, according to the current Constitution, displaying Bangabandhu’s portrait is mandatory. Hence, questions arose whether, by removing it, the Adviser himself had violated the Constitution—or whether this, too, reflected the so-called “zero-portrait policy” mentioned by the Deputy Press Secretary.

In the current incident, however, it is clear that the portraits removed from foreign missions were not of the “President of Bangladesh” as an institution, but specifically of Md Shahabuddin. The objection, therefore, appears personal rather than institutional. As he was appointed during the Awami League government and is seen as a loyalist of that party, several political groups, including those who led the uprising, have questioned why he still occupies the presidency after the fall of the Awami League. Demonstrations have even been held demanding his removal from office. Yet for various reasons, this has not happened, nor has he resigned. The question now is whether the removal of his portraits from foreign missions signals a move to oust him.

In reality, the process of removing a sitting President under the current Constitution is complex and lengthy. Article 52(1) stipulates that a President can be impeached only for violating the Constitution or committing gross misconduct, and only if a majority of MPs submit a written notice to the Speaker. The motion can then be discussed 14 to 30 days after notice, and will only pass if at least two-thirds of all MPs vote in favour. There are additional procedural steps, making it a cumbersome process.

Similarly, even removing a President on grounds of physical or mental incapacity requires a parliamentary motion signed by a majority of MPs, followed by the formation of a medical board by the Speaker. The board must examine the President within ten days, and only after a parliamentary vote can the post be declared vacant. Historically, presidents in Bangladesh have been forced to resign rather than formally removed. But even resignation is now complicated, since Article 50(3) states that a President may resign by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker. As there is currently no Speaker or Deputy Speaker, to whom would the President submit his resignation? The Chief Justice? That would require amending the Constitution, or alternatively, seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 106 — the same clause that provided the basis for forming the interim government. Beyond that, there appears to be no immediate legal recourse.

Thus, the interim government and its stakeholders cannot remove the President through normal constitutional procedures. If he refuses to resign, there is no legal way to force him out. This perhaps explains the attempt to surround Bangabhaban and create pressure through demonstrations.

So, the question is not merely whether the President will remain or not, or what inconvenience his presence poses to the interim government and its backers, but rather what message was intended by the removal of his portraits—and by the President’s own expression of distress in a letter to a subordinate official. How this episode will be judged in Bangladesh’s future political and constitutional history remains uncertain.

Amin Al Rashid: journalist and writer