Salahuddin Ahmed, a senior member of the BNP Standing Committee, has accused Dr. Muhammad Yunus, Chief Adviser of the interim government, of contravening the July National Accord he personally signed. The remarks followed Dr. Yunus’ televised address to the nation yesterday, which Salahuddin claims disregards established agreements.
According to Salahuddin, the accord signed on 17 October at the South Plaza of the National Parliament had already settled all matters under the supervision of the National Consensus Commission through formal “Notes of Dissent”. Any attempt to reintroduce new measures or directives outside this framework, he asserted, represents a breach of the accord. He specifically highlighted the establishment of a “Constitutional Reform Council” as a completely novel idea, which was never discussed or approved by the consensus body.
Addressing journalists at his Gulshan residence, Salahuddin emphasised that the July Accord was a historic, nationally witnessed agreement, with signed copies clearly documenting the proposals, consents, and dissenting notes of all parties. He criticised the Chief Adviser for introducing directives that exceed the accord’s scope, stating that such actions risk creating division instead of national unity.
Salahuddin also questioned the legal authority of appointing members to a Constitutional Reform Council, requiring them to take oaths, when parliamentary members are elected through a constitutionally regulated process. He warned that imposing such new measures on the next National Parliament would constitute an overreach of authority, undermining the sovereignty of the legislative body.
He traced the current political tension to the recommendations of the National Consensus Commission, signed and endorsed by the Chief Adviser, noting that introducing new conditions afterwards is both unprecedented and problematic. “The July Accord must be implemented faithfully,” he insisted, “without adding fresh obligations or proposals, so that national unity is preserved and constitutional order upheld.”