Senior journalist Masuda Bhatti has examined the meticulously designed referendum scheduled for February 12, 2026, which will coincide with parliamentary elections. She describes it as a mechanism designed to alter the Constitution while granting indemnity to the conspirators and perpetrators behind the July 2024 anarchy, the August 5 takeover, and the establishment of what she and many critics call an illegal interim government.
The referendum, illegal as per the Constitution, centres on the so-called “July National Charter” (July Charter), an 84-clause document framed by the interim administration. While the government presents the Charter as a broad reform package aimed at reshaping politics, limiting prime ministerial terms, strengthening rights, and preventing future authoritarianism, opponents view it as a carefully engineered instrument to consolidate unelected power without authentic public consent.
Critics argue that the Yunus administration has deliberately kept citizens in the dark about the full contents and implications of the Charter, shrouding the entire exercise in deliberate ambiguity. The ballot paper features four questions, but in essence, there is only one real question: whether or not to approve the full implementation of the July Charter. The first three questions, according to detractors, function merely as cosmetic distractions or voter bait, intended to divert attention from the core issue. The fourth question directly asks for consent to implement the Charter. A single “Yes” on the fourth overrides any opposition to the first three, effectively bundling all 84 clauses—including 47 that require direct constitutional amendment—into one binding mandate. The remaining 37 clauses would then be enacted through ordinary laws, ordinances, or executive orders.
Sheikh Hasina slams Yunus for glorifying ‘July Heroes’ amid political turmoil
Sheikh Hasina asks India to stand firmly for democracy, minority protection
Sheikh Hasina asks supporters to boycott the farce election
A “Yes” victory would legally obligate the next elected parliament to implement every provision of the Charter; a “No” would nullify the entire document. Opponents warn that among the most alarming changes is the erasure of the “Bengali” national identity from the Constitution, reducing citizenship solely to “Bangladeshi.” This symbolic and substantive shift is seen as a direct assault on the cultural and historical identity forged through the 1952 Language Movement and the 1971 Liberation War, when millions rallied under the cry “Who are you? I am Bengali.”
The Charter also replaces the four foundational principles of the 1972 Constitution—Bengali nationalism, democracy, socialism, and secularism—with vaguer formulations: equality, human dignity, social justice, religious freedom, and harmony. Secularism is explicitly removed and replaced with references to communal coexistence and dignity, a formulation critics say echoes Pakistan’s constitutional language and marks a dangerous regression for a state that has historically defined itself as secular.
While some provisions—such as expanding fundamental rights, constitutional recognition of uninterrupted internet access, capping any individual’s tenure as prime minister at ten years, separating party leadership from the premiership, and granting constitutional status to caretaker governments—may appear attractive on paper, the Charter is accused of containing deeply impractical and hazardous elements. Proposals to place civil administration under direct parliamentary control are viewed as opening fresh channels for corruption; lifetime disqualification from elections for any conviction risks weaponising partisan prosecutions; promises of mechanisms to whiten black money are seen as effectively rewarding corrupt actors.
At a time when poverty has reportedly risen sharply (from 17% to 28% in a single year), education and health systems are collapsing, law and order is deteriorating, and religion is being politicised, the Charter offers no concrete solutions to these pressing everyday crises.
Interview With The Wall: Sheikh Hasina signals leadership overhaul
GCDG report highlights chaos and regime’s involvement after Hadi murder
Yunus Campaigning For ‘Yes’ Vote: Creating awareness or state manipulation?
The referendum process itself is widely condemned as unconstitutional and undemocratic, since no provision for such a plebiscite exists in the current Constitution. The interim government stands accused of mounting an aggressive, state-orchestrated campaign to secure a “Yes” vote—mobilising officials, directing commercial bank employees, and employing administrative machinery—while suppressing dissenting voices.
Although a “No” option appears on the ballot, critics insist it is illusory, with real choice denied through coercion and intimidation. Many describe the exercise as treating ordinary citizens as mere puppets in a predetermined script.
Masuda Bhatti has stressed that the true purpose of the referendum is to indemnify those responsible for the July upheaval and August power grab, thereby retroactively legitimising an interim regime that lacks electoral mandate or constitutional grounding. By wrapping sweeping, identity-altering, and principle-diluting changes in the language of “reform,” the exercise poses what she calls a grave threat to Bangladesh’s national identity, cultural heritage, and secular character.
Historically, no referendum in Bangladesh has ever produced a “No” victory; “Yes” outcomes have always been secured. With the government now openly campaigning for endorsement while failing to provide transparent, comprehensive public information about the Charter, the process is widely regarded not as genuine consultation but as the rubber-stamping of pre-decided outcomes. Citizens are being asked to approve complex, far-reaching constitutional surgery without adequate understanding, in direct violation of democratic norms.
Awami League vows to return to power in Delhi press conference
UN Report: Yunus’ mobocracy faces South Asia’s worst inflation crisis
International warnings grow against elections without Awami League
Whether the February 12 vote ultimately delivers meaningful reform or entrenches new forms of vulnerability and authoritarian drift remains one of the most consequential—and troubling—questions facing Bangladesh today.
Yunus Urges ‘Yes’ Vote
Amid severe criticism for conflict of interest, Yunus called on citizens to vote “Yes” in the February 12 referendum on the July National Charter in a video address to the nation on January 19.
He declared: “The key to building a new Bangladesh is now in your hands. Stamping ‘Yes’ will open the door to building a new Bangladesh. Stamp ‘Yes’ yourself. Encourage everyone you know to do the same and bring them to the polling centre. Change the country. InshaAllah, together we will seize this opportunity to rebuild our nation.”
Yunus described the July mass uprising as “an extraordinary achievement in the nation’s history” that unexpectedly created opportunities for democracy, justice, and human rights. He said initial reforms have already been undertaken, and the July Charter—prepared with the consensus of political parties—represents deeper, long-term changes that require public approval through referendum.
“Your consent is required to implement this July Charter,” he stated. “A referendum has been arranged for this purpose. Participate in the referendum and give your consent to the Charter.”
Jamaat-Shibir is committing silent killing of Awami League members in prisons
HRW alarmed over violence against women, girls, and minorities in Bangladesh
Yunus approves controversial indemnity law for safeguard of July rioters
He listed anticipated benefits of a “Yes” vote, including freedom from discrimination, exploitation, and oppression; joint formation of caretaker governments and the Election Commission by government and opposition; safeguards against unilateral constitutional changes; opposition members as Deputy Speaker and chairs of key committees; a ten-year limit on any person’s tenure as Prime Minister; judicial independence; greater women’s representation in parliament; creation of an upper house to balance power; stronger protection of fundamental rights; constitutional recognition of ethnic group languages alongside Bangla; restrictions on presidential pardons for convicted criminals; and diffusion of concentrated executive power.
Yunus concluded: “Participate in the upcoming election and referendum. Stamp ‘Yes’ to build the state according to your expectations.”
Sheikh Hasin Lambasts Yunus
Awami League President and five-time Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has launched a scathing attack on the interim government led by Chief Adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus, accusing it of destroying the nation’s economy and law and order and turning perpetrators of violence into national heroes.
In a fiery speech, she described Dr. Yunus as a “murderer” who, through a meticulously designed plan, misled people under the guise of a movement. This resulted in the destruction of thousands of lives, widespread arson, economic ruin, and targeted killings of police officers, lawyers, Awami League leaders, workers from affiliated organisations such as Chhatra League, Jubo League, and Sramik League, as well as women.
Sheikh Hasina’s virtual address highlighted the plight of thousands of Awami League activists currently imprisoned without fair trials or the rule of law. The speaker pointed to instances where individuals who openly admitted to burning police stations, killing officers, and destroying national assets were granted bail within hours, labelling them as “July heroes” under Yunus’s administration.
“Those who commit destructive acts are now heroes,” she said, contrasting this with the Awami League’s achievements during its time in power. The party, according to the remarks, elevated Bangladesh to developing nation status, provided electricity to every household, ensured access to food, clothing, housing, healthcare, and education, and positioned the country as a global development role model.
Bangabandhu’s daughter Sheikh Hasina lamented the current state of affairs, alleging that the Yunus-led government has plunged Bangladesh into economic collapse, with no social security, rampant extortion, bullying, and violence against farmers, labourers, students, daily wage earners, rickshaw pullers, and van drivers. Hundreds of thousands of Awami League leaders and activists have reportedly been displaced through fabricated cases, while killers of figures like Abu Sayed and others, including Chhatra League workers, have been celebrated.
She accused Yunus of seizing power unconstitutionally, leading the country toward destruction, reducing per capita income, increasing poverty, and allowing those involved in arson and murder during the movement to amass billions in wealth.
Sheikh Hasina also dismissed propaganda campaigns funded by Yunus through international media, claiming false accusations of mass killings and burials against her. In a sarcastic note, she remarked that those supposedly “buried” by the Awami League have returned “well-fed and healthy.”
Bengali 
English