Special JS body's proceedings back Star editorial

Yesterday we published the full text of the PMO's response to two items in this newspaper, one a report and the other an editorial.
Our report was based on a public pronouncement of the PM, at a press conference telecast live on most channels, where she remarked, “It is The Daily Star! No matter what I say it will be distorted and that is the character (of the paper).”
We urged the PMO to produce examples of distortion, if any. On the following day we received the “PMO's response”, which we published yesterday in full with far greater importance than our original news.
As our readers must have noticed, there appears to be confusion over the PMO's understanding of reports and editorials. While the PM claimed we distort her news in our reports, the “response” talked about how we “distorted” it in our editorials.
We also note that the PMO's response was carried by the state-owned news agency BSS. The state-owned BTV made it a lead item in its midnight bulletin. BSS subscribers and BTV viewers got the government's accusations against The Daily Star without any comments from us.
As a mark of fairness, we hope both BSS and BTV will carry our following response.
Below we examine if we had distorted anything in our editorial. (All facts mentioned in our reply are taken from the official proceedings of the Special Committee.)
The PMO took exception to our claim in the editorial that the fifteenth amendment to the constitution was done “according to PM's own wishes and in undue haste, without any serious effort to engage anybody, including her own allies.” The “response” claimed that “as a matter of fact the government followed a lengthy process for the fifteenth amendment to the constitution.
Parliament formed a 15-member Special Committee on July 21, 2010 to suggest possible amendments to the constitution necessitated by the Supreme Court judgement on the 5th amendment to the constitution.
The Special Committee met for a total of 26 sessions from 29th July 2010 to 28th May 2011. During these sessions, its members discussed all the articles of the constitution and came up with nearly 50 suggestions for amendments.
The caretaker government issue was discussed for the first time on March 29, 2011, in which they decided to suggest certain reforms to plug some loopholes and make the act much more clear. However, they made no suggestion about scrapping the CTG provision. Even suggestions by some to limit the CTG to only two terms in the future were not accepted.
In the subsequent sessions, the Special Committee discussed other articles of the constitution.
On 10th May, the Supreme Court delivered its “short verdict” on the 13th amendment (that incorporated the CTG system in the constitution) declaring the CTG system “prospectively void and ultra vires” of the constitution. The verdict also suggested that the voided CTG system might be practised for another two parliamentary terms for the sake of "safety of the state and its people".
"The parliament, however, in the meantime, is at liberty to bring necessary amendments excluding, the provisions of making the former Chief Justices of Bangladesh or the Judges of the Appellate Division as the head of the Non-Party Care-taker Government," added the short verdict.
The Special Committee took note of this verdict at its session on 16th May, 2011. At the session, an elaborate discussion took place in which the judgement was examined in minute detail along with its possible meanings and implications. As the judgement was of a historic nature and as it dealt with one of the fundamental pillars of democracy, namely elections, the Special Committee decided to discuss it further and also, if possible, wait for the full verdict.
The Supreme Court judgement drew tremendous national and media focus on the issue. The Special Committee discussed the CTG at two more sessions, held on 26th and 28th May.
On 29th May, the Special Committee finalised its draft final report for submission to the Leader of the House, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, at a meeting to be held the following day, 30th May.
In this draft final report, the Special Committee recommended the retention of the CTG system with only two amendments, namely specifying that the CTG cannot overshoot its limit of 90 days under any circumstances and restraining CTG power to conclude foreign treaties.
The prime minister, at her meeting with the Special Committee, rejected its recommendations and suggested that after the Supreme Court verdict the CTG system should be abolished.
The Special Committee followed her instructions, and without holding any further session, incorporated the suggestion to scrap the CTG system and submitted its report with a 51-point recommendation to parliament on 8th June 2011.
The law minister placed a bill in the House on June 25th which was sent to the parliamentary standing committee on the Law Ministry on the same day. The Standing Committee reported back to the House on 29th June, and the bill was passed on 30th June 2011.
From the above detailed narration of the working of the Special Committee, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The Special Committee after holding 26 sessions, between July 29, 2010 and May 28, 2011, and after discussing with three former chief justices, jurists, scholars, political party leaders, senior journalists (including the editor of The Daily Star, as mentioned in the “PMO response”), civil society members decided to recommend the retention of the caretaker government system.
2.  The Special Committee at no stage contemplated the suggestion of abolishing the CTG system, even after the verdict on the 13th amendment.
3.  It was only after the PM's instruction on 30th May that CTG scrapping was incorporated in the report of the Special Committee.
4.  Once the PM's instruction came, the House speedily adopted the change without discussing it with the opposition, which was boycotting parliament.
5.  It may be mentioned that the Supreme Court verdict of May 10, 2011 brought before the Special Committee the issue of CTG being “ultra vires” of the constitution and at the same time suggesting that it may be kept for two more terms. This complicated legal and constitutional issue was never discussed with former chief justices, jurists and others who spoke before the Special Committee as they appeared before the verdict was pronounced.
So to imply, as the “PMO's response” does, that the scrapping of the CTG issue was discussed with a wide range of people and that public opinion was sought about it is a travesty of truth.
6.  The PMO's claim that the CTG scrapping took place following the verdict of the Supreme Court is not based on facts. The short verdict allowed for two more terms for the CTG, which was ignored by the government. The full verdict was released in September 2012, long after the CTG had already been abolished.
7.  While the Special Committee met for more than 10 months, the CTG scrapping only took place within a month, 30th May to 30th June, 2011.
Considering the detailed historical account, which is taken from the official proceedings of the Special Committee of parliament, and point by point discussion of the PMO's response, we consider our editorial to have been based on facts and that no distortion can be traced in our editorial.
We stand by our position that the abolition of the CTG took place on the PM's wishes, “in undue haste and without any effort to engage anybody…”
For the benefit of our readers and to contribute to a more informed debate on this issue we intend to write further on the proceedings of the Special Committee.

- Editor