The President's action In the removal of a former army chief of staff and some top ranking officers of the armed forces caused considerable concern and anxiety among the citizens. Questions have been raised by experts on constitutional law regarding legal validity of the President's action taken without prior consent of the Chief Adviser and other members of the Cabinet. Moreover, the manner in which the President acted in taking these actions appears to have violated certain provisions of the army law and the rules of natural justice. The discrepancies between the allegations against the accused officers made at the time of their arrest and at the subsequent period, the ISPR press release of 26th May regarding the matter without the authority of the government in power, the undue haste at which the Court of Enquiry proposes to conclude the proceedings and publish Its report have created in the minds of considerable section of the community a doubt regarding the bona fide nature of the President's action and holding of a fair election to which the entire nation is looking for-ward.

It was the political will of the entire people of Bangladesh to adopt a constitutional frame work of a parliamentary form of government. Having experimented with var-

ious shades of political order such as presidential form of government, military rule, guided democracies under various facets, the people of this country realised that parliamentary form of government, in an unadulterated fashion, was most suitable for the governance of the country and adopted a conslilulion where the executive power of the Republic is vested in the Prime Minister. The constitution also provided for collective responsibility of the cabinet to the parliament. 13th Amendment (1996) of the constitution, which is in the nature of a special law. made a provision for vesting the executive power relating to administration of the Defense Department in the President for a limited period of the Caretaker Government. This, no doubt, is an unique experiment within the frame work of a parliamentary form of government. However, the President, while exercising such power in administering the Defense Department is required to follow the collective responsibility of the Cabinet as enshrined in the constitution. If was therefore obllgatlve on the part" of the President to obtain consensus of the Cabinet before taking the actions during the events of May 18-20 pertaining to certain vi tai decisions regarding the Defense Ministry In the premises, the President’s ac-

tions, made without consensus of the Cabinet would have doubtful legal validity.

The application of the doctrine of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, enshrined tn our Constitution imposes responsibility of the President's action in the executive fiekl on all members of the Cabinet. The Amendment Act (1996) has vested the power and responsibility of governance during the interim period on the Caretaker Government. Although the law has vested the executive authority relating to the Defense on the President? the overall responsibility of such actions of the President will remain with the Cabinet. In the' circumstances. the President's action without consensus of the Cabinet was manifestly unjust and inequitable.

In the context of the doubtful legal validity of the President's action relating to arrest and confinement of the accused army officers and likely incredulous response of a significant part of the citizens to any report which may be published by the Committee of Enquiry, it will be prudent for the Committee not to pub lish the proposed report until the election is over and a new government takes over the of-

Viquar I Choudhury 51 Suhrawardy Avenue Baridhara, Dhaka