Stripped of the purple

The ongoing debate surrounding former President Mohammed Shahabuddin Chuppu has resurrected a constitutional conundrum on whether Article 51 of the Bangladeshi Constitution accords a President absolute, perpetual immunity, or does it merely offer a temporal shield for official duties? 

As allegations range from financial impropriety to complicity in human rights abuses during the July 2024 uprising, the legal boundary between the protection of the office and personal impunity demands rigorous scrutiny.

Article 51 establishes a two-tiered framework of protection. Paragraph 1 provides substantive, enduring immunity for actions taken, or purports to be taken, in the exercise of official presidential powers. Paragraph 2, conversely, erects a procedural bar that lasts strictly for the duration of the presidency, prohibiting the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings, as well as any court process for arrest or detention. 

The distinction is critical. Once an individual steps down from the presidency, the procedural bar in Article 51(2) evaporates entirely. While Article 51(1) remains to protect legitimate or purported executive actions, it was never designed as a cloak for personal misdeeds, financial malfeasance, or acts entirely alien to constitutional mandates.

The definitive legal authority on this boundary remains Hussain Muhammad Ershad v. The State and Ors. In that landmark case, the defense posited that because the alleged illicit acquisition of wealth occurred during Ershad’s tenure as President, Article 51 shielded him from prosecution indefinitely, even following his resignation. The High Court Division decisively rejected this expansive interpretation. 

The court observed that the ancient English monarchical maxim "the King can do no wrong" has no constitutional validity in a modern democratic republic. The President is not an absolute sovereign; presidential privileges are strictly constrained by the textual limits of Article 51 itself. Because Ershad’s trial commenced after his resignation, the temporary procedural bar had lapsed, exposing him to the full jurisdiction of the court.

The Ershad precedent provides a vital analytical roadmap for the current allegations against Shahabuddin Chuppu. Should he vacate office, the procedural protections of Article 51(2) would immediately fall away, rendering him subject to standard legal process. He could not claim permanent exemption simply by virtue of having once occupied the country's highest office.

This functional view of immunity becomes particularly crucial when examining the nature of the allegations currently circulating. Complaints lodged before the International Crimes Tribunal seek inquiries into alleged roles in killings, enforced disappearances, and rights violations linked to the July 2024 unrest. 

Simultaneously, financial scrutiny has intensified: reports from the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit link him to loan irregularities involving Islami Bank, prompting High Court directives for Anti-Corruption Commission investigations. Furthermore, government officials have signaled that conduct predating his presidency, including prior roles at the Anti-Corruption Commission itself, is subject to scrutiny.

While these matters remain unproven allegations rather than established facts, their legal character is distinct. They pertain either to private conduct, pre-presidential activities, or acts manifestly outside the lawful, constitutional functions of the presidency. 

Article 51(1) protects standard constitutional functions—such as assenting to legislation, administering oaths, accepting resignations, and making official appointments—ensuring that legitimate political or executive decisions are not weaponized into criminal charges. It does not, however, extend to private wrongdoing, financial corruption, or serious human rights abuses.

Ultimately, the Ershad ruling establishes that Article 51 exists to safeguard the integrity and independence of the presidential institution, not to accord personal impunity to the individual holding the office. The legal calculus for Shahabuddin Chuppu, or any future executive, must depend entirely on the substance of the specific charges. 

Official presidential acts enjoy substantive constitutional protection; actions detached from those defined duties invite standard judicial oversight once the temporary procedural shield of office is removed.

In a constitutional democracy where public confidence in governing institutions relies entirely on visible accountability, no office can serve as a sanctuary for lawlessness. The law must be allowed to take its natural course against credible allegations of extra-constitutional conduct. 

Where guilt is ultimately proven, exemplary legal consequences are essential to reaffirm the foundational principle that no individual, regardless of rank or title, stands above the Constitution or the supreme authority of the people.

—

Tajriyaan Akram Hussain is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. She has previously served as a member of the National Elections Inquiry Commission