Just to avoid translating myself what he said, I refer below how this part of his speech has been reported in three leading English language dailies.

The Daily Star: "I want to remind everyone that since the responsibility of the chief adviser to the caretaker government has been reposed on the president, therefore the present government has become a presidential form of government."

The New Age: "I want to remind everyone of the fact that the responsibility of the interim administration that has fallen upon me has turned the present form of government into presidential rule."

The Bangladesh Today: "I would like to remind all that after I was sworn in as chief adviser to the caretaker government in addition to my presidential functions, the caretaker government took the shape of a presidential form of government."

Even if three translations are not identical, they essentially reflect what he said in Bangla.

Firstly, he reminded everyone, primarily his audience, the secretaries but also the nation, as he chose to speak before television cameras as opposed to closed meetings, about the nature of the government now in place, combined in his person in the shape of the president and chief adviser, both the head of state and head of government.

Secondly, he characterized the government, depending on how one translates, either as "presidential form" or "presidential rule."

Yesterday, the President's Office came out with an explanation which said, according to The Daily Star, that: "The president did not say anything about changing the form of government ... his speech only mentioned the form of government."

Even if one accepts for the sake of argument the president's explanation, the question that crops up first is, why he felt it necessary to remind the nation about the form of the government, and in this particular tone, as if the people of Bangladesh have forgotten his position. What was he thinking and what message did he wish to convey to the country? I feel these are very legitimate questions to explore.

Although his assumption of the position of the chief adviser of the non-party caretaker government in addition to the presidency was controversial, nonetheless, as interim in nature and needed to hold parliamentary election, he has been by and large accepted as the chief adviser to head the caretaker government. So, why remind us again who he is? Is it possible he is unsure about his position or feels threatened?

Otherwise why talk about the nature of his government, which is already mentioned in the constitution, and characterize it as "presidential form" or "presidential rule," which is not found in the constitution. Why did he try to import concepts that are not provided in the constitution, presumably to explain what his office said was "the form of government."

I cannot assume that the president said something without giving due thought and regard to the meaning of his words. The president must have meant what he said.

One explanation could be that he meant the form of the government has now changed to presidential form, which his office refutes. One would not really be entirely wrong if one concludes that this is preciously what he said and meant because of the words he used, the way he crafted the sentence, and delivered it.

The other explanation could be that because of combination of both offices, the presidency and the chief advisership -- the head of state and the head of the government -- in his person, that he believed, in fact and in law, that the form of the government in reality is presidential or the country is under presidential rule, as there is no authority around to challenge his power. So he thought that the country should be reminded of the unaccountable power that he wields.

Whatever prompted the president to explain the nature of his government, his position or powers he got, he was wrong on all counts. He should have looked at the constitution, and in particular, Article 7(1), that reads as follows:

Supremacy of the Constitution. (1) All powers in the Republic belong to the people, and their exercise on behalf of the people shall be effected only under, and by the authority of, this Constitution.

If he thought he was all-powerful even for a second, that would plainly be a mistake, as the constitution says, all powers belong to the people and those powers have to be exercised on behalf of the people. The people don't need to be reminded of the president's present power, as the people themselves have deposited these powers to him.

Whatever his intention was when he wrote that sentence, I guess the people have got the message that they should eternally be vigilant about anything all-powerful, including an otherwise benign president vested with executive powers, even for a short period.

One should always remember, be he the president with additional responsibility of the caretaker government or the prime minister, or for that matter, anyone else, that all powers belong to the people.

The writer is a Consultant, International Law, and writes from Belgium.