Senior journalist Masood Kamal has exposed what he describes as a blatant violation of Bangladesh’s electoral laws by the Yunus-led interim government, particularly through the aggressive campaigning for a “Yes” vote in the upcoming February referendum.
He delved into the controversy, highlighting the referendum’s illegality and unconstitutionality, the prohibitions on public servants and advisers campaigning, and how a “Yes” outcome could nullify the existing constitution, allowing the Jamaat-controlled interim regime, backed by the army and the West, to extend its grip on power.
The referendum, scheduled alongside parliamentary elections, centers on proposed constitutional reforms outlined in the “July Charter.” Proponents, including Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, portray it as a pathway to institutional reform and a “new Bangladesh.” However, critics, including the Awami League and legal experts, label it a “sham” and a “naked betrayal of the constitution,” arguing it lacks legal basis and serves primarily to legitimize the interim government’s prolonged rule.
The Awami League has accused Yunus of using the referendum as a deceptive tool to cling to power, violating democratic norms without suspending the constitution or declaring martial law.
Kamal’s analysis paints a picture of a three-way electoral battle: the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) led by Tarique Rahman campaigning for its “sheaf of paddy” symbol, Jamaat-e-Islami under Dr. Shafiqur Rahman pushing its “scales” mark, and the interim government effectively positioning itself as a third contender by mobilizing for the “Yes” vote.
Unlike BNP and Jamaat leaders, who Kamal notes do not encourage law-breaking, Dr. Ali Riaz—a US citizen and adviser with ministerial rank—has been touring the country, urging public support for “Yes.” Riaz, who renounced Bangladeshi citizenship while pledging allegiance to US interests, has addressed events like the “Debate for Democracy” at FDC, a meeting with the Hindu community at the National Museum, and a program in Sylhet, linking “Yes” to youth dreams, multi-ethnic recognition, and curbing individual power.
This campaigning, Kamal argues, is illegal and puts public servants at severe risk. Under the Representation of the People Order (RPO) 1972, Section 86, any person employed by the republic who misuses their official position to influence election outcomes faces imprisonment from one to five years and fines. Public servants, including government employees, are strictly prohibited from partisan campaigning.
Yet, Riaz has directed officials to promote “Yes,” resulting in banners and billboards in government offices and primary schools urging the vote. Kamal questions: “Where will these government officials go? They have already committed punishable offenses.” The Election Commission (EC) has reiterated that no public servant—from returning officers to polling staff—can advocate for “Yes” or “No,” deeming it a clear violation.
Extending this to advisers like Riaz, Kamal dismisses the EC’s distinction between “government servants” and “public servants.” EC Commissioner Abdur Rahman El Masud attempted a compromise, stating advisers are not government employees and can campaign as they fund initiatives themselves. But Kamal counters: “There is no difference—all are public servants. The government runs on public money and belongs to the people.”
Legal experts echo this: Dr. Shahdeen Malik asserts that under existing laws, advisers cannot campaign for “Yes.” Begum Jesmin Tuli, a former election reform commission member, criticises the EC for not halting the campaign earlier, missing a “golden opportunity” to prove its independence.
The referendum’s deeper implications are alarming. A “Yes” victory could overhaul or effectively nullify the 1972 Constitution, paving the way for reforms that entrench the interim government’s authority without a clear transition to elected rule. Critics warn it risks a “hung parliament” and undermines democratic legitimacy, especially since the interim government—affirmed legally by the Supreme Court but labelled “illegal” by opponents—has not suspended the constitution. The Awami League claims it’s a ploy to delay genuine elections, while the BNP faces its own challenges amid Islamist pressures.
Kamal urges immediate action: remove promotional materials from government offices, recover costs from Riaz, and halt the “ridiculous” spectacle making Bangladesh a global laughingstock. As he concludes, the national election seems secondary to the regime’s “life-or-death” push for “Yes”—a bizarre priority for an interim setup.
While the interim government insists on legal backing for its campaign, the mounting legal challenges and expert opinions suggest otherwise. As Bangladesh approaches this pivotal vote, the integrity of its democratic institutions hangs in the balance.
Bengali 
English