The Speaker is learnt to have requested the law minister to sit with the BNP lawmakers to resolve the issue. But the law minister reportedly expressed his inability to do so, saying that he had just acted as per a decision of the government, and advised the BNP lawmakers to raise the issue at the BNP parliamentary party meeting. The newspapers of March 14 reported that the BNP lawmakers in the committee on private members' bills and resolutions would give the law ministry a deadline to withdraw the instruction, and if the ministry did not respond positively, they might resign from that committee.

Pursuant to Article 75(1)(a) of the Constitution of Bangladesh, the parliament has framed and adopted rules of procedure (ROP) to regulate its business. ROP classifies the bills into two categories: ( a) private members' bills, and (b) government bills. According to ROP, "private member" means a member other than a minister. Rule 72 of ROP provides that any member, other than a minister, desiring to move for leave to introduce a bill, shall give to the secretary to the parliament fifteen day's written notice of his intention to do so and shall together with the notice submit three copies of the bill along with an explanatory statement of objects and reasons. If the bill is one which under the Constitution requires the previous recommendation of the President for its introduction, the notice shall also be accompanied by a copy of such recommendation conveyed through the minister concerned. If the bill is one which involves expenditure from public moneys, it shall be accompanied by a financial memorandum that shall invite particular attention to the clauses involving expenditure and shall also give an estimate of the recurring and non-recurring expenditure involved in case the bill is passed into law.

Rule 222 of ROP provides for a committee on private members' bills and resolutions consisting of not more than ten members. According to rule 223 of ROP, the functions of the aforementioned committee include, inter alia, (a) examining every bill seeking to amend the Constitution, notice of which has been given by a private member, before a motion for leave to introduce the bill is included in the orders of the day; (b) examining all private members' bills after they are introduced and before they are taken up for consideration in the House.

A close look into ROP shows that neither Rule 72 mentioned above nor any other rule of ROP requires a private member of a ruling party to take permission from the Leader of the House or the party's parliamentary wing before moving a bill in parliament.

Now, let me discuss the issue with reference to some modern countries having presidential or parliamentary system of government.

In the United States of America, all legislative powers are vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives. A constitutional expert writes, "The government has no place in Congress and all bills, public or private, are introduced and defended by members of Congress. It does not, however, mean that all proposals to enact laws originate among the Senators or the Representatives themselves. Some proposals do originate with them, but the majority of the bills come from the executive, that is, from the President or from one of the executive departments or independent agencies. Some bills originate with, or at least are inspired by, pressure groups or persons entirely outside of government circle. Any way, whatever be the source of origin, a bill must become a member's child and he should appear in the House as its sponsor."

In the British parliament, a bill may be brought in either by the government or by a private member. Private bills are those bills which relate to "the interest of someone, locality or corporation, municipality or other particular person, or body of persons." Such a bill originates in a petition that is examined by the paid officers of the House called the examiners of petitions for private bills. If they report that the bill complies with the standing orders on private bills, then the House proceeds with it.

According to rules of procedure and conduct of business in Lok Sabha (House of People) of India, "private member" means a member other than a minister. Rule 65(1) provides that any member, other than a minister, desiring to move for leave to introduce a bill, shall give notice of his intention, and shall, together with the notice, submit a copy of the bill and an explanatory statement of objects and reason. If the bill is a bill which under the Constitution cannot be introduced without the previous sanction or recommendation of the President, the member shall annex to the notice such sanction or recommendation conveyed through a minister.

Rule 293 provides for a committee on private members' bills and resolutions consisting of not more than fifteen members. According to Rule 294, the functions of this committee include, inter alia, (a) examining every bill seeking to amend the constitution notice of which has been given by a private member, before a motion for leave to introduce the bill is included in the list of business; (b) examining all private members' bills after they are introduced or and before they are taken up for consideration in the House.

Standing Order 47 of standing orders of the parliament of Sri Lanka provides that any private member desiring to introduce a bill shall apply to parliament for leave to do so, setting at the same time the object and leading features of such bill. Every such application shall be made in the form of a motion and the member making such application shall at the same time deliver to the secretary-general a copy of the proposed bill together with a copy of his motion. The secretary-general shall cause the bill to be published in the gazette. At any time after the lapse of a period of seven days from the date on which the bill was published in the gazette, the motion referred to above shall be placed on the order paper of parliament.

It thus appears that a lawmaker in the aforementioned countries has the unfettered right to move for leave to introduce a bill in parliament.

Now, the following questions arise. First, what prompted the government to take such a step? The probable answer is that the government is already embarrassed by a number of bills moved by the BNP and the Jatiya Party members of the committee on private members' bills and resolutions. These bills which propose a number of amendments to the Constitution "aiming to help strengthen the parliamentary democracy, promote good governance and make the JS more effective" are awaiting placement in the House.

The law minister has thus already admitted that opposing a bill moved by a ruling party lawmaker "will look odd." Besides, a cursory look into the events of the last few weeks will show that the parliamentary standing committees headed by the lawmakers of the ruling alliance are not on good terms with the executive branch. The parliamentary standing committees on ministries have been demanding powers to be sure that the ministries implement their decisions. In a discussion on Promotion of Better Understanding and Collaboration amongst the Standing Committees and Ministries of the Government in Dhaka on March 1, the chairmen of the standing committees on ministries accused the ministries of non-cooperation with the standing committees and non-implementation of their recommendations. They univocally demanded formulation of clear rules of procedure giving them due authority to execute their decisions.

Second, was it appropriate for the law minister to issue such a directive? The executive organ of the state is composed of the President, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet. As a cabinet minister, an order issued under the signature of the law minister or any other officer of that ministry becomes a government directive. Since independence, the people have been helplessly watching the mixing up of the government and the ruling party. The people cannot differentiate between the government programme and the ruling party programme. This is primarily because of the fact that the head of the government and head of the ruling party has always been the same person. This goes against the principle of parliamentary democracy and good governance. In the instant case, the directive on the BNP lawmakers should have been issued from the BNP party office.

To conclude, some people have already termed Article 70 of the Constitution, which says that an MP elected as a candidate of a political party will vacate his seat if he resigns from that party or votes in parliament against that party or being present in parliament abstains from voting or absents himself from any sitting of parliament ignoring the direction of the party, as "a handcuff for the MPs." Any further restriction on the freedom of a lawmaker, whether he or she belongs to the ruling party and/or alliance or the opposition parties, will not be in the interest of parliamentary democracy in the country.

M. Abdul Latif Mondal is a former Secretary to the government.